Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets In Submitted San Joaquin Valley PM2.5, 26749-26750 [2010-11295]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices
Docket No. RR10–9, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation.
Docket No. RD10–10, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation.
Docket No. RD10–11, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation.
Docket No. RD10–12, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation.
Docket No. RD10–13, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation.
For further information, please
contact John Carlson, 202–502–6288, or
john.carlson@ferc.gov.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–11233 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am]
accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov
or call toll free 1–866–208–3372 (voice)
or 202–208–1659 (TTY), or send a FAX
to 202–208–2106 with the required
accommodations. For more information
on this conference, please contact:
Christina Hayes, Office of General
Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, (202)
502–6194, christina.hayes@ferc.gov.
Scott Miller, Office of Energy Policy &
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, (202) 502–8456,
scott.miller@ferc.gov.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
[FR Doc. 2010–11232 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RM10–13–000]
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Credit Reforms in Organized
Wholesale Electric Markets; Notice of
Technical Conference
[Project No. 2157–188]
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
April 15, 2010.
Take notice that on May 11, 2010, the
Commission staff will convene a
technical conference to discuss issues
related to the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on Credit Reforms
in Organized Wholesale Electric
Markets.1
The technical conference will be held
from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (EDT), in the
Commission Meeting Room at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. All those that are interested are
invited to attend. The conference is free
and no registration is necessary. Further
notices with detailed information will
be issued in advance of this conference.
A free Webcast of this event will be
available through https://www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who
desires to listen to this event can do so
by navigating https://www.ferc.gov’s
Calendar of Events and locating this
event in the calendar. The event will
contain a link to its Webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical
support for free Webcasts and offers the
option of listening via phone-bridge for
a fee. If you have any questions, visit
https://www.CapitolConnection.org or
call 703–993–3100.
Commission conferences are
accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For
1 See
130 FERC ¶ 61,055 (2010). This workshop
is being held in accordance with the Commission’s
Order Obtaining Guidance on Regulatory
Requirements, 123 FERC ¶ 61,157 (2008).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 May 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
Public Utility District No.1 of
Snohomish County, WA; Notice of
Technical Conference for the Jackson
Hydroelectric Project Settlement
Agreement
May 5, 2010.
On October 14, 2009, the Public
Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish
County, Washington (District), on behalf
of itself, the city of Everett, the city of
Sultan, Tulalip Tribe, American
Whitewater, and six State and Federal
agencies, filed a comprehensive
settlement agreement (Settlement) and
Joint Explanatory Statement for the
relicensing of the Jackson Hydroelectric
Project. On May 5, 2010, staff issued a
draft environmental assessment
analyzing the terms and conditions of
the Settlement.
Commission staff will hold a
technical conference to discuss the
proposed license articles submitted by
the District as part of its Settlement and
the Commission’s draft environmental
assessment.
The technical conference will be held
on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, beginning at
9 a.m. (PST). The technical conference
will be held at the District’s Electric
Building Headquarters located at 2320
California Street, Everett, Washington.
For further information, contact David
Turner at (202) 502–6091, or by e-mail
at david.turner@ferc.gov.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–11235 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26749
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9150–8]
Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets In Submitted San
Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Reasonable
Further Progress and Attainment Plan
for Transportation Conformity
Purposes; CA
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy and
inadequacy.
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is
notifying the public that the Agency has
found that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets for the years 2009 and 2012
from the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5
Plan are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. In this notice, EPA
is also notifying the public that the
Agency has found that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the year 2014
from the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5
Plan are inadequate for transportation
conformity purposes. The San Joaquin
Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan was submitted to
EPA on June 30, 2008 by the California
Air Resources Board as a revision to the
California State Implementation Plan
and includes reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstrations for the
1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 national
ambient air quality standards. As a
result of our adequacy findings, the San
Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organizations and the U.S. Department
of Transportation must use the adequate
budgets, and cannot use the inadequate
budgets, for future conformity
determinations.
DATES: This finding is effective May 27,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA, Region IX,
Air Division AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901;
(415) 972–3957 or
wicher.frances@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 California Air Resources Board
(CARB or the State) on April 23, 2010
stating that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the submitted San Joaquin
Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the
reasonable further progress (RFP)
milestone years of 2009 and 2012 are
adequate. The finding is available at
EPA’s conformity Web site: https://
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
26750
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/adequacy.htm. The adequate
motor vehicle emissions budgets are
provided in the following table:
SJV PM2.5 PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOUND ADEQUATE
[Annual average, tons per day]
2009
NOX
PM2.5
Fresno ..............................................................................................................
Kern (SJV) .......................................................................................................
Kings ................................................................................................................
Madera .............................................................................................................
Merced .............................................................................................................
San Joaquin .....................................................................................................
Stanislaus ........................................................................................................
Tulare ...............................................................................................................
2.2
3.4
0.7
0.6
1.5
1.6
1.0
0.9
site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
Transportation conformity is required
by Clean Air Act section 176(c). EPA’s
conformity rule requires that
transportation plans, transportation
improvement programs, and projects
conform to SIPs and establishes the
criteria and procedures for determining
whether or not they do conform.
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) which was promulgated in
our August 15, 1997 final rule (62 FR
43780, 43781–43783). We have further
described our process for determining
SJV PM2.5 PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE
EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOUND INAD- the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets
in our July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR
EQUATE
40004, 40038), and we used the
[Annual average, tons per day]
information in these resources in
making our adequacy determination.
2014
Please note that an adequacy review is
NOX
PM2.5
separate from EPA’s completeness
review, and should not be used to
Fresno .......................
1.1
26.0
Kern (SJV) ................
1.4
41.6 prejudge EPA’s ultimate approval action
Kings .........................
0.3
8.1 for the SIP. Even if we find a budget
Madera ......................
0.3
6.7 adequate, the SIP could later be
Merced ......................
0.6
14.8 disapproved.
Our letter dated April 23, 2010 also
states that budgets for the attainment
year of 2014 are inadequate for
transportation conformity purpose. The
State has included additional on-road
mobile source emissions reductions in
the budgets for 2014 from the 2007 State
Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
adequate budgets include no such
reductions but rather reflect emissions
reductions from CARB rules that have
already been adopted. EPA has
determined that the 2014 budgets are
inadequate because they include new
emission reductions that do not result
from specific or enforceable control
measures. As a result, three of the
transportation conformity rule’s
adequacy criteria are not met (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v)) for these
budgets. The inadequate motor vehicle
emissions budgets are provided in the
following table:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
San Joaquin ..............
Stanislaus .................
Tulare ........................
0.9
0.5
0.5
20.3
12.4
12.2
Receipt of the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the San Joaquin
Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan was announced
on EPA’s transportation conformity Web
site on August 19, 2008. We received no
comments in response to the adequacy
review posting. The finding is available
at EPA’s transportation conformity Web
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 May 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 5, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010–11295 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2012
PM2.5
56.5
87.7
17.9
14.1
33.6
39.1
25.8
23.3
NOX
1.9
3.0
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.4
0.9
0.8
44.2
74.2
14.6
11.4
26.7
32.8
20.8
19.5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0751–201022(c);
FRL–9150–4]
Adequacy Status of the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir, North Carolina 1997
PM2.5 Attainment; Demonstration
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for
Transportation Conformity Purposes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy; correcting
amendment.
SUMMARY: On March 1, 2010, EPA
published a notice in the Federal
Register to notify the public of an
adequacy determination that the Agency
made with regards to the motor vehicle
emissions budget (MVEB) for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and for an insignificance
determination related to fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) for mobile sources’
overall contribution to the PM2.5
pollution in the Hickory-MorgantonLenoir area (hereafter referred to as the
Hickory Area). In that notice, EPA
identified the units of measure for the
NOX MVEB as kilograms per day (kgd).
EPA is publishing this amendment to
correctly identify the units of measure
for the NOX MVEB as kilograms per year
(kgy). Additionally, the March 1, 2010,
Federal Register notice included an
inadvertent error to the docket ID
number which is being corrected in this
action.
DATES: This action is effective May 12,
2010.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the
documentation used in the action being
corrected are available for inspection
during normal business hours at the
following location: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–
8960. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26749-26750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11295]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9150-8]
Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets In Submitted
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment
Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes; CA
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy and inadequacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency
has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the years 2009
and 2012 from the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In this notice, EPA is
also notifying the public that the Agency has found that the motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the year 2014 from the San Joaquin Valley
2008 PM2.5 Plan are inadequate for transportation conformity
purposes. The San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan was
submitted to EPA on June 30, 2008 by the California Air Resources Board
as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan and includes
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations for the 1997
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality
standards. As a result of our adequacy findings, the San Joaquin Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the U.S. Department of
Transportation must use the adequate budgets, and cannot use the
inadequate budgets, for future conformity determinations.
DATES: This finding is effective May 27, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA, Region IX,
Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(415) 972-3957 or wicher.frances@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 California Air Resources
Board (CARB or the State) on April 23, 2010 stating that the motor
vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted San Joaquin Valley 2008
PM2.5 Plan for the reasonable further progress (RFP)
milestone years of 2009 and 2012 are adequate. The finding is available
at EPA's conformity Web site: https://
[[Page 26750]]
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. The adequate
motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:
SJV PM2.5 Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Found Adequate
[Annual average, tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno.......................................... 2.2 56.5 1.9 44.2
Kern (SJV)...................................... 3.4 87.7 3.0 74.2
Kings........................................... 0.7 17.9 0.6 14.6
Madera.......................................... 0.6 14.1 0.5 11.4
Merced.......................................... 1.5 33.6 1.2 26.7
San Joaquin..................................... 1.6 39.1 1.4 32.8
Stanislaus...................................... 1.0 25.8 0.9 20.8
Tulare.......................................... 0.9 23.3 0.8 19.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our letter dated April 23, 2010 also states that budgets for the
attainment year of 2014 are inadequate for transportation conformity
purpose. The State has included additional on-road mobile source
emissions reductions in the budgets for 2014 from the 2007 State
Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
adequate budgets include no such reductions but rather reflect
emissions reductions from CARB rules that have already been adopted.
EPA has determined that the 2014 budgets are inadequate because they
include new emission reductions that do not result from specific or
enforceable control measures. As a result, three of the transportation
conformity rule's adequacy criteria are not met (40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v)) for these budgets. The inadequate
motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:
SJV PM2.5 Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Found Inadequate
[Annual average, tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014
---------------------
PM2.5 NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................................ 1.1 26.0
Kern (SJV)........................................ 1.4 41.6
Kings............................................. 0.3 8.1
Madera............................................ 0.3 6.7
Merced............................................ 0.6 14.8
San Joaquin....................................... 0.9 20.3
Stanislaus........................................ 0.5 12.4
Tulare............................................ 0.5 12.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receipt of the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the San Joaquin
Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan was announced on EPA's transportation
conformity Web site on August 19, 2008. We received no comments in
response to the adequacy review posting. The finding is available at
EPA's transportation conformity Web site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section
176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they do conform. 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) which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final
rule (62 FR 43780, 43781-43783). We have further described our process
for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1,
2004 final rule (69 FR 40004, 40038), and we used the information in
these resources in making our adequacy determination. Please note that
an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and
should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the
SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be
disapproved.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 5, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-11295 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
