Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30737

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RM98–1–000]

Regulations Governing Off-the-Record

Communications; Public Notice

June 1, 2001.

This constitutes notice, in accordance

with 18 CFR 385.2201(h), of the receipt

of exempt and prohibited off-the-record

communications.

Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222,

September 22, 1999) requires

Commission decisional employees, who

make or receive an exempt or a

prohibited off-the-record

communication relevant to the merits of

a contested on-the-record proceeding, to

deliver a copy of the communication, if

written, or a summary of the substance

of any oral communication, to the

Secretary.

Prohibited communications will be

included in a public, non-decisional file

associated with, but not part of, the

decisional record of the proceeding.

Unless the Commission determines that

the prohibited communication and any

responses thereto should become part of

the decisional record, the prohibited offthe-record communication will not be

considered by the Commission in

reaching its decision. Parties to a

proceeding may seek the opportunity to

respond to any facts or contentions

made in a prohibited off-the-record

communication, and may request that

the Commission place the prohibited

communication and responses thereto

in the decisional record. The

Commission will grant such requests

only when it determines that fairness so

requires. Any person identified below as

having made a prohibited off-the-record

communication should serve the

document on all parties listed on the

official service list for the applicable

proceeding in accordance with Rule

2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

Exempt off-the-record

communications will be included in the

decisional record of the proceeding,

unless the communication was with a

cooperating agency as described by 40

CFR 1501, made under 18 CFR

385.2201(e)(1)(v).

The following is a list of exempt and

prohibited off-the-record

communications received in the Office

of the Secretary within the preceding 14

days. The documents may be viewed on

the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/

online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

Exempt

1. EL00–95–017; 5–21–01; Barry R.

Wallerstein.

2. Project No. 2042; 5–21–01; Timothy

B. Bachelder.

3. CP00–165–000; 5–22–01; Roy L.

Harris.

4. Project No. 2042–013; 5–22–01;

Tim Welch.

5. CP00–232–001; 5–18–01; Kent P.

Sanders.

6. CP00–40–002; 5–23–01; David L.

Hankla.

7. Project No. 1986–010; 5–22–01;

Dave Justus.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14350 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[AL–056–200106; FRL–6993–4]

Adequacy Status of the Birmingham,

AL, Ozone Attainment Demonstration

for Transportation Conformity

Purposes

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 in the Birmingham, Alabama

ozone attainment demonstration

submitted on November 1, 2000, 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

Birmingham ozone nonattainment area

must use the motor vehicle emissions

budgets from the submitted ozone

attainment demonstration for future

conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective June 22,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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’’).

The SIP is available for public viewing

at the United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street,

SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303. You can

request a copy of the SIP submission by

contacting Kelly Sheckler, Regulatory

Planning Section, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303, Phone: (404) 562–9042, Fax:

(404) 562–9019, E-mail:

Sheckler.Kelly@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This notice is simply an

announcement of a finding that we have

already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter

to the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management on May 22,

2001, stating that the motor vehicle

emissions budgets in the Birmingham,

Alabama, ozone attainment

demonstration for 2003 are adequate.

This finding has been announced on

EPA’s conformity website referenced

above.

EPA Region 4 received comments on

the motor vehicle emissions budget for

transportation conformity purposes

contained in the Birmingham, Alabama,

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration.

EPA Region 4 has prepared a response

to those comments and has posted the

response on the website referenced

above.

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 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.

We have 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’’). This

guidance was used in making our

adequacy determination. 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 action to approve or

disapprove the SIP. The SIP could later

be disapproved for reasons unrelated to

the transportation conformity even

though the budgets have been deemed

adequate.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.