Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

53166

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Proposed Rules
energy requirements, needed infrastructure, and workforce type and habits when considering technological feasibility. For purposes of evaluating economic feasibility, the EPA allows consideration of factors such as the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness i.e., cost per ton of pollutant reduced by a measure or technology associated with the measure or control.148
Once these analyses are complete, the state must use this information to develop enforceable control measures and submit them to the EPA for evaluation as SIP revisions to meet the basic requirements of CAA section 110
and any other applicable substantive provisions of the Act. The EPA is using these steps as guidelines in the evaluation of the BACM and BACT
measures and related analyses in the SJV PM2.5 Plan. Furthermore, because the EPA has not previously taken action to approve the California SIP as meeting the subpart 4 Moderate area planning requirements under CAA section 189 for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley area, the EPA is reviewing the SJV PM2.5 Plan for compliance with those requirements.149
The overarching requirement for the CAA section 189d attainment control strategy is that it provides for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.150 The control strategy must include any additional measures beyond those already adopted in previous nonattainment plans for the area as RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT
that are needed for the area to attain expeditiously. This includes reassessing any measures previously rejected during the development of any Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy.151 The state must also demonstrate that it will, at a minimum, achieve an annual five percent reduction in emissions of direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 plan precursor from sources 148 40 CFR 51.1010a3 and 81 FR 58010, 58041
58042.
149 The EPA does not normally conduct a separate evaluation to determine whether a Serious area plans measures also meet the RACM requirements.
As explained in the General Preamble Addendum, we interpret the BACM requirement as generally subsuming the RACM requirementi.e., if we determine that the measures are indeed the best available, we have necessarily concluded that they are reasonably available. General Preamble Addendum, 42010. Therefore, a separate analysis to determine if the measures represent a RACM
level of control is not necessary. A proposed approval of a Plans provisions concerning implementation of BACM is also a proposed finding that the Plan provides for the implementation of RACM.
150 81 FR 58010, 58100.
151 40 CFR 50.1010c2ii.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:10 Sep 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

in the area, based on the most recent emissions inventory for the area.152
In the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the EPA clarified its interpretation of the statutory language in CAA section 189d requiring a state to submit a new attainment plan to achieve annual reductions from the date of such submission until attainment, to mean annual reductions beginning from the due date of such submission until the new projected attainment date for the area based on the new or additional control measures identified to achieve at least five percent emissions reductions annually.153 This interpretation is intended to make clear that even if a state is late in submitting its CAA
section 189d plan, the area must still achieve its annual five percent emissions reductions beginning from the date by which the state was required to make its CAA section 189d submission, not by some later date.
Because the deadline for California to submit a section 189d plan for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley was December 31, 2016, one year after the December 31, 2015 attainment date for these NAAQS under CAA
section 188c2, the starting point for the five percent emissions reduction requirement under section 189d for this area is 2017.
2. Summary of the States Submission and the EPAs Evaluation and Proposed Action a. Control Strategy For the Serious area and section 189d plan requirements for the 1997
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS the State based the control strategy in the SJV PM2.5
Plan on ongoing emissions reductions from baseline control measures.154 As we use the term here, baseline measures are State and District regulations adopted prior to the development of the SJV PM2.5 Plan that continue to achieve emissions reductions through the projected 2020 attainment year for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and beyond. The State describes the baseline measures in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan in Chapter 4,155 Appendix C Stationary Source Control Measure Analyses, and Appendix D Mobile Source Control Measure Analyses. The State incorporates reductions generated by 152 CAA

section 189d and 40 CFR 51.1010c.
FR 58010, 58101.
154 Because the 2015 Serious area attainment date has passed, and the EPA found that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date, we are evaluating the control strategy for the Serious area requirements based on the timeline associated with the current section 189d projected attainment date of December 31, 2020.
155 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, Table 42.
153 81

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

these baseline measures into the projected baseline inventories and reductions resulting from District measures are individually quantified in Appendix C.
In the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
indicates that mobile sources emit over 85 percent of the NOX emissions in the San Joaquin Valley and that CARB has adopted and amended regulations to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter, which includes direct PM2.5 and NOX, from fuel sources, freight transport sources like heavy-duty diesel trucks, transportation sources like passenger cars and buses, and non-road sources like large construction equipment. 156
Given the need for substantial emissions reductions from mobile and area sources to meet the NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the State of California has developed stringent control measures for on-road and non-road mobile sources and the fuels that power them. California has unique authority under CAA section 209 subject to a waiver or authorization as applicable by the EPA to adopt and implement new emissions standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines and new and in-use non-road vehicles and engines. The EPA has approved many such mobile source regulations for which it has issued waiver authorizations as revisions to the California SIP.157
CARBs mobile source program extends beyond regulations that are subject to the waiver or authorization process set forth in CAA section 209 to include standards and other requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty trucks and buses, gasoline and diesel fuel specifications, and many other types of mobile sources.
Generally, these regulations have also been submitted and approved as revisions to the California SIP.158
As to stationary and area sources, the SJV PM2.5 Plan indicates that regulations adopted for prior attainment plans 156 2018 PM
2.5 Plan, Chapter 4, 49. For CARBs BACM analysis for mobile source measures, see 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, including analyses for on-road light-duty vehicles and fuels starting on page D17, on-road heavy-duty vehicles and fuels starting on page D35, and non-road sources starting on page D64.
157 For example, see 81 FR 39424 June 16, 2016;
82 FR 14446 March 21, 2017; and 83 FR 23232
May 18, 2018.
158 For example, see the EPAs approval of standards and other requirements to control emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel trucks 77
FR 20308, April 4, 2012, revisions to the California on-road reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations 75 FR 26653, May 12, 2010, and revisions to the California motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program 75 FR 38023, July 1, 2010.

E:FRFM24SEP2.SGM

24SEP2