Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Four Areas in Michigan for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 2878 [E7-919]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2878
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Notices
adequately address the environmental
justice issue raised by Petitioners as is
required by state and federal
environmental justice executive orders;
and (6) the DEP did not adequately
address issues raised by Petitioners
during the public hearing. On November
30, 2006, the Administrator issued an
order granting on the issue of Statement
of Basis and denying on the other
issues. The order explains EPA’s
reasons for granting on the Statement of
Basis issue and for denying the
remaining issues.
Dated: January 4, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E7–818 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[MI–88–1; FRL–8272–8]
Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets for Four Areas in
Michigan for Transportation
Conformity Purposes
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of adequacy.
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is
notifying the public that EPA has found
that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) for four areas across
the state of Michigan are adequate for
conformity purposes. On March 2, 1999,
the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that
submitted State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) cannot be used for conformity
determinations until EPA has
affirmatively found them adequate. As a
result of our finding, the Flint
(consisting of Genesee and Lapeer
Counties), Muskegon County, Berrien
County, and Cass County areas can use
the (MVEBs) for future conformity
determinations. These budgets are
effective February 7, 2007. The finding
and the response to comments will be
available at EPA’s conformity Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm,
(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’
button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, Criteria
Pollutant Section (AR–18J), Air
Programs Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 353–8777,
Maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Background
Today’s action is simply an
announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter
to the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality on November 29,
2006, stating that the 2018 (MVEBs) in
the Flint, Muskegon County, Berrien
County, and Cass County areas are
adequate. Michigan submitted the
budgets as part of the 8-hour ozone
redesignation requests and maintenance
plans for these areas. This finding was
announced on EPA’s conformity Web
site, and received no comments:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm,
(once there, click on ‘‘What SIP
submissions are currently under EPA
adequacy review?’’).
The 2018 (MVEBs), in tons per day,
for volatile organic compounds and
oxides of nitrogen for these areas are as
follows:
2018 VOC
MVEB (tpd)
Area
mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Flint ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Muskegon County ....................................................................................................................................................
Berrien County .........................................................................................................................................................
Cass County ............................................................................................................................................................
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 do.
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). Please note that an
adequacy review is separate from EPA’s
completeness review, and it also should
not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate
approval of the SIP. Even if we find a
budget adequate, the SIP could later be
disapproved.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:33 Jan 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
We’ve 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’’). We
followed this guidance in making our
adequacy determination.
Dated: January 11, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7–919 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[IL228–2; FRL–8272–7]
Notice of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Final Determination for
Indeck-Elwood, LLC
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
25.68
6.67
9.16
2.76
2018 NOX
MVEB (tpd)
37.99
11.00
15.19
3.40
Notice of withdrawal action.
SUMMARY: This notice announces that
EPA is withdrawing the Notice of Final
Agency Action of November 22, 2006
(71 FR 67560), for the Indeck-Elwood,
LLC Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit, because the
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)
remanded the permit in part. On
September 27, 2006, the EAB of the EPA
denied in part, and remanded in part, a
petition for review of a federal PSD
permit issued to Indeck-Elwood, LLC by
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. According to 40 CFR part 124,
a final permit decision shall be issued
by the Regional Administrator when the
EAB issues a decision on the merits of
the appeal and the decision does not
include a remand of the proceedings.
Because the EAB’s decision on this
permit appeal included a partial
remand, there is not yet a final agency
action subject to review.
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-919]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[MI-88-1; FRL-8272-8]
Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Four Areas
in Michigan for Transportation Conformity Purposes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for four areas across
the state of Michigan are adequate for conformity purposes. On March 2,
1999, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that submitted State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) cannot be used for conformity determinations until EPA has
affirmatively found them adequate. As a result of our finding, the
Flint (consisting of Genesee and Lapeer Counties), Muskegon County,
Berrien County, and Cass County areas can use the (MVEBs) for future
conformity determinations. These budgets are effective February 7,
2007. The finding and the response to comments will be available at
EPA's conformity Web site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm, (once
there, click on the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy
Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)
353-8777, Maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Background
Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality on November 29, 2006, stating that the 2018
(MVEBs) in the Flint, Muskegon County, Berrien County, and Cass County
areas are adequate. Michigan submitted the budgets as part of the 8-
hour ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans for these
areas. This finding was announced on EPA's conformity Web site, and
received no comments: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
adequacy.htm, (once there, click on ``What SIP submissions are
currently under EPA adequacy review?'').
The 2018 (MVEBs), in tons per day, for volatile organic compounds
and oxides of nitrogen for these areas are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 VOC MVEB 2018 NOX MVEB
Area (tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flint................................... 25.68 37.99
Muskegon County......................... 6.67 11.00
Berrien County.......................... 9.16 15.19
Cass County............................. 2.76 3.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 do. 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). Please note that an adequacy review is separate
from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget
adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
We've 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''). We followed this guidance in making our adequacy
determination.
Dated: January 11, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-919 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
