Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

2, 2021. The commenter also cites to a regulation that tracksrather than controlsemissions; 37 denials of petitions that were before the agency that did not alter any emissions controls in place, some of which have been sent back to EPA; 38 and guidance that, by its very nature, does not impose binding requirements.39
With respect to any pending or proposed changes, per EPAs Emissions Inventory Guidance, impacts of proposed Federal rules are rarely included in EPA emissions projections as the changes in emissions impacts can be very large between proposed and final rules. 40 See Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations, May 2017, at 122.41
Furthermore, the commenter did not provide any technical information or analysis to substantiate their claims that the final or proposed rollbacks in combination with the removal of the I/M program from the Tennessee SIP
would cause either Hamilton County or the Middle Tennessee Area to interfere 37 National Performance Management Measures;
Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 83 FR 24920 May 31, 2018.
38 See, e.g., New York v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1214 D.C.
Cir. 2020; Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 D.C.
Cir. 2020.
39 See, e.g., August 31, 2018 Memo from Peter Tsirigotis OAQPS re Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110a2DiI Interstate transport State Implementation Plan submissions for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at https www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2018-09/documents/contrib_thresholds_transport_
sip_subm_2015_ozone_memo_08_31_18.pdf Memo does not impose binding, enforceable requirements on any party; October 9, 2020 Memo from Andrew Wheeler re Inclusion of Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State Implementation Plans This memorandum does not alter in any way the determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act. In order to change those determinations and alter or withdraw the 2015 SIP
call, subsequent actions will need to be taken..
40 EPA notes that the commenter references withdrawal of a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. However, the commenter cites to a final rule National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works Residual Risk and Technology Review, 82 FR 49513 Oct. 26, 2017, within which EPA did not take final action on several provisions that were proposed, but did not withdraw proposal as to those provisions. To the extent that the commenter refers to the provisions that were not acted upon, those changes remain pending, and thus, EPAs emissions projections will not take those into account.
41 Available at https www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_
may_2017_final_rev.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, any possible air quality impacts from many of the rollbacks are speculative and hypothetical in nature. In contrast, EPAs analysis projects that 2022 total emissions without the I/M program are significantly less than 2014 total emissions for both the Middle Tennessee and Hamilton County areas.
See Section III, above, and EPAs April 2021 SNPRM.42
C. Responses to Comments Outside the Scope of This Rulemaking EPA received numerous comments that are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Even though EPA is not obligated to respond to these comments, EPA nonetheless has provided responses below in order to assist the publics understanding of EPAs final action.
Comment C1: Many commenters opposed to the removal of the I/M
program acknowledge improved vehicle standards, but believe that the I/M
program is still needed as a check to ensure that citizens are maintaining their vehicles including for safety inspections.
Response C1: To the extent commenters are concerned that removal of the I/M program will result in citizens neglecting to maintain their vehicles or affecting vehicle safety, those concerns are outside the scope of this rulemaking. States have primary responsibility for deciding how to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Tennessee has opted to remove the I/M program from its SIP. Under the CAA, the sole issue for EPAs consideration in this rulemaking is whether removing the I/
M program from the SIP would be consistent with CAA provisions, including whether discontinuation is expected to interfere with attainment and maintenance of air quality standards or any applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is approving removal of the I/M program from the SIP because removal is consistent with the requirements of the CAA. The option the commenter suggests to continue an I/M program to ensure vehicles are maintained may be considered and implemented at the local level without EPAs review or approval.
42 See 86 FR 21248. With respect to the Middle Tennessee Area: Even without the I/M program in 2022, emissions of NOX, VOC, and CO are projected to decrease by 47.1 percent, 15.1 percent, and 23.9
percent, respectively, from 2014 levels. With respect to Hamilton County: Even without the I/
M program in 2022, emissions of NOX, VOC, and CO are expected to decrease by 27.0 percent, 8.1
percent and 18.7 percent, respectively from 2014
levels.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

45885

EPA agrees that vehicles are cleaner now as a result of EPA rules since the early 2000s that control emissions from on-road vehicles. EPA refers commenters to Response A4 for more information concerning EPA standards.
Comment C2: A commenter opines that the I/M program is needed and notes the testing procedures and equipment need updated badly. The commenter goes on to state that A
vehicle should not fail emissions for a certain code that has nothing to do with emissions output. All vehicles should be tested by their exhaust to see exactly what the air to fuel ratio is. The software needs updates as well. Very old equipment. Other commenters expressed concerns about whether the testing procedures themselves met the intended purpose of the I/M program.
Some commenters questioned why the I/M program was only required in six counties in Tennessee and wanted the program removed for those counties, while others wanted the program expanded statewide and even nationwide. Other commenters expressed concerns about I/M program avoidance. They noted that citizens register their vehicles in surrounding counties that do not have I/M
requirements, yet commute back and forth or even live in areas where I/M is required. Some of the commenters expressed concern about program avoidance as support for the removal of the I/M program. Commenters opined on whether or not the cost of the program and related expenses were worth keeping the program. Some commenters expressed concern related to the impact of the test and repair costs on the elderly and low-income citizens.
Others asserted that this was a way to generate revenue and an unfair tax.
Those who did not support removal of the I/M program opined that the I/M
program was worth the benefit for air quality. Another commenter expressed concerns with regard to replacements to the I/M program. The commenter also stated that we . . . must be able to maintain the progress that has been made. One commenter opined that there is a likelihood that current income limitations will impact future replacement of aging vehicles. Another commenter said that the emissions program is doing more good than harm for the community. Some adverse comments indicated that removal of I/M
could lead to people not feeling the need to maintain their cars, which will lead to even bigger problems.
Response C2: These comments are all outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The design, technology, and implementation issues associated with
E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1