[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26749-26750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11295]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9150-8]


Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets In Submitted 
San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment 
Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes; CA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy and inadequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency 
has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the years 2009 
and 2012 from the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan are 
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In this notice, EPA is 
also notifying the public that the Agency has found that the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for the year 2014 from the San Joaquin Valley 
2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan are inadequate for transportation conformity 
purposes. The San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan was 
submitted to EPA on June 30, 2008 by the California Air Resources Board 
as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan and includes 
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations for the 1997 
annual and 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> national ambient air quality 
standards. As a result of our adequacy findings, the San Joaquin Valley 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation must use the adequate budgets, and cannot use the 
inadequate budgets, for future conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective May 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 
Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; 
(415) 972-3957 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#23544a404b46510d4551424d404650634653420d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="57203e343f322579312536393432241732273679303821">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have 
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to California Air Resources 
Board (CARB or the State) on April 23, 2010 stating that the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted San Joaquin Valley 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan for the reasonable further progress (RFP) 
milestone years of 2009 and 2012 are adequate. The finding is available 
at EPA's conformity Web site: http://

[[Page 26750]]

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. The adequate 
motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

                          SJV PM2.5 Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Found Adequate
                                         [Annual average, tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2009                            2012
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       PM2.5            NOX            PM2.5            NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno..........................................             2.2            56.5             1.9            44.2
Kern (SJV)......................................             3.4            87.7             3.0            74.2
Kings...........................................             0.7            17.9             0.6            14.6
Madera..........................................             0.6            14.1             0.5            11.4
Merced..........................................             1.5            33.6             1.2            26.7
San Joaquin.....................................             1.6            39.1             1.4            32.8
Stanislaus......................................             1.0            25.8             0.9            20.8
Tulare..........................................             0.9            23.3             0.8            19.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our letter dated April 23, 2010 also states that budgets for the 
attainment year of 2014 are inadequate for transportation conformity 
purpose. The State has included additional on-road mobile source 
emissions reductions in the budgets for 2014 from the 2007 State 
Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 
adequate budgets include no such reductions but rather reflect 
emissions reductions from CARB rules that have already been adopted. 
EPA has determined that the 2014 budgets are inadequate because they 
include new emission reductions that do not result from specific or 
enforceable control measures. As a result, three of the transportation 
conformity rule's adequacy criteria are not met (40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v)) for these budgets. The inadequate 
motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

     SJV PM2.5 Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Found Inadequate
                     [Annual average, tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2014
                                                   ---------------------
                                                      PM2.5       NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno............................................        1.1       26.0
Kern (SJV)........................................        1.4       41.6
Kings.............................................        0.3        8.1
Madera............................................        0.3        6.7
Merced............................................        0.6       14.8
San Joaquin.......................................        0.9       20.3
Stanislaus........................................        0.5       12.4
Tulare............................................        0.5       12.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Receipt of the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the San Joaquin 
Valley 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan was announced on EPA's transportation 
conformity Web site on August 19, 2008. We received no comments in 
response to the adequacy review posting. The finding is available at 
EPA's transportation conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
    Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 
176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, 
transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs and 
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not 
they do conform. 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) which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final 
rule (62 FR 43780, 43781-43783). We have further described our process 
for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 
2004 final rule (69 FR 40004, 40038), and we used the information in 
these resources in making our adequacy determination. Please note that 
an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and 
should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the 
SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be 
disapproved.

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

    Dated: May 5, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-11295 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>