Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

27530

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
make progress toward attainment in the event of a milestone or attainment failure through additional emissions reductions at a rate similar to that specified under the RFP requirements, given the facts and circumstances of the nonattainment area. Therefore, an evaluation of what emissions reductions are surplus would occur when a new contingency measure is submitted, following a failure to meet an RFP
milestone or a failure to attain by the attainment date.
Comment 6: CBD asserts that the proposed rule approaches arbitrary and capricious decision making because it states that it is useful to distinguish RFP
contingency measures and attainment contingency measures but does not apply any relevant distinction between the two. CBD asserts that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it abandons a theory from a previous rulemaking that measures the adequacy of attainment contingency measures by attempting to predict what is necessary to make up a shortfall for a failure to attain without providing an explanation.
CBD says that the EPA needs to find a measure for attainment contingency measures that aligns with the statute and is rational. CBD suggests that the EPA could require a state to use RACM
measures not needed for expeditious attainment as contingency measures.
CBD notes that these measures might be de minimis, and that the EPA could require one year of RFP as a fallback.
Response to Comment 6: As explained in the proposed rule, for purposes of the ozone NAAQS the EPA
distinguishes RFP contingency measures from attainment contingency measures, respectively, as contingency measures to address potential failures to achieve RFP milestones and to address potential failure to attain the NAAQS.46
This distinction is useful for the purposes of evaluating the adequacy of the emissions reductions from the contingency measures once adopted and submitted, relative to the facts and circumstances of the area, and the anticipated needs to address a shortfall in the relevant years.
CBDs reference to the EPAs theory for measuring the adequacy of attainment contingency measures includes a citation to our proposed rulemaking for the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. This appears to refer to the EPAs finding for that area that the committed contingency measures that served as the basis for our conditional approval were projected to be sufficient to correct a failure to attain in less than a year from the attainment 46 86

FR 2318, 2333.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:03 May 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

date, and therefore reflect continued progress for purposes of the attainment contingency measure requirements.47
As described in the proposed rule, the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan shows that reductions from the proposed contingency measure, combined with additional emissions reductions from other sources that the state does not rely upon to meet other requirements in the nonattainment plan in the year following the attainment year, will exceed one years worth of RFP.48 For this reason and for the reasons described above, we disagree that our conditional approval of the attainment contingency measures is arbitrary and capricious.
A described above, we disagree that the EPAs longstanding approach to evaluating attainment contingency measures is not rational or does not align with the CAA. To CBDs specific suggestion that an area should use RACM measures not needed for expeditious attainment as contingency measures, we agree that this option may be available to some districts and states 49 but disagree with the commenters suggestion that the EPA
would be constrained against approving other measures that are consistent with the Act and the EPAs implementing regulations with respect to contingency measure requirements.
Comment 7: CBDs Appendix provides numerous comments directed at the EPAs NOX Substitution Guidance, contending that the EPAs NOX Substitution Guidance is illegitimate. These comments assert generally that the NOX Substitution Guidance contradicts CAA section 182c2C by recommending a procedure that fails to demonstrate any equivalence between VOC and NOX
reductions, relies on incorrect policy assumptions, and gives legal justifications that are without merit.
Response to Comment 7: Comments relating solely to the NOX Substitution Guidance are outside the scope of this rulemaking action. As noted in our proposed rule, our approval of the Districts use of NOX substitution is supported by local conditions and needs as documented in the modeling and 47 See
85 FR 68509, 68529 October 29, 2020. See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13511 explaining that where a failure to attain or meet RFP can be corrected in less than one year, the EPA may consider contingency measures that are proportionally less than one years worth of RFP
sufficient to correct the identified failure.
48 86 FR 2318, 2333 January 12, 2021.
49 See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 58066 August 24, 2016
suggesting measures identified as possible RACM
or RACT that are not needed for expeditious attainment may be suitable as contingency measures.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

analysis included in the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan, and is consistent with the requirements in CAA section 182c2C.
III. Final Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the 2018
Western Nevada County Ozone Plan as described in our proposed action.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rule and summarized herein, under CAA section 110k3, the EPA is taking final action to approve as a revision to the California SIP the following portions of the 2018
Western Nevada County Ozone Plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS submitted by CARB on December 7, 2018:
Base year emissions inventory element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172c3 and 182a1
and 40 CFR 51.1115;
RACM demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172c1 and 40 CFR 51.1112c;
Attainment demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182c2A and 40 CFR
51.1108;
ROP demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA
182b1 and 40 CFR 51.1110a4i;
RFP demonstration element as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172c2, 182b1, and 182c2B, and 40 CFR
51.1110a4iii; and Motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP milestone and attainment year of 2020, as shown below, because they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations for the 2008
ozone NAAQS approved herein and meet the other criteria in 40 CFR
93.118e.

TABLE 1TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR 2020 FOR
THE 2008 OZONE NAAQS IN WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY
Summer planning inventory, tpd 2020
VOC
Motor vehicle emissions budget

I

0.8

NOX

I

1.7

Source: Table 7 of the 2018 Western Nevada County Ozone Plan.

We are also taking final action to find that the:
Requirements for enhanced monitoring under CAA section 182c1
and 40 CFR 51.1102 for Western Nevada County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have been met; and
E:FRFM21MYR1.SGM

21MYR1