Quiero saber acerca de...

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

68418

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
commenter notes that even though EPA
never finalized the Proposed Repeal of the Glider Rule, EPAs enforcement office issued a memorandum on July 6, 2018, stating that it would not enforce the Glider Rule. The commenter states that although this no action assurance is being challenged in court and has been temporarily stayed, EPAs nonenforcement efforts underline the unreasonableness of relying on the emissions reductions from this rule as a basis for concluding that Marginal nonattainment areas will attain the 2015
NAAQS by 2021. The commenter also asserts that EPAs recent actions weakening the Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles and EPAs recent proposal to withdraw the Control Techniques Guidelines CTGs for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry call into question the accuracy of EPAs 2023
modeling, and that each deregulatory action . . . demonstrates the arbitrariness of EPAs assumption that Marginal nonattainment areas will comply with the 2015 NAAQS by 2021
without additional ozone-precursor pollution reductions from southeastern upwind states.
Response 3: As an initial matter, the updated 2023 modeling used to interpolate 2021 contributions that was relied on did not make different regulatory assumptions than the previous 2023 modeling released with the March 2018 memorandum regarding the Glider Rule and the light-duty CAFE
standards, so the comment is relevant to the updated modeling as presented in the SNPRM. However, EPA disagrees that EPAs updated air quality modeling did not properly account for expected changes in projected emissions that would result from changes to federal programs. The mobile source and nonEGU emissions inventories in both the previous and updated modeling do not reflect changes in emissions resulting from rulemakings finalized in calendar year 2016 or later, nor do they reflect any rules proposed but not yet finalized since 2016, as only finalized rules are reflected in modeling inventories. This reflects EPAs normal practice to only include changes in emissions from final regulatory actions in its modeling because, until such rules are finalized, any potential changes in NOX or VOC
emissions are speculative.
EPA did not finalize the Proposed Repeal of the Glider Rule. EPA
announced in the U.S. Office of Management and Budgets Spring 2020
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan that EPA is no longer pursuing this action, and the emission standards and other requirements for heavy-duty glider
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:00 Dec 01, 2021

Jkt 256001

vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits will remain in place as published in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles Phase 2 final rule on October 26, 2016 81 FR
73478. 19 Additionally, EPA withdrew the conditional no action assurance for small manufacturers of glider vehicles in a memorandum dated July 26, 2018.20
EPA did not finalize the proposed withdrawal of the CTGs for oil and natural gas sources. On March 9, 2018, for reasons explained in the Federal Register 83 FR 10478, EPA proposed to withdraw the 2016 CTG for the oil and natural gas industry. However, EPA
did not finalize the proposal to withdraw the CTG. EPA announced in the U.S. Office of Management and Budgets Spring 2020 Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan that the CTG will remain in place as published on October 27, 2016 81 FR 74798. 21
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have finalized the revisions to the greenhouse gas GHG
and CAFE standards for light duty vehicles.22 However, that final action is not expected to have a meaningful impact on 2021 ozone-precursor emissions. Because the vehicles affected by the 20172025 GHG standards would still need to meet applicable criteria pollutant emissions standards e.g., the Tier 3 emissions standards; see 79 FR
23414, the SAFE Vehicles Rule anticipated that any impacts of the SAFE Vehicles Rule on ozone precursor emissions would most likely be far too small to observe. See 85 FR 25041.
Comment 4: Two commenters disagree with EPA guidance that a 1 ppb contribution threshold is acceptable to determine whether an upwind contribution is significant, stating it is arbitrary and capricious. One commenter also asserts that allowing different states contributing to a collective problem to use different air quality threshold rates to avoid regulation is inequitable. The commenters refer to EPAs August 31, 2018 memorandum from Peter Tsirigotis, titled Analysis of 19 See also https www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202004&RIN=2060-AT79
last accessed October 10, 2021.
20 See https www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2018-07/documents/memo_re_withdrawal_of_
conditional_naa_regarding_small_manufacturers_
of_glider_vehicles_07-26-2018.pdf last accessed October 10, 2021.
21 See https www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202004&RIN=2060-AT76
last accessed October 10, 2021.
22 The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient SAFE
Vehicles Rule for Model Years 20212026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 85 FR 24174 April 30, 2020 SAFE Vehicles Rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air At Section 110a2DiI
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards August 2018
memorandum,23 and generally contend that the August 2018
memorandum provides an insufficient evaluation regarding the result of such approach on downwind states ability to attain and maintain the relevant NAAQS and shifts the responsibility for upwind pollution from upwind to downwind states.
Response 4: As the commenters correctly note, the August 2018
memorandum suggested that states could potentially justify the use of an alternative contribution threshold of 1 ppb with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in step 2 of EPAs fourstep interstate framework under the Good Neighbor provision. However, EPA is not making a determination in this final action to approve a states use of an alternative 1 ppb threshold.
Neither EPAs NPRM, SNRPM, nor this final action rely on a 1 ppb threshold and are instead based on a finding that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will not contribute at or above one percent of the level of the NAAQS at any projected nonattainment or maintenance receptor based on EPA
modeling. The use of the one percent threshold is consistent with all of EPAs ozone transport actions since the promulgation of the original CSAPR in 2011. For the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, where the impacts of a states emissions on all out of state receptors are below a one percent of the NAAQS
threshold, no further analysis is required to determine that that state is not contributing to an out of state air quality problem under the Good Neighbor provision. Therefore, there is no need to evaluate any potential higher contribution threshold, as discussed in the August 2018 memorandum, in the present final action.
Comment 5: A commenter states that ozone exposure has significant health impacts, particularly for the respiratory system. The commenter cites the 2013
EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants Final Report and several other health studies in order to describe numerous health impacts associated with ozone exposure in detail.
Response 5: EPA agrees that ozone has a number of adverse health impacts.
23 Available at https www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2018-09/documents/contrib_
thresholds_transport_sip_subm_2015_ozone_
memo_08_31_18.pdf.

E:FRFM02DER1.SGM

02DER1