[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 B[email protected].

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