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 

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: 

http://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: 

http://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: 

Area 2018 VOC 

MVEB (tpd) 

2018 NOX

MVEB (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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[IL228–2; FRL–8272–7] 

Notice of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Final Determination for 

Indeck-Elwood, LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES