```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50646-50647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20192]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0484; FRL-9915-66-Region-9]

Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted 
Fine Particulate Maintenance Plan for Yuba City-Marysville; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the 
public that the Agency has found that the motor vehicle emissions 
budgets (MVEBs) for fine particulate (PM2.5) for the years 
2017 and 2024 in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (April 1, 
2013) (``Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan'') are adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes. The Yuba City-Marysville 
PM2.5 Plan was submitted to EPA on May 23, 2013 by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a revision to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and includes a maintenance plan for the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard. 
Upon the effective date of this notice of adequacy, the Sacramento Area 
Council of Governments and the U.S. Department of Transportation must 
use the MVEBs for future conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective on September 9, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 
Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, 
(415) 972-3963 or ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    This notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have 
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to CARB on August 11, 2014 
stating that the MVEBs in the submitted Yuba City-Marysville 
PM2.5 Plan for 2017 and 2024 are adequate. The adequate 
MVEBs are provided in the following table:

[[Page 50647]]

              MVEBs in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan
                      [Tons per winter season day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Oxides of
                  Budget year                     nitrogen      PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017..........................................          5.3          0.2
2024..........................................          3.1          0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Receipt of the MVEBs in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 
Plan was announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site on May 
20, 2014. We received no comments in response to the adequacy review 
posting. The finding is available at EPA's transportation conformity 
Web site: http://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 MVEBs 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: August 11, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-20192 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```