Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

45880

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
reviewed EPA modeling 23 and developed ozone source apportionment results and relationships between State-source category specific ozone source apportionment modeling and the seasonal NOX emissions used to develop the ozone concentrations, which, the commenter states, provide indicators of relative contribution of source regions states and categories e.g., motor vehicle NOX and VOC
emissions to downwind monitor ozone concentrations. The commenter asserts that this analysis indicated that emissions from motor vehicle sources contribute the greatest relative concentration from U.S. anthropogenic emissions to the monitors, in the areas and estimates that localized reductions in the areas of analysis would have a larger relative impact on ozone concentrations as compared to statewide estimations. The commenter also developed regional impact factors, and asserts that the commenter found using updated emissions, projections, and models that the relative impact of NOX emissions from mobile sources in Tennessee have factors significantly higher than most other regional-category combinations, leading us to conclude that motor vehicle and nonroad source emissions have the greatest impact on ozone concentrations in the Areas. The commenter did not provide the modeling files, just the summary of the results in the comments.
Response B2: As discussed in the April 2021 SNPRM, EPAs analysis relies on an emissions inventory comparison to determine whether Hamilton County and the Middle Tennessee Area would continue to attain the ozone and CO NAAQS after removal of the I/M program. EPA is not relying on an ozone sensitivity analysis to determine that removal of the I/M
program would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Therefore, the alleged deficiencies related to nonlinearity of ozone formation from NOX and VOC
precursors in Tennessees sensitivity analyses are irrelevant. As noted in other comment responses in this rule, the State has primacy over air quality planning and has the authority to determine which source categories to control to maintain the NAAQS. Under the CAA, the sole issue for EPAs consideration in this rulemaking is whether removing the I/M program from 23 The commenter based their analysis on the Comprehensive Air quality Model with eXtensions/
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology CAMX/
OSAT modeling platform that EPA prepared for the CSAPR Close-Out rule. See 83 FR 65878, 6588788
December 21, 2018.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

the SIP for these two areas would be consistent with CAA provisions, including whether discontinuation is expected to interfere with attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. As discussed further in the April 2021 SNPRM, EPA is approving removal of the I/M program from the SIP
because removal is consistent with the requirements of the CAA, including noninterference with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Comment B3: In response to EPAs June 2020 NPRMs, a commenter asserts that Tennessees MOVES modeling did not use appropriate assumptions, pointing to changes in Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAFE standards, Reid Vapor Pressure RVP standards, and biofuel blending requirements that were not included in the model. The commenter asserts that EPA must either conduct the modeling itself using the appropriate inputs to confirm that there will be no interference with the NAAQS or disapprove the non-interference demonstration and require the State to do the correct modeling. Further, in response to EPAs April 2021 SNPRM, a commenter discusses EPAs recent release of MOVES3 and asserts that TDEC should consider the impact that the changes in this model have on the assumptions included in the removal of the I/M program in the State. The commenter further asserts that TDEC
should consider this impact especially in light of EPAs findings that NOX
emissions estimates were higher in future years in urban areas using MOVES3 compared to MOVES2014b.
Response B3: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA reviewed the MOVES2014b modeling that was submitted by Tennessee to support the non-interference demonstration and concluded that the State used appropriate assumptions for the model and performed the modeling in accordance with EPAs MOVES
Technical Guidance.24 Tennessee used the MOVES2014b model which was the latest version of the model available at the time that the State submitted its SIP
revisions, and the State is not required to redo its analysis based on the release of an updated model after the States submissions.25
24 See EPAs July 2014 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes hereinafter MOVES 2014
Guidance. This document is available at https
nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100K4EB.pdf.
25 EPA released the latest mobile modeling platform, MOVES3, on November 16, 2020, approximately nine months after Tennessee
PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Regarding the changes to the CAFE
standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has finalized the revisions to the CAFE standards for light duty vehicles.26 However, that final action does not have any impact on Tennessees demonstration related to removal of the I/M program. The vehicles affected by the revised CAFE
standards would still need to meet applicable criteria pollutant emissions standards e.g., the Tier 3 emissions standards; see 79 FR 23414.
Regarding RVP and biofuel blending requirements, EPA reviewed the selected fuel formulations including those for biofuels for the modeled mobile emissions and concurred that they accurately reflect the Areas profiles. The fuel formulation encompasses all the properties for that particular fuel i.e., sulfur levels, benzene, and RVP.
While the commenter mentions that . . . NOX emissions estimates were higher in future years in urban areas using MOVES3 compared to MOVES2014b, the commenter does not provide any information to indicate that NOX emissions in either Hamilton County or the Middle Tennessee Area would be higher or would interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. As detailed in EPAs April 2021 SNPRM and summarized above, NOX emissions in Hamilton County and the Middle Tennessee Area are estimated to be 3,505 tpy and 22,420 tpy lower than 2014 emissions, respectively.
EPA is concluding that it is reasonable to assume that a change to a more recent version of MOVES would not result in an increase in emissions over the significant decreases in emissions between 2014 and 2022.
submitted its SIP revisions, and EPA only recently announced MOVES as EPAs official model for future SIP development outside of California January 7, 2021, 86 FR 1106. EPAs November 2020 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES3 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, General Conformity, and Other Purposes EPA420B20044
hereinafter MOVES3 Policy Guidance notes that states should use the latest version of MOVES
that is available at the time that a SIP is developed.
This document is available at https www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2020-11/documents/
420b20044_0.pdf. Also, the Guidance states the following: All states other than California should use MOVES3 for SIPs that will be submitted in the future so that they are based on the most accurate estimates of emissions possible. However, state and local agencies that have already completed significant work on a SIP with MOVES2014 e.g., attainment modeling has already been completed with MOVES2014 may continue to rely on the earlier version of MOVES.
26 See The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient SAFE Vehicles Rule for Model Years 20212026
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 85 FR 24174
April 30, 2020.

E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1