[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 71136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32867]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[CAO22-NOA; FRL-6512-6]
Adequacy Status of Submitted PM10 State Implementation Plans for
Transportation Conformity Purposes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of inadequacy determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found the PM10 attainment submittals of Coachella Valley, Searles
Valley (Trona Portion), and San Bernardino County, California,
inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. As a result of our
finding, the PM10 motor vehicle budgets from the submitted plans cannot
be used for conformity determinations.
DATES: This determination was effective November 23, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The finding notification letters are
available at website: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, once there, click on
the ``Conformity'' button, then look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP
Submissions for Conformity''). You may also contact Charnjit Bhullar,
U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1153 or Bhullar.charnjit@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. The federal conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93, 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 help to reduce air quality
violations, achieve expeditious attainment of air quality standards,
and 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
submittal is adequate for conformity purposes are specified in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and 58 FR 62194.
On March 2, 1999, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
submitted SIPs cannot be used for conformity determinations unless EPA
has affirmatively found them adequate through a process providing for
public notice and comment. Where EPA finds a SIP submittal inadequate,
the budgets cannot be used for conformity determinations.
The new process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIPs is
contained in a May 14, 1999, memo titled ``Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA will
be revising the conformity rule to codify this guidance. You can obtain
this guidance at http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, click on the conformity
button and look for ``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for
Conformity.''
Status of Submitted Budgets
In the Coachella Valley serious PM10 attainment plan and the
Searles Valley Moderate PM10 attainment plan, different motor vehicle
emission elements were not combined into clearly defined budgets
consistent with the federal conformity regulations ((40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and 58 FR 62194). Thus EPA determined that these plans do
not contain emission budgets that are adequate for use in conformity
determinations.
Similarly, in the San Bernardino County Moderate PM10 attainment
plan, different motor vehicle emission elements in the Moderate PM10
attainment plan were not combined into clearly defined budgets
consistent with the federal conformity regulations ((40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and 58 FR 62194). Further the submittal stated that mobile
sources are not a significant contributor to PM10 violations in the
nonattainment area. EPA found that PM10 from motor vehicles is a
significant contributor to the air quality problem because it is
responsible for approximately one-half of the total inventory. Because
of these problems, EPA determined that this plan does not contain an
emission budget that is adequate for use in conformity determinations.
In letters dated November 23, 1999, from EPA to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD),
Region IX notified the agencies that we had determined that the
submittals for these three areas are inadequate for conformity. These
agencies have agreed with the definition of the problem and to resolve
them by submitting revisions to these PM10 plans early next year.
As stated in the May 14, 1999 guidance, EPA's adequacy review
should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval or disapproval
of the submitted SIPs. Approvability of the SIP submittals mentioned in
this document will be addressed in a future rulemaking.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 10, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-32867 Filed 12-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
