Jump to main content.

Inadequacy Status of Submitted State Implementation Plans for Transportation Conformity Purposes

Related Material

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 



[Federal Register: November 1, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 210)]
[Notices]               
[Page 58837]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no99-50]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[AZNV017-FOI; FRL-6467-9]

 
Inadequacy Status of Submitted State Implementation Plans for 
Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of inadequacy determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, Region IX is augmenting the national list of 
adequacy determinations for State Implementation Plans (SIP) submittals 
for transportation conformity purposes as identified in 64 FR 31217-
31219 (June 10, 1999). This notice describes a finding of inadequacy 
for the PM10 attainment submittals with respect to emissions 
budget criteria for Clark County, Nevada and Yuma County, Arizona.

DATES: These budgets are effective November 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 
Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 
744-1247 or oconnor.karina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA's 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 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).
    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 the conformity budget adequate through a 
process providing for public notice and comment. Where EPA finds a 
budget inadequate, it cannot be used for conformity determinations.
    The new process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP 
budgets 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 
from this website, click on the conformity button and look for 
``Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity.''

Status of Submitted Budgets

    In Las Vegas, Nevada, the serious PM10 attainment plan 
did not establish any PM10 emission budgets for the annual 
or 24 hour PM10 standard. Thus the plan does not contain 
emission budgets that are adequate for use in conformity 
determinations. In a letter dated July 12, 1999, from EPA to the Nevada 
Division of Environmental Protection, Region IX determined that the 
area's budgets are inadequate and we are publishing that finding in 
this notice.
    In Yuma, AZ, the only submitted budgets for transportation 
conformity purposes pertain to the area's moderate attainment 
demonstration for the pollutant PM10. In a letter dated July 
12, 1999, from EPA to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 
Region IX determined that the area's budgets are inadequate and we are 
publishing that finding in this notice.
    As stated in the May 14, 1999, guidance, EPA's adequacy review is 
not to be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval or disapproval of 
the submitted SIPs. Approvability of the two SIPs mentioned in this 
notice will be addressed in a future rulemaking.
    Because both areas have performed certain other emissions analyses, 
their transportation programs may continue despite this finding of 
inadequacy regarding submitted budgets. Furthermore, the areas can 
continue to use these alternative emission analyses for future 
conformity determinations.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 21, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-28499 Filed 10-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.