This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
In this document, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Fort Collins, Colorado carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan, that was submitted by the Governor on August 9, 2002, are adequate for conformity purposes. On March 2, 1999, the DC Circuit Court ruled that budgets in 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 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council, the City of Fort Collins, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from this submitted maintenance plan for future conformity determinations.
This finding is effective February 19, 2003.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kerri Fiedler, Air & Radiation Program (8P-AR), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 312-6493. The letter documenting our finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” are used we mean EPA.
This action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. We sent a letter to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Start Printed Page 5639on January 15, 2003, stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted Fort Collins CO maintenance plan are adequate. This finding has also been announced on our conformity Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. Our 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.
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 our completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved, and vice versa.
We've described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a memo entitled, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision,” dated May 14, 1999. We followed this guidance in making our adequacy determination.Start Signature
Dated: January 23, 2003.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 03-2535 Filed 2-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P