Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules Plan as superseding the corresponding budgets from the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.
The budgets in both the 2016 PM2.5
2. Summary of States Motor Vehicle Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan were Emissions Budgets calculated using EMFAC2014 and the The 2016 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets latest modeled vehicle activity data vehicle miles traveled and speed for direct PM2.5 and NOX for 2019 RFP
distributions available at the time of milestone year and 2022 postplan development. In the case of the attainment RFP milestone year and no 2016 PM2.5 Plan, vehicle activity data other year given the plans demonstration of the impracticability of are derived from the draft 2017 Federalattaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by Statewide Transportation Improvement 2021.226 Similarly, for the Moderate area Program 2017 FSTIP from each of the timeframe, the 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes SJVs eight MPOs. The 2018 PM2.5 Plan budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOX for budgets are based on updated motor vehicle activity data from the most 2019 and 2022 RFP milestone years.227
recently amended 2017 FSTIP as of We consider the 2019 and 2022 RFP
January 2018 from each of the SJVs milestone budgets from the 2018 PM2.5
contained in the attainment and RFP
demonstrations.225

49127

eight MPOs. The budgets reflect annual average emissions consistent with the annual averaging period of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2018 PM2.5 Plans RFP demonstration.
As with the 2016 PM2.5 Plan, the 2018
PM2.5 Plan includes direct PM2.5 budgets for tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear emissions, but does not include paved road dust, unpaved road dust, and road construction dust emissions. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan also includes budgets for NOX, as a regulated precursor under the plan, but does not include budgets for VOC, SO2, or ammonia.228 The budgets included in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with respect to the Moderate area timeframe are shown in Table 6.

TABLE 62019 AND 2022 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MVEBS FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Annual average, tpd 2019 RFP year
2022 post-attainment year
County NOX

PM2.5
Fresno
Kern San Joaquin Valley portion
Kings
Madera
Merced
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Tulare

0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4

PM2.5
27.6
25.1
5.1
4.6
9.4
12.7
10.5
9.3

NOX
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4

21.2
19.4
4.1
3.5
7.6
10.0
8.1
6.9

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 33. Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth.

The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes a proposed trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow future decreases in NOX
emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset any on-road increases in direct PM2.5 emissions. For the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, the State is proposing to use the 6.5:1 NOX:PM2.5 ratio. The ratio is based on a sensitivity analysis based on a 30% reduction of NOX or PM2.5
emissions and the corresponding impact on design values at sites in Bakersfield and Fresno i.e., updated analysis relative to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For the sake of comparison, in approving the budgets for the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA approved a trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that allowed for such one-way trades i.e., only excess NOX can be used to offset PM2.5, not vice versa at a 9:1 NOX:PM2.5 ratio.229
225 40 CFR 93.118e4iii, iv and v. For more information on the transportation conformity requirements and applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our transportation conformity website at: http www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/index.htm.
226 2016 PM
2.5 Plan, Table 311.
227 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 33.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:22 Aug 31, 2021

Jkt 253001

To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of the SJV to meet the NOX budget, the NOX emission reductions available to supplement the PM2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the NOX budget has been met.230 The Plan also provides that the SJV MPOs shall clearly document the calculations used in the trading, along with any additional reductions of NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the conformity analysis.
In the submittal letter for the 2018
PM2.5 Plan, CARB requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the budgets to the period before the effective date of the EPAs adequacy finding for any subsequently submitted budgets.231
3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action For the reasons discussed in section IV.F of this proposed rule, we are proposing to approve the States 228 2018

PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D121 to D123.
FR 69896, at 69923 November 9, 2011.
230 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, App. D, D126 and D127.
231 Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, 3.
232 The differences between the two sets of budgets are minor. For 2019, there is no difference 229 76

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

demonstration that it is impracticable to attain the 2012 PM2.5 standard in the SJV by the applicable Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2021, and are proposing to reclassify the area as Serious. Accordingly, we are proposing action on the Moderate postattainment year budgets for 2022 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. The EPA
is not reviewing the submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2019
because that year will not be an applicable conformity analysis year in the next conformity analysis for the SJV
MPOs. Also, as noted above, we consider the 2022 RFP milestone budgets from the 2018 PM2.5 Plan as superseding the corresponding budgets from the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and thus are proposing action only on the former.232
The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets submitted with an attainment or maintenance plan for PM2.5 for between the budgets in the 2016 PM2.5 Plan and the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. For 2022, there is no difference between the two sets of budgets for direct PM2.5, and, with the exception of San Joaquin County, the difference between the two sets of budgets for NOX
is less than or equal to 0.1 tpd. For San Joaquin County, the 2022 NOX budget is 0.7 tpd higher under the 2018 PM2.5 Plan than the corresponding budget from the 2016 PM2.5 Plan.

E:FRFM01SEP2.SGM

01SEP2