Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

33536

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
demonstration.55 This section describes the statutory and regulatory requirements for an RFP demonstration, including the option under CAA section 182c2C to substitute NOX emissions reductions for VOC reductions, and the reasons for the EPAs approval of this demonstration. The discussion includes citations to CAA section 182c2C
and the implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as well as relevant portions of the preamble to the 2008 Ozone SRR that address the applicable requirements.56 The explanation that the Districts RFP
demonstration substitutes NOX
reductions for VOC reductions in the RFP demonstration, including the Districts substitution of NOX reductions for VOC reductions on a percentage basis, is summarized in Table 3 of the proposal.57
As the commenter notes, the proposed rulemaking does not include a specific justification in support of the Districts use of NOX substitution on a percentage basis. The discussion and tables in section III.C of our proposal document the need for additional NOX reductions exceeding the necessary additional VOC
reductions. As discussed in Response to Comment 2, the EPA finds that the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP and additional technical documentation provide sufficient evidence that NOX
emissions reductions are more effective than VOC reductions on a percentage basis. This conclusion was based on an analysis of ambient data, pollution transport patterns, the magnitude of upwind area emissions, and basic scientific knowledge about the VOC:NOX ratios downwind of large urban areas. As addressed above, given this need for NOX reductions and the modeled anticipated impact on Eastern Kern, substituting NOX for VOC on a percentage-reduction basis represents a conservative approach that will result in equivalent or greater reductions in ozone concentrations than would result through the VOC-only reductions required under CAA section 182c2B.
As the commenter notes, this approach is consistent with the procedures outlined in the EPAs 1993
NOX Substitution Guidance. However, as the commenter also notes, the NOX
Substitution Guidance is non-binding, and the EPA must ensure that any use of NOX substitution is reasonable in light of local conditions and needs.58 In 55 85

FR 68268, 6827468276.
at 6827468276 see footnotes 55 and 65.
57 Id. at 6827568276.
58 See NO Substitution Guidance at 3 noting X
that the EPA approves substitution proposals on a 56 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Jun 24, 2021

Jkt 253001

this case, our approval is supported by the NOX reductions being more effective than VOC in the area, and the need for NOX reductions as set out in the control strategies for the upwind SJV and SCAB.
For this reason, we find that the proposed rulemaking and associated supporting documents included in the docket for that action provide sufficient documentation that the NOX
substitution used in the Districts RFP
demonstration is consistent with CAA
section 182c2C, and we disagree that the EPA would be required to repropose with additional analysis or justification.
Comment 5: CBD provides numerous comments directed at the EPAs NOX
Substitution Guidance, contending that if the EPA intended to adopt the positions set forth in the NOX
Substitution Guidance, the proposal would be arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law because of problems with the NOX Substitution Guidance.
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 5: Comments relating solely to the NOX Substitution Guidance are outside the scope of this rulemaking action. As noted in our Response to Comment 4 above, our approval of the Districts use of NOX
substitution is supported by local conditions and needs as documented in the modeling and analysis included in the 2017 Eastern Kern Ozone SIP, and is consistent with the requirements in CAA section 182c2C.
Comment 6: CBD asserts that, because the EPA must disapprove the submitted RFP demonstration, the EPA
cannot determine that the motor vehicle emission budgets MVEBs are allowable as a portion of the total allowable emissions to meet RFP, and with no measure of total allowable emissions for RFP, there is no basis for approval of the MVEBs.
Response to Comment 6: As discussed in responses to comments 1
through 4, the EPA concludes that the RFP demonstration can be approved independently of the attainment demonstration and that the substitution of NOX emissions reductions for VOC
emissions reductions in the RFP
demonstration is adequately supported.
In this final rule, on the basis of the case-by-case basis, including any reasonable substitution proposal.

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

rationale presented in the proposed rule and in our responses to comments, we are taking final action to approve the RFP demonstration and related MVEBs.
Comment 7: CBD contends that the MVEBs must be consistent with attainment requirements as well as RFP
requirements, and in the absence of an approved attainment demonstration and control strategy, the RFP MVEBs must be disapproved. In support of this contention, CBD cites selected portions of CAA section 176c and the EPAs transportation conformity rule. First, under section 176c1Biii, CBD
notes that a Federal action cannot delay timely attainment of any standard, and without an approved attainment demonstration and control strategy, which could require VOC and NOX emissions reductions beyond those required by section 182c2C, there is no way to tell if a transportation plan, improvement program, or project will delay timely attainment of the 2008
ozone standards, even if it stays within the proposed MVEBs.
Second, CBD notes that, under the EPAs rules for transportation conformity, the term control strategy implementation plan revision is defined as the implementation plan which contains specific strategies for controlling the emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAA requirements for demonstrations of reasonable further progress and attainment. 59 For attainment plans as opposed to maintenance plans, MVEBs are in part defined as that portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved control strategy implementation plan revision. 60 Thus, CBD argues that the MVEBs depend on the control strategy implementation plan revision, which must demonstrate both RFP and attainment.
In addition, CBD notes that the particular MVEBs proposed for approval are derived from the projected on-road mobile source emissions estimates in the attainment year 2020 emissions inventory upon which the attainment demonstration is based, and thus must be consistent with attainment requirements as well as RFP
requirements. Because the EPA has not approved the attainment demonstration, including the projected attainment year emissions inventory, CBD argues that the EPA cannot approve the MVEBs that derive from that inventory.
Response to Comment 7: First, we acknowledge that the MVEBs are derived from the projected attainment 59 40
60 Id.

E:FRFM25JNR1.SGM

CFR 93.101 emphasis added.
emphasis added.

25JNR1