Quiero saber acerca de...

13194

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

aware of any information, and the Commenter did provide a demonstration or other information, that is contrary to EPAs analysis and proposed finding that Georgias September 16, 2019, SIP revision complies with CAA section 110l.
With respect to the offsets related to school buses, Georgia provided data and calculations regarding emission reductions attributable to school bus replacements in the September 16, 2019, SIP submittal, which was included in Georgias 110l demonstration, and the Commenter did not provide any information indicating that these data and calculations are erroneous.4 As discussed above and further in the June 30 2020, NPRM, the school buses are only a part of the emissions reductions that Georgia used to offset the increase in emissions due to the removal of the TCMs, and between the locomotive and school bus offsets, Georgia has secured more than enough offsets to support removal of the TCMs.
Although the Commenter asserts that Georgia failed to consider the increases in other pollutants due to the retirement of the express bus fleets, the Atlanta Regional Commissions ARC 5 activitybased modeling and Georgias motor vehicle emissions modeling calculated the emissions associated with the removal of the TCMs pertaining to transit buses. Further, Georgia considered all pollutants in its analysis, but provided more detail with respect to pollutants that are likely to be increased due to the removal of the TCMs, specifically ozone and ozone precursors NOX and VOCs. Additional discussion regarding VOCs, NOX, and particulate matter PM was included because VOC
and NOX emissions are also precursors for PM, and NOX is also a precursor for nitrogen dioxide. The TCMs were not designed to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide SO2, CO, and PM10, and do not reduce SO2, CO, and PM10 emissions.
See the June 30, 2020, NPRM for more detail.
With respect to the Commenters assertions specific to CO, EPA disagrees.
Removing the fleet of express buses as a TCM from the Georgia SIP will not cause a violation of the CO NAAQS. The transit bus fleet in the Atlanta area is 4 Data and calculations related to school bus offsets are available in the docket to this action at Appendix F, documents EPAR04OAR2019
06610015, EPAR04OAR201906610020, and EPAR04OAR201906610021.
5 The Atlanta Regional Commission ARC is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization MPO and is responsible for developing a multi-modal, financially constrained transportation plan that meets all federal transportation and Clean Air Act planning requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Mar 05, 2021

Jkt 253001

mostly comprised of compressed natural gas and diesel, which have low CO
emissions. Further, there has never been a designated CO nonattainment area in Georgia. Additionally, the current level of the CO NAAQS is 9 ppm on an 8hour average and 35 ppm on a 1-hour average; the Atlanta Areas current design values for 20182019 are 2.0
ppm for the 8-hr average and 2.2 ppm for the 1-hour average, which equates to 78 percent and 94 percent below the standard, respectively.
Comment 2: A Commenter states that EPA should not remove the TCMs from the Georgia SIP, that removal of the controls will create an inconsistent regulatory environment that is contrary to the CAA, and that removal of the TCMs would give Georgia an unfair advantage. The Commenter also notes that the Georgia Department of Transportation GDOT issued a draft environmental impact statement EIS
for the Georgia SIPs but that it was delayed because of legal reasons.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenters assertions and is not clear on how the removal of the TCMs creates an inconsistent regulatory environment or gives Georgia an unfair advantage.
The Agency notes that TCMs were adopted into the SIP as part of the States discretion to implement measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The CAA requires each state to have a SIP, which is a federallyenforceable plan that identifies how the state will attain and maintain the NAAQS. As discussed previously, states have wide discretion in determining the control measures they choose to utilize in achieving and maintaining the NAAQS. A state has the option of revising its SIP so long as state and Federal requirements governing SIPs are met.
It is unclear from the comment how an EIS relates to this action or what draft EIS the Commenter is referring to.
To the extent the Commenter suggests that the SIP or this SIP revision should have gone through an EIS process, EPA
also disagrees. Generally, actions taken under the CAA are exempted from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEPA, including this SIP action.
See 15 U.S.C. 793c1.
Comment 3: A Commenter contends that EPA cannot remove the TCMs from the Georgia SIP without input and concurrence from GDOT and the Georgia Department of Environmental Management. The Commenter goes on to assert that the SIP must be amended to ensure compliance with all Federal and state laws that address the construction of new facilities, the application of engineering standards,
PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

procedures or practices for new facilities, and must ensure the highest level of protection, specifically referencing the Georgia Environmental Protection Act, as revised, the CAA, and Federal requirements from the Federal Aviation Act and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act, as revised.
Response 3: EPA agrees with the Commenters assertion that Georgias removal of the TCMs is subject to input from various agencies such as GDOT, and notes that the environmental agency for Georgia is GA EPD, the author of the September 16, 2019, SIP
revision. Specifically, 40 CFR part 93
governs transportation conformity requirements pursuant to CAA section 176c and requires interagency consultation for certain actions. The interagency consultation process, set forth in 40 CFR 93.105, is a process in which Federal, state, and local jurisdictions consult on the status of air quality and transportation projects. The Atlanta interagency consultation group consists of transportation and air quality partners such as the Federal Highway Administration-GA Division, US EPA
Region 4, GA EPD, GDOT, the ARC, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority MARTA, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, and several others. Before submitting the September 16, 2019, SIP revision requesting removal of the TCMs from the Georgia SIP, GA EPD consulted with the Atlanta interagency consultation group which includes GDOT. None of the Atlanta Interagency Consultation partners expressed objection to the removal of the TCMs from the Georgia SIP.
In addition, EPA disagrees with the Commenters other assertions. The removal of TCMs from Georgias SIP
does not involve the construction of new facilities. EPAs review and approval of SIPs is restricted to compliance with the CAA, rather than compliance with the Georgia Environmental Protection Act or the Federal Aviation Act and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. As discussed in more detail above and in the NPRM, states have discretion as to the contents of their plans, EPA must approve SIPs that meet the CAA
requirements, and Georgias September 16, 2019, SIP revision meets CAA
requirements.
III. Final Action EPA is taking final action to approve Georgias September 16, 2019, SIP
revision to remove certain TCMs from the Georgia SIP that are applicable within the Atlanta Area. This approval
E:FRFM08MRR1.SGM

08MRR1