Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

56856

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules
determinations in PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas must account for highway and transit project construction-related fugitive PM10
emissions if the control strategy or maintenance plan identifies such emissions as a contributor to the air quality problem, but it is not required if such emissions are not identified as a contributor to the air quality problem.49
Emissions estimates developed for the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan show that fugitive PM10 emissions from highway and transit project construction represent approximately 1.2 percent and 4.0 percent of the total annual-average daily PM10 emissions in 2020 and 2025, respectively.50 Based on these emissions estimates, the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan concludes that fugitive PM10 emissions from highways and transit project construction are significant and must be accounted for in regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations made for the Indian Wells Valley planning area.
Consequently, the budgets in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan reflect highway and transit project construction-related fugitive dust.
We evaluated the budgets against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118e4
and 5 as part of our review of the budgets approvability and expect to complete the adequacy review of the budgets concurrent with our final action on the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan. The EPA is not required under its transportation conformity rule to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of them.51 In this document, the EPA is announcing that the adequacy process for these budgets begins, and the public has 30 days to comment on their adequacy, per the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118f2i and ii.
As documented in the separate memorandum included in the docket for this rulemaking, we preliminarily conclude that the budgets in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan meet each adequacy criterion.52 While adequacy and approval are two separate 49 40

CFR 93.122e.
Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table
50 Indian
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

4.
51 Under the transportation conformity rule, the EPA may review the adequacy of submitted budgets simultaneously with the EPAs approval or disapproval of the submitted control strategy or maintenance plan. 40 CFR 93.118f2.
52 Memorandum dated February 4, 2021, from Karina OConnor, EPA, to Rulemaking Docket ID
EPAR09OAR0549, Subject: Adequacy Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Indian Wells Second PM10
Maintenance Plan.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:28 Oct 12, 2021

Jkt 256001

actions, reviewing the budgets in terms of the adequacy criteria informs the EPAs decision to propose to approve the budgets. We have completed our detailed review of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan and are proposing herein to approve the Plan including the demonstration of maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the area through the year 2025. We have also reviewed the budgets in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan and found that they are consistent with the maintenance demonstration for which we are proposing approval, are clearly identified and precisely quantified, are based on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented, and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118e4 and 5. For these reasons, the EPA proposes to approve the 2020
and 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan. At the point when we either finalize the adequacy process or approve the budgets as proposed whichever occurs first, although they could also occur concurrently,53 the budgets must be used by KCOG i.e., the MPO for this area for transportation conformity determinations for the Indian Wells Valley planning area.
V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment Under CAA section 110k3, and for the reasons set forth in this document, the EPA is proposing to approve the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan submitted by CARB by letter on July 30, 2020, as a revision to the California SIP.
We are proposing to approve the maintenance demonstration and contingency provisions as meeting all of the applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A, and the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020 and 2025 shown in Table 6 for transportation conformity purposes because we find they meet all applicable criteria for such budgets including the adequacy criteria under 40 CFR 93.118e.
We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will accept comments from the public for 30 days following publication of this proposal in the Federal Register and will consider any relevant comments before taking final action.
53 40

PO 00000

CFR 93.118f2iii.

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve a state plan as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.;
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.;
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Pub. L. 1044;
Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999;
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001;
Is not subject to requirements of section 12d of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 15 U.S.C. 272 note because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898
59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the Indian Wells Valley planning area, and the State plan for which the EPA is proposing approval does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
E:FRFM13OCP1.SGM

13OCP1