Adequacy Status of Submitted PM10 State Implementation Plans for Transportation Conformity Purposes

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