Adequacy Determination for the Sacramento Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes; State of California, 13124 [E6-3588]

Download as PDF wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 13124 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2006 / Notices the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208– 3676 or e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission’s mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission’s Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency’s comments must also be sent to the Applicant’s representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s Web VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:18 Mar 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 site at https://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–3599 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0147; FRL–8044–7] Adequacy Determination for the Sacramento Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes; State of California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of adequacy. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Sacramento 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan are adequate for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Sacramento 8hour ozone nonattainment area (which consists of all of Sacramento and Yolo counties, and portions of Placer, El Dorado, Solano, and Sutter counties) must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the submitted 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan. DATES: This determination is effective March 29, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972–3957, jesson.david@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. Today’s notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to the California Air Resources Board, dated February 24, 2006, stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the year 2008 for the Sacramento 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan are adequate. This finding is also posted on EPA’s conformity Web site: https:// www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/ pastsips.htm. Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they demonstrate conformity. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). One of these criteria is that the motor vehicle emissions budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for a SIP. We have preliminarily determined that the Sacramento 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan meets the necessary emission reduction requirements and, therefore, the motor vehicle emissions budgets can be found adequate. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA’s completeness review which is required by section 110(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate action (approval or disapproval) on the submitted plan itself. Even if we find budgets adequate, the submitted plan could later be disapproved. We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 memo titled ‘‘Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision’’). This guidance is now reflected in the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e), most recently amended on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004) and July 20, 2004 (69 FR 43325). We followed this process in making our adequacy determination on the emissions budgets contained in the Sacramento 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan. The budgets for the Sacramento area for the year 2008 are as follows: 41 tons per day of volatile organic compounds and 75 tons per day of nitrogen oxides. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 1, 2006. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. [FR Doc. E6–3588 Filed 3–13–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 13124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3588]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0147; FRL-8044-7]


Adequacy Determination for the Sacramento Eight-Hour Ozone 
Reasonable Further Progress Plan for Transportation Conformity 
Purposes; State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found 
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Sacramento 8-hour ozone 
reasonable further progress plan are adequate for conformity purposes. 
As a result of our finding, the Sacramento 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
area (which consists of all of Sacramento and Yolo counties, and 
portions of Placer, El Dorado, Solano, and Sutter counties) must use 
the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the submitted 8-hour ozone 
reasonable further progress plan.

DATES: This determination is effective March 29, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3957, jesson.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have 
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to the California Air 
Resources Board, dated February 24, 2006, stating that the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for the year 2008 for the Sacramento 8-hour 
ozone reasonable further progress plan are adequate. This finding is 
also posted on EPA's conformity Web site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
transp/conform/pastsips.htm.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation 
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality 
implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for 
determining whether or not they demonstrate conformity. Conformity to a 
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air 
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely 
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle 
emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). One of these criteria is that the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets, when considered together with all other emissions 
sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for a SIP. We have 
preliminarily determined that the Sacramento 8-hour ozone reasonable 
further progress plan meets the necessary emission reduction 
requirements and, therefore, the motor vehicle emissions budgets can be 
found adequate. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from 
EPA's completeness review which is required by section 110(k)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's 
ultimate action (approval or disapproval) on the submitted plan itself. 
Even if we find budgets adequate, the submitted plan could later be 
disapproved.
    We have described our process for determining the adequacy of 
submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 memo titled 
``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity 
Court Decision''). This guidance is now reflected in the transportation 
conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e), most recently amended on July 1, 
2004 (69 FR 40004) and July 20, 2004 (69 FR 43325). We followed this 
process in making our adequacy determination on the emissions budgets 
contained in the Sacramento 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress 
plan.
    The budgets for the Sacramento area for the year 2008 are as 
follows: 41 tons per day of volatile organic compounds and 75 tons per 
day of nitrogen oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 1, 2006.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E6-3588 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.