Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

45886

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
an I/M program are outside this scope of this rulemaking. With regard to the geographical coverage area of Tennessees I/M program, EPA notes that the I/M program is not currently mandated by the CAA or EPA
regulations in any part of Tennessee or throughout the entirety of the United States.43 Additionally, the cost structure of individual I/M programs is not a factor EPA evaluates when determining approvability of a SIP revision to remove I/M requirements. A
commenters assertion that the SIP
revision is a repeal and replace is not clear. Tennessees February 2020 SIP
revisions only addressed removal of the I/M program, without a replacement program or offsets.
See Responses A5 and A10 regarding the scope of EPAs review and the discretionary nature of Tennessees program, and the April 2021 SNPRM
regarding EPAs determination that section 110l requirements have been met.
Comment C3: Commenters suggest that EPA needs to monitor emissions released from mobile sources outside of I/M programs, such as planes, trains, trucks, and buses in order to either improve air quality or prevent it from deteriorating.
Response C3: These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. As discussed in Response A5, CAA section 110k requires EPA to approve SIP
revisions that meet all applicable CAA
requirements. While monitoring and regulating emissions from planes, trains, trucks, buses and any other mobile source that are not passenger vehicles is out of scope of this action, EPA notes that the Agencys Office of Transportation and Air Quality OTAQ
addresses emissions from the range of mobile sources. The commenters are encouraged to visit OTAQs website for more information at https
www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-airand-radiation-oarotaq to learn more about these programs.
Comment C4: A commenter opines that removing the I/M program is a bad idea and recalls polluting cars and trucks before the I/M program was enacted. The commenter goes on to say My only issue in Chattanooga is the mayor has put in bike lanes everywhere that are used very seldomly and reducing the auto lanes creates huge traffic backups. The commenter goes on to say that bike lanes cause more 43 Except as required by CAA sections 182a2B, 182b4, and 182c3 for certain ozone nonattainment areas and sections 187a4
and 187a6 for certain CO nonattainment areas.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

pollution and offsets what emissions benefits are achieved.
Response C4: For reasons explained in the April 2021 SNPRM, EPA has determined that section 110l requirements have been met. EPA also notes that cars and trucks are cleaner, absent the I/M program, because of Federal engine and fuel standards that all vehicles must comply with. Thus, vehicles today are much cleaner than they were when the I/M program was enacted in Hamilton County in the early 2000s, as vehicle and fuel standards have become more stringent since then.
To the extent that the commenter expresses concerns about bike lanes and their impact on traffic and emissions, these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking as I/M programs do not regulate bike lanes.
Comment C5: A commenter in support of the emissions testing in Hamilton County states that it not only has helped clean up the air in the county, it has also drawn other large businesses to our Area. Volkswagen and Amazon both came here due in part to Hamilton Countys emission testing.
Another commenter expresses concern for their industry and stated: If Chattanooga and Nashville Ozone Standards are changed in the future and the EPA is no longer able to effectively regulate on road mobile source emissions, stationary sources and our members off-road fleets could, and likely would, be over regulated due the inability to regulate the much more impactful on-road mobile sources. This could create a severe adverse impact to our industry.
Response C5: These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. In evaluating whether a SIP revision is approvable, EPA must consider the relevant CAA provisions and does not consider what impacts, if any, the SIP
revision would have for attracting businesses to an area. Nor does EPA try to anticipate what the State may do for future air quality planning. As detailed in the April 2021 SNPRM, EPA has determined that approval of these SIP
revisions will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other requirement of the CAA. EPAs action to remove the I/M
program does not preclude the state or local government from maintaining an I/
M program at the state or local level.
Comment C6: One commenter asserted that during Tennessees state comment period it did not have access to inventory materials in timeframes necessary to conduct an independent review and modeling of the I/M program removal.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Response C6: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it relates to Tennessees State comment period. In addition, EPA notes that the inventories were available to the public during EPAs public comment period on the June 2020
NPRMs and the April 2021 SNPRM. See regulations.gov document numbers EPAR04OAR201906180002 pdf pages 16 and 21 and EPAR04OAR
201906190002 pdf pages 16, 17 and 22.
V. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, EPA is finalizing the removal of Tennessee Regulation Chapter 1200329Light Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance;
and Nashville-Davidson County Regulation No. 8Regulation of Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles through Mandatory Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, from the Tennessee SIP, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
VI. Final Action EPA is approving the SIP revisions and removing the I/M requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area i.e., Davidson, Sumner, Rutherford, Williamson and Wilson Counties and Hamilton County from the Tennessee SIP. EPA is taking these actions because removing the requirements is consistent with the CAA and applicable regulations.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve SIP submissions that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011;
Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1