36690 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Notices

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.

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

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 00–14637 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[Region II Docket No. NY 36–201 FRL–6712–

9]

Adequacy Status of the Submitted

2007 Attainment Demonstration for the

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Transportation

Conformity Purposes for the New York

State Portion of the New York-New

Jersey-Connecticut Severe Ozone

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is

notifying the public that we have found

that the motor vehicle emissions

budgets for volatile organic compounds

and nitrogen oxides in the submitted

2007 ozone attainment demonstration

for the New York State portion of the

New York-New Jersey-Connecticut

severe nonattainment area for ozone to

be 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

New York State portion of the New

York-New Jersey-Connecticut severe

nonattainment area for ozone can use

the motor vehicle emissions budgets for

volatile organic compounds and

nitrogen oxides from the submitted 2007

attainment demonstration for ozone for

future conformity determinations. These

budgets are effective June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rudolph K. Kapichak, Mobile Source

Team Leader, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3804, email address:

Kapichak.Rudolph@epa.gov.

The finding and the response to

comments will be available at EPA’s

conformity website: http://

www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there,

click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button, then

look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP

Submissions for Conformity’’).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Today’s notice is simply an

announcement of a finding that we have

already made. EPA Region 2 sent a letter

to the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation on May 31,

2000 stating that the motor vehicle

emissions budgets in the submitted

2007 attainment demonstration for the

New York State portion of the New

York-New Jersey-Connecticut severe

nonattainment area for ozone are

adequate for conformity purposes. This

finding will also be announced on

EPA’s conformity website: http://

www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there,

click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button, then

look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP

Submissions for Conformity’’).

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 state air quality

implementation plans (SIPs) 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.

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

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator Region 2.

[FR Doc. 00–14638 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6607–9]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information, (202)

564–7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements

Filed May 29, 2000 Through June 02,

2000

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000170, Draft Supplement,

FHW, WA, North Spokane Freeway

Project, Improvements Transportation

through the City of Spokane and

Spokane County between I–90,

Spokane County, WA, Due: July 24,

2000, Contact: Gene Fong (360) 753–

9480.

EIS No. 000171, Draft EIS, AFS, WY,

State of Wyoming School Section 16

T.12N., R.83W., 6th P.M., Issuing a

Forest Road Special-Use-Permit for

Access, Medicine Bow-Routt National

Forests, Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger

District, Carbon County, WY, Due:

July 24, 2000, Contact: John

Baumchen (307) 326–2500.

EIS No. 000172, Final EIS, AFS, MT,

Swamp Timber Sales Project,

Implementation, Kootenai National

Forest, Fortine Ranger District,

Lincoln County, MT, Due: July 10,

2000, Contact: Edward C. Monning

(406) 882–4451.

EIS No. 000173, Final EIS, AFS, MN,

Gunflint Corridor Fuel Reduction,

Implementation, Superior National

Forest, Gunflint Ranger District, Cook

County, MN, Due: July 10, 2000,

Contact: Becky Bartol (218) 387–1750.

EIS No. 000174, Draft EIS, SFW, NV,

Clark County Multiple Species

Habitat Conservation Plan, Issuance of

a Permit to Allow Incidental Take-of79 Species, Clark County, NV, Due:

July 24, 2000, Contact: Ben Harrison

(503) 231–2068.

EIS No. 000175, Draft EIS, IBR, CA,

Colusa Basin Drainage District,

Developing an Integrated Resource

Management Program for the Control