Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Lake Tahoe; Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan, 13235-13243 [2017-04771]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13235
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
§ 52.1220
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
EPA—APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS
Name of source
*
Rochester Public Utilities,
Silver Lake Plant.
*
*
*
State
effective
date
Permit No.
*
10900011–005
*
11/25/15
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0399; FRL–9958–11–
Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Lake
Tahoe; Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Nevada
(‘‘State’’). On April 3, 2012, the State of
Nevada submitted to the EPA a second
10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP)
for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area
(‘‘Area’’) for the carbon monoxide (CO)
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’). This LMP
addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS for a second 10-year period
beyond the original 10-year
maintenance period. On August 26,
2016, the State amended the 2012
submittal with a supplemental SIP
submittal (‘‘2016 supplement’’ or
‘‘supplement’’). The EPA is also
approving the 2011 emissions
inventory, the 2024 projected emissions
inventory and the revised alternative
monitoring strategy included with the
2016 supplement. We are taking these
actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’).
DATES: This rule is effective on May 9,
2017 without further notice, unless the
EPA receives adverse comments by
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
16:43 Mar 09, 2017
*
3/10/17, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
[FR Doc. 2017–04694 Filed 3–9–17; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EPA approval date
Jkt 241001
*
Comments
*
*
*
Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR
Section 50.4, SO2 SIP; Title I Condition: 40 CFR
pt. 52, subp. Y’’ and ‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR
Section 50.6, PM10 SIP; Title I Condition: 40
CFR pt. 52, subp. Y’’.
*
April 10, 2017. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2015–0399 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Kelly, Planning Office (Air-2), Air
Division, Region IX, Environmental
Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
(415) 947–4151, kelly.johnj@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area’s CO Limited
Maintenance Plan
B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy
C. Adjacent Maintenance Areas in
California
D. Transportation Conformity
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
II. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s
Submittal
A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
B. Alternative Monitoring Strategy
C. Attainment Emissions Inventory
D. Maintenance Demonstration
E. Transportation Conformity
F. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Network
G. Verification of Continued Attainment
H. Contingency Plan
III. Public Comment and Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area’s CO
Limited Maintenance Plan
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990,
the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area was
designated as nonattainment and
classified as a ‘‘not classified’’ CO area.
This was because the Area had been
designated as nonattainment before
November 15, 1990, the date of
enactment, but had not violated the CO
NAAQS in 1988 and 1989, prior to
enactment. See 56 FR 56694 (November
6, 1991). On October 27, 2003, the State
of Nevada submitted a request to the
EPA to redesignate the Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the CO
NAAQS. Along with this request, the
State submitted a CAA section 175A(a)
LMP that demonstrated that the Area
would maintain the CO NAAQS for 10
years following our approval of the
redesignation request. A LMP is an
option whereby an area’s maintenance
demonstration is considered to be
satisfied for ‘‘not classified’’ areas if the
monitoring data show the design value
is at or below 7.65 parts per million
(ppm), or 85 percent of the level of the
8-hour CO NAAQS.1 We approved the
1 See the EPA guidance memorandum, ‘‘Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas,’’ from Joseph Paisie, Group
Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), to Air Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
Continued
10MRR1
13236
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
State’s redesignation request and 10year LMP on December 15, 2003,
effective February 13, 2004. See 68 FR
69611 (December 15, 2003).
Eight years after the EPA redesignates
an area to attainment, CAA section
175A(b) requires the state to submit to
the EPA a subsequent maintenance plan
covering a second 10-year period.2 This
second maintenance plan must
demonstrate continued compliance with
the NAAQS during this second 10-year
period. To fulfill this requirement of the
CAA, the State submitted to the EPA on
April 3, 2012, the second 10-year update
of the Area’s CO maintenance plan
titled ‘‘2012 Revision to the Nevada
State Implementation Plan: Updated
Limited Maintenance Plan for the
Nevada Side of the Lake Tahoe Basin,
Including Douglas, Carson City and
Washoe Counties’’ (hereinafter, ‘‘2012
plan’’ or ‘‘plan’’). On August 26, 2016,
the State amended the plan with a
supplemental submittal. With this
action, we are approving the 2012 plan,
as amended by the 2016 supplement.
The 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9.0 ppm is
attained when such value is not
exceeded more than once a year. See 40
CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Lake Tahoe Nevada
Area has attained the 8-hour CO
NAAQS from 1979 to the present.
According to the CO LMP guidance,
areas that have design values (2nd
highest maximum CO concentration) at
or below 7.65 ppm (that is, at or below
85 percent of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for
eight consecutive quarters qualify to use
the LMP option. The Area qualified for
and used the EPA’s CO LMP option for
the first 10-year maintenance period.
See 68 FR 69611. For the 2012 plan, the
State again used the LMP option to
demonstrate continued maintenance of
the CO NAAQS in the Area. We have
determined that the Area continues to
qualify for the LMP option because the
design value at the time the State
adopted the plan was 3.1 ppm, based on
eight consecutive quarters of certified
data from 2010 and 2011.3
(‘‘CO LMP guidance’’). Also note that the EPA uses
the terms ‘‘nonclassifiable’’ and ‘‘not classified’’
interchangeably with respect to CO nonattainment
areas. See e.g., 57 FR 13498, 13535 (April 16, 1992).
2 In this case, the initial maintenance period
extended through 2014. Thus, the second 10-year
period extends through 2024.
3 See Table 2. Additionally, according to the CO
LMP guidance, an area using the LMP option must
continue to have a design value ‘‘at or below 7.65
ppm until the time of final EPA action on the
redesignation.’’ See CO LMP guidance, page 2.
Although this action is not a redesignation but
merely approval of a second 10-year maintenance
plan, we note that the Area would meet this
requirement if it applied, even with the higher
design value (i.e., 5.4 ppm for 2011–2012) measured
after the State submitted the 2012 plan to the EPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy
The State’s 2012 plan included
notification to the EPA that the State
intended to discontinue monitoring for
CO at the Stateline, Nevada location and
that the State would submit a separate
request to discontinue CO monitoring.
The 2012 plan included the State’s
alternative monitoring strategy for
monitoring continued attainment of the
CO NAAQS in the Area. The State
submitted the alternative monitoring
strategy to enable it to conserve
resources by discontinuing the only
remaining gaseous CO ambient monitor
in the Lake Tahoe basin (‘‘basin’’). The
State’s alternative monitoring strategy
relies on vehicle counts collected from
automatic traffic recorders in the Area.
Gaseous CO ambient monitoring is
triggered when a specified level of
higher vehicle counts is exceeded.
Shortly after its submittal of the 2012
plan, the State submitted a request to
discontinue the CO monitor located at
Harvey’s Resort and Hotel in Stateline,
Nevada (hereinafter, the ‘‘Harvey’s
monitor’’).4 This action does not address
the State’s request to discontinue the
Harvey’s monitor. The EPA intends to
respond to the State’s request in a future
action. In 2016, the State submitted the
supplement to include, among other
things, a revised alternative CO
monitoring strategy.
C. Adjacent Maintenance Areas in
California
In addition to the Lake Tahoe Nevada
Area, there are two adjacent CO
maintenance areas to the west just over
the Nevada-California state line. These
two areas occupy the remainder of the
basin on the California side. The Lake
Tahoe North Shore area and the Lake
Tahoe South Shore area are both
California maintenance areas for CO. In
1998, the EPA redesignated both areas
to attainment and approved
maintenance plans for each as revisions
to the California SIP. See 63 FR 15305
(March 31, 1998). At the conclusion of
their initial 10-year maintenance period,
the EPA approved second 10-year
maintenance plans for each area as a
revision to the California SIP, effective
January 30, 2006. See 70 FR 71776
(November 30, 2005). The second 104 The State’s request to discontinue CO
monitoring for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area was
submitted to the EPA on April 25, 2012. See letter
from Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality
Planning, Division of Environmental Protection,
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
State of Nevada, to Matthew Lakin, Chief, Air
Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, U.S. EPA
Region 9, subject ‘‘Discontinuation of the SLAMS
CO Monitor at Harvey’s Resort and Hotel, Stateline,
Nevada (AQS ID #32–005–0009–4201–1).’’
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
year maintenance plans for each of the
two California areas demonstrated
maintenance through 2018.
D. Transportation Conformity
Section 176(c) of the Act defines
conformity as meeting the SIP’s purpose
of eliminating or reducing the severity
and number of violations of the NAAQS
and achieving expeditious attainment of
such standards. The Act further defines
transportation conformity to mean that
no federal transportation activity will:
(1) Cause or contribute to any new
violation of any standard in any area; (2)
increase the frequency or severity of any
existing violation of any standard in any
area; or (3) delay timely attainment of
any standard or any required interim
emission reductions or other milestones
in any area. The federal transportation
conformity rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 93
subpart A) sets forth the criteria and
procedures for demonstrating and
assuring conformity of transportation
plans, programs and projects that are
developed, funded or approved by the
U.S. Department of Transportation, and
by metropolitan planning organizations
or other recipients of federal funds
under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Laws.
The transportation conformity rule
applies within all nonattainment and
maintenance areas for transportationrelated criteria pollutants. See 40 CFR
93.102(b). As prescribed by the
transportation conformity rule, once an
area has an applicable SIP with motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or
‘‘budgets’’), the expected emissions from
planned transportation activities must
be consistent with such established
budgets for that area.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s
Submittal
The following are the key elements of
an LMP for CO: Attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring
network, verification of continued
attainment, contingency plan, and
conformity determinations.5 The 2012
plan contains the following sections to
address these elements: (1) An
introductory section containing a
general discussion of plan approvals for
the Area and its redesignation to
attainment; (2) a maintenance plan
section including subsections on
monitoring data for the Area, air quality
trends and background on the State’s
intention to discontinue monitoring CO
at the Harvey’s site; (3) a section titled
‘‘Verification of Continued Attainment’’
that addresses population change, traffic
volumes, meteorology and the State’s
5 See
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
CO LMP guidance, pp. 3–5.
10MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
surrogate monitoring method; (4)
contingency measures for the Area; and
(5) transportation conformity
requirements.
The 2016 supplement revises several
sections of the 2012 plan and contains
an emissions inventory. Below, we
describe our evaluation of the 2012 plan
and 2016 supplement as they pertain to
each of the required LMP elements.
The EPA evaluation sections that
follow appear generally in the order of
appearance of each section in the State’s
2012 plan. Exceptions include the
monitoring data, which the EPA
includes first to provide background
and context for the State’s submittal,
and the emissions inventory. The
inventory is the first element listed in
the CO LMP guidance. It wasn’t
submitted as part of the 2012 plan but
was included in the 2016 supplement.
A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
As noted previously, the primary
NAAQS for CO are: 9 ppm (or 10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8hour average concentration not to be
exceeded more than once per year and
35 ppm (or 40 milligrams per cubic
meter) for a 1-hour average
concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year. See 40 CFR 50.8(a).
The 2012 plan includes a summary of
8-hour CO design values for the years
1975 to 2011, the year prior to the
State’s submittal of the plan. See 2012
plan, Table 2, pp. 5–6. Table 1 shows
the complete, quality assured and
certified ambient air monitoring design
values for CO for the years 1998 to
2012.6 The first maintenance plan for
the Area covered the years 2004 to 2014.
The 2012 plan covers the years 2014 to
2024. The year 2012 is the last year for
which we have complete, quality
assured and certified design values for
CO in the Area.
Since 1984, no Lake Tahoe Nevada
Area CO monitor has registered an 8hour design value greater than 6.6
ppm,7 which is 73 percent of the 9 ppm
NAAQS, and since 2005, no monitor has
registered a design value greater than
5.4 ppm, 60 percent of the NAAQS.8
The EPA also notes that the Area never
violated the 1-hour CO NAAQS.
6 Design values were derived from EPA’s Air
Quality System. For 1-hour CO design values, see
the Lake Tahoe Nevada 1-Hour CO 1975–2013
Maximum Values Report, dated September 26,
2016. For 8-hour CO design values, see the Lake
Tahoe Nevada 8-Hour CO 1975–2013 Maximum
Values Report, dated September 21, 2016. Design
values for each two-year period were derived from
the annual values shown in these reports.
7 See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5–6.
8 See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5–6. See also Table
1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
13237
TABLE 1—CARBON MONOXIDE DESIGN counts in the Area. The State reasons
VALUES FOR LAKE TAHOE NEVADA that motor vehicles are the major
contributor to CO pollution in the Area
AREA, 1998–2012
Design value
(ppm)
Years
1-hour
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
8-hour
9.5
12.1
12.1
13.2
13.2
11.2
9.4
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
6.8
9.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
6.1
6.5
6.5
4.4
3.6
3.7
3.7
2.6
3.1
3.1
5.4
B. Alternative Monitoring Strategy
Citing the consistently low CO
monitor values described above, and
expressing a desire to conserve
monitoring resources, the State
requested in an April 25, 2012 letter that
the EPA allow discontinuation of
ambient air CO monitoring in the Lake
Tahoe Nevada Area and instead use a
surrogate monitoring method for
monitoring maintenance of the CO
NAAQS (‘‘surrogate method’’ or
‘‘surrogate’’).9 This surrogate method
was initially set forth in the 2012 plan.
In its 2016 supplement, the State
replaced the section on its surrogate
monitoring method described in the
2012 plan. See 2012 plan, section 3.2.4
on page 14 titled ‘‘Surrogate Monitoring
Method,’’ and 2016 supplement, section
I, titled ‘‘Revision to Section 3.2.4 of the
2012 CO LMP,’’ on page 1.
Under the EPA’s monitoring
regulations, a State and Local Air
Monitoring Station may be discontinued
if the monitor in question has not
measured violations of the applicable
NAAQS in the previous five years, and
the approved SIP provides for a specific,
reproducible approach to representing
the air quality of the affected county in
the absence of actual monitoring data.
See 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3). Accordingly, the
EPA has evaluated whether the
surrogate method constitutes a specific,
reproducible approach to representing
the air quality of the Lake Tahoe Nevada
Area.10 As noted previously, the State’s
surrogate method relies on vehicle
9 See
footnote 4.
EPA will evaluate whether the Harvey’s
monitor has measured violations of the applicable
NAAQS in the previous five years when we take a
separate action to approve or disapprove the State’s
request to discontinue the Harvey’s monitor under
40 CFR 58.14(c).
10 The
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is
an indicator of growth and can therefore
be used as a surrogate for monitoring of
CO.11 In particular, the State points to
the long-term downward trend in both
CO design values and annual average
daily traffic (AADT) over the 2001–2010
period.12 Citing in the supplement the
potential for high ambient air CO
concentrations during winter months,
the State presents a surrogate approach
that uses monthly average daily traffic
counts (MADT) during the CO ‘‘season’’
months (i.e., October 1 to March 31).
Although both VMT and AADT are
measures of traffic volume, AADT has
the advantage in representing air quality
in that it is measured in the Area on a
daily basis and at two locations. While
the State chose, in the 2012 plan, to use
annual AADT as the measure of traffic
volume, in the 2016 supplement the
State chose to use the more narrowly
focused MADT, calculated from traffic
counts during the CO season. The State
will perform an annual review utilizing
MADT counts collected in the Area by
the Nevada Department of
Transportation’s permanent automatic
traffic recorders in Incline Village, NV
to the north, and Stateline, NV to the
south.
In the supplement, the State lists
seasonal MADT levels measured at
these two traffic monitors from 2008 to
2015. See Table 2. Baseline MADT
levels for each site are calculated using
the average of 2008–2009, 2009–2010
and 2010–2011 seasonal MADT levels.
These baseline levels are 24,201 for
Stateline and 10,260 for Incline Village.
Each spring, the State will compare the
latest rolling 3-year average MADT
levels to those baselines and report the
results to the EPA in the Area’s annual
monitoring network plan.13
11 The 2001 emissions inventory prepared by
NDEP for the original redesignation request and
maintenance plan estimated actual emissions
during the peak CO season (specifically, the month
of January) from mobile sources, including on-road
and non-road vehicles. Stationary and area sources
were not included in the inventory but are
considered de minimis considering the lack of
industrial activity in the area and the small
residential population. Therefore, the vehicle count
is a reasonable surrogate for overall CO emissions
in the area.
12 See 2012 Lake Tahoe plan, pp. 11–12.
13 The Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection (NDEP) submitted AADT reports in a
supplement to their ANPs for the initial
maintenance years 2012, 2013 and 2014 in a letter.
See letter, Phillip W. Shoopman, P.E., Chief, Bureau
of Air Quality Planning, NDEP, to Meredith
Kurpius, Chief, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air
Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated July 22, 2015.
Henceforth the NDEP commits to submit annual
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
Continued
10MRR1
13238
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—SEASONAL MADT COUNTS FOR LAKE TAHOE NEVADA AREA, 2008–2015
Stateline, NV
2008–2009 Season ..................................................................................................................................................
2009–2010 Season ..................................................................................................................................................
2010–2011 Season ..................................................................................................................................................
2011–2012 Season ..................................................................................................................................................
2012–2013 Season ..................................................................................................................................................
2013–2014 Season ..................................................................................................................................................
2014–2015 Season ..................................................................................................................................................
Baseline (average of 2008–11) ...............................................................................................................................
Initial Trigger (baseline plus 25 percent) .................................................................................................................
As an initial matter, if the State’s
annual MADT report shows an average
at either site that is 25 percent or more
above the baseline at that site (that is,
equal to or greater than 30,251 for
Stateline and 12,825 for Incline Village),
the State will conduct, concurrent with
continued MADT counting, ambient CO
monitoring at the Harvey’s monitor
during the following CO season. The
State commits to retain the Harvey’s
monitor site intact so that ambient
monitoring can be resumed soon after
being triggered. See 2016 supplement,
page 2. These levels (i.e., 30,251 for
Stateline and 12,825 for Incline Village)
represent the initial ‘‘trigger’’ for
ambient air quality monitoring. Once
triggered, the State will determine
whether to continue ambient air
monitoring. The State has developed a
matrix for this purpose. See Table 3.
After the initial trigger and upon
discontinuation of the first instance of
ambient air monitoring that it triggered,
the State identifies subsequent,
incrementally larger triggers for future
ambient air monitoring that would then
apply. These subsequent triggers would
apply at incremental 5 percent MADT
average levels above the first trigger.
That is, after the initial trigger where
MADT exceeds 25 percent of the
baseline, ambient monitoring would be
triggered a second time if the Area
measured more than 30 percent above
the MADT baseline, and then again at
35 percent, etc.
It is important to note that the trigger
levels to initiate ambient air monitoring
are independent of the matrix table for
continued air monitoring, and that the
triggering MADT level will be followed
by a new rolling average MADT by the
time monitoring of the subsequent CO
season is complete. To illustrate, the
initial MADT trigger in CO season 1
requires air monitoring in CO season 2.
MADT monitoring continues during CO
season 2 (and throughout the
maintenance period). The State then has
two possible triggers for ambient air
monitoring in season 3. First, if the
MADT level in season 2 is higher than
baseline plus 25 percent, plus 5 percent,
the State will monitor ambient air in
season 3. Independent of that, however,
the criteria in Table 3 could indicate
continued air monitoring. To emphasize
this point, we note that even a MADT
level 20 percent above baseline can
trigger continued ambient air
24,791
24,212
23,600
23,122
22,848
23,333
24,319
24,201
30,251
Incline
Village, NV
10,276
10,109
10,396
10,125
10,154
10,348
10,618
10,260
12,825
monitoring in season 3 (or in any
maintenance period CO season, where
ambient air monitoring was performed
in the prior season), if season 2 air
monitoring yielded concentrations in
excess of 75 percent of the CO NAAQS.
The decision matrix in Table 3
provides conditions for discontinuing
ambient air monitoring, once such
monitoring is triggered, in order to
return to a surrogate-only approach. The
matrix is structured such that, if the
MADT rises above the baseline and the
2nd-high CO concentration also rises to
approach the level of the standard,
ambient air monitoring is continued
during the next CO season. Conversely,
as MADT and CO concentrations
decline, the State would rely on the
MADT surrogate method alone. This
approach minimizes the amount of
ambient air monitoring needed and
State resources used in such monitoring
when CO concentrations are low with
respect to the standard, while ensuring
that ambient air quality is directly
monitored when conditions indicate
that concentrations may be trending to
elevated levels closer to the standard.
TABLE 3—DECISION MATRIX TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO CONTINUE CO MONITORING *
2nd-high 8-hour average CO concentration as percent of NAAQS
Percent change in 3-year rolling average seasonal MADT from the baseline
≤20
>20
>25
>30
≤50
...................................................................................................................
but ≤25 ......................................................................................................
but ≤30 ......................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
>50 but ≤65
S
S
S
S
S
S
M
M
>65 but ≤65
>75
S
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Source: see 2016 supplement, Table 6, page 3.
Key: S = surrogate method only; M = monitoring of ambient air continues in following CO season (in addition to ongoing MADT surrogate
method).
* Assumes ambient air monitoring has been triggered. This matrix is used to determine whether the State will continue ambient air monitoring,
once triggered.
If the MADT review or the decision
matrix indicates that ambient air quality
monitoring must be performed, the
monitoring data will be submitted to the
EPA’s Air Quality System. See
Supplement, page 2. The State will
AADT reports as part of their ANP for the Area. The
July 2015 ANP supplement shows that three-year
average AADT levels for 2009–2011, 2010–2012,
2011–2013 and 2012–2014 were all below the
2008–2010 baseline level at both AADT station
(Stateline and Incline Village). Therefore ambient
air monitoring was not triggered.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
include in its Annual Network Plan
(ANP) a report on MADT, as previously
stated. After the initial CO season air
monitoring is completed, the State will
summarize the results of such
monitoring in the next ANP.
Also, in each instance where ambient
air monitoring has been triggered by
MADT levels, once the ambient air
monitoring has been performed during
the next CO season, the State will also
include in its ANP the results of its
assessment of which conditions in the
matrix apply so as to determine whether
to continue ambient air monitoring. If
such monitoring is indicated, the State
would conduct the air monitoring and
then again report in the following ANP
the results of its assessment with regard
to the air monitoring performed and
which conditions of the matrix apply.
We note that the Area benefits from
the adjacent Lake Tahoe North Shore
and the Lake Tahoe South Shore
maintenance areas on the CA side of the
basin. In both of these areas, the State
of California’s ongoing motor vehicle
program continues to be implemented,
including the State’s low-emission
vehicles and clean fuels programs.14
The EPA finds that the Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection’s
(NDEP) surrogate monitoring method
constitutes a specific, reproducible
approach to representing the air quality
of the Area. Specific traffic volume
targets are listed by the State, and
comparison of future traffic volumes to
the trigger volumes are reproducible in
that the State is using data from
permanent traffic counters and
comparing that data to specific percentabove-baseline MADT trigger levels. If
air monitoring is triggered, the matrix
provides a specific set of conditions for
the State to determine whether to
continue air monitoring.
Given the long history of low CO
concentrations in the Area, the
relationship between CO levels and
MADT and the triggers for both restarting ambient air monitoring and,
once re-started, to discontinue that
monitoring, the EPA considers NDEP’s
surrogate to be adequate to represent CO
concentrations in the Area. We also note
that the EPA has previously approved
similar traffic volume-based monitoring
alternatives for CO in other LMPs.15
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
14 See
2012 Lake Tahoe plan, p. 12.
e.g., final approval of LMP and alternative
monitoring strategy for Billings, Montana CO
maintenance area, 80 FR 16571 (March 30, 2015);
final approval of LMP and alternative monitoring
15 See,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Accordingly, the EPA is approving the
surrogate monitoring method into the
Nevada SIP.
C. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should
develop a comprehensive, accurate
inventory of actual emissions for an
attainment year to identify the level of
emissions that are sufficient to maintain
the NAAQS. A state should develop this
inventory consistent with the EPA’s
most recent guidance on emissions
inventory development. For CO, the
inventory should reflect typical
wintertime conditions. Further, the
EPA’s CO LMP guidance recommends
that an LMP include an attainment
emissions inventory that represents
emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment.16 The NDEP
submitted such an inventory for 2001 as
part of the original Lake Tahoe Nevada
Area redesignation request and
maintenance plan that the EPA
approved in 2003.17 The NDEP did not
include an attainment emissions
inventory in the 2012 plan. They
reasoned it wasn’t needed because they
provide CO point source emissions data
to the EPA as part of the National
Emission Inventory (NEI) process each
year and submits emissions model
inputs that enable EPA to develop a
comprehensive emissions inventory
every third year.
Subsequently however, in its 2016
supplement, the NDEP provided the
EPA with a 2011 emissions inventory
for the Area. The Area continued to
maintain the NAAQS in 2011,
immediately prior to submittal of the
2012 plan (see Table 1) and, as such,
2011 is an appropriate year for which to
provide the EPA with an emissions
inventory in support of the second
maintenance plan.
The supplement also provided a
projected emissions inventory for 2024,
with a least conservative and most
conservative projection. As noted in the
supplement, mobile sources account for
the vast majority of CO emissions in the
Area. The State’s initial 10-year
maintenance plan included an
emissions inventory for onroad and
nonroad mobile sources.18 Therefore,
the supplement provides a similar
strategy for Great Falls, Montana CO maintenance
area, 80 FR 17331 (April 1, 2015).
16 See CO LMP guidance, page 3.
17 See 68 FR 69611, 69614 (December 15, 2003).
18 See 68 FR 69611, 69615 (December 15, 2003).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13239
inventory for the second 10-year
maintenance plan.19
Starting with the NEI CO emissions in
2011 for Carson City, Douglas and
Washoe counties, each of which
accounts for a portion of the basin, the
State developed a 2011 inventory for the
Area. The NEI provides countywide
annual emissions for both onroad and
nonroad source categories. The State
adjusted NEI annual emissions from the
three counties to represent the Area’s
emissions by applying ratios of either
county-to-area VMT (for onroad) or
county-to-area population (for nonroad),
and then adjusted the resulting Area
annual emissions to seasonal emissions.
In order to provide a sense of trending
emissions over time, the State used the
same methodology to provide emissions
inventories for the Area for 2002, 2005
and 2008, and also presented the
emissions for 2001 from the Area’s first
10-year maintenance plan.
The State also prepared a future year
inventory for 2024, the last year of the
second 10-year maintenance plan. The
State developed the projected inventory
with input and data from the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).
TRPA used a travel demand model to
estimate both 2010 and 2020 AADT
under five development scenarios. The
State used the difference between the
AADT for 2010 and 2020 to develop
onroad emissions inventories from 2011
to 2024 for the five TRPA development
scenarios, resulting in a ‘‘leastconservative’’ and a ‘‘mostconservative’’ projection of emissions in
2024.
Table 4 is the summary of mobile
source emissions inventories between
2001 and 2024, contained in the 2016
supplement. See 2016 supplement,
Appendix A, page A–6. As shown in
Table 4, the State estimates both that
emissions in 2011 were 23 percent
lower than in 2001, and that emissions
in 2024 are projected to be between 13
percent and 25 percent lower than in
2001. These declining emissions levels
are consistent with the traffic-based
methodology the State chose for its
surrogate method to monitor air quality
in the Area.
19 The State included an attachment to its 2016
supplement titled ‘‘Mobile Source Emissions
Inventory and Future Year Projections for the 2012
Lake Tahoe Basin Carbon Monoxide Limited
Maintenance Plan,’’ and requested that the EPA
append the attachment to its 2012 plan. See 2016
Supplement, page 4 and Attachment A.
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
13240
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—LAKE TAHOE NEVADA AREA CO SEASON MOBILE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
[Tons per year]
Year
2001
Onroad Emissions ........
Nonroad Emissions ......
Total Emissions ............
2002
5,832
375
6,207
2005
5,832
375
6,207
2008
5,766
323
6,089
2011
3,496
252
3,748
2024LC
4,529
207
4,736
4,396
178
4,574
2024MC
5,089
190
5,279
Key: LC = least conservative; MC = most conservative.
Source: 2016 supplement, page A–6.
The EPA finds that the attainment
emissions inventory in the 2012 plan, as
amended by the 2016 supplement, is
adequate.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
D. Maintenance Demonstration
We consider the maintenance
demonstration requirement to be
satisfied for areas that qualify for and
use the LMP option.20 As mentioned
above, a maintenance area is qualified to
use the LMP option if that area’s
maximum 8-hour CO design value for
eight consecutive quarters does not
exceed 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO
NAAQS). EPA maintains that if an area
begins the maintenance period with a
design value no greater than 7.65 ppm,
the combination of prevention of
significant deterioration permit
requirements, the control measures
already in the SIP, and federal measures
should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance over the 10-year
maintenance period. Therefore, the EPA
does not require areas using the LMP
option to project emissions over the
maintenance period. Because CO design
values in the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area
are consistently well below the LMP
threshold (see Table 1), the EPA finds
that the State has adequately
demonstrated that the Area will
continue to maintain the CO NAAQS in
the future.
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. See
CAA section 176(c)(1)(B). The EPA’s
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A requires that transportation
plans, programs and projects conform to
SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or
not they conform. To effectuate its
purpose, the conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions
from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation
20 See
CO LMP guidance, page 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Improvement Program (TIP) are
consistent with the MVEB contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or
maintenance plan. See 40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124. An MVEB is defined
as the level of mobile source emissions
of a pollutant relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance
demonstration to attain or maintain
compliance with the NAAQS in the
nonattainment or maintenance area.21
However, under the CO LMP
guidance and the EPA’s conformity rule,
budgets are treated as essentially not
constraining for the length of the
maintenance period. While the guidance
does not exempt an area from the need
to determine conformity, it explains that
the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting a MVEB because it
is unreasonable to expect that an LMP
area will experience so much growth in
that period that a violation of the CO
NAAQS would result.22 Therefore, for
the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, all actions
that require conformity determinations
for CO under our conformity rule
provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions
analysis and budget test requirements in
40 CFR 93.118.23 However, since LMP
areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity
determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and
projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects
must still demonstrate that they are
fiscally constrained (see 40 CFR 93.108)
and that they meet the criteria for
consultation and Transportation Control
Measure implementation (see 40 CFR
93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113,
respectively). In addition, projects in
LMP areas are required to meet the
applicable criteria for CO hot spot
analyses to satisfy project level
21 Further information concerning the EPA’s
interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in
the preamble to the EPA’s November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule. See 58 FR 62193—
62196 (November 24, 1993).
22 See CO LMP guidance, p. 4. See also 69 FR
40004, page 40063 (July 1, 2004), explaining
revisions to make the conformity rule consistent
with the EPA’s existing limited maintenance plan
policies.
23 See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
conformity determinations (see 40 CFR
93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must
also incorporate the latest planning
assumptions and models available (see
40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111,
respectively).24
Our approval of the 2012 plan, as
amended by the 2016 supplement,
effectively affirms our adequacy
finding 25 such that no regional
emissions analyses for future
transportation CO conformity
determinations are required for the CO
LMP period and beyond. The other
transportation conformity requirements
listed above continue to apply.
F. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Network
As noted previously, the EPA is
approving the State’s surrogate
monitoring method for the Lake Tahoe
Nevada Area as part of this action. We
conclude that this method is adequate to
verify continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS in the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area.
Accordingly, we find that the 2012 plan
contains adequate monitoring
provisions.
Prior to making their submittal of the
2012 plan, the State ran a CO
monitoring network that consisted of
the Harvey’s monitor. The State
provided ANPs to the EPA according to
requirements in 40 CFR part 58.26 The
EPA approved these ANPs.27 The EPA
also performed Technical System
24 See
40 CFR 93.109(b), Table 1.
68 FR 69611 (December 15, 2003).
26 There are four ANPs relevant to this action,
covering each of the three years prior to submittal
of the 2012 plan, as well as the year 2012, the last
year that the State monitored CO in the Area. See
NDEP’s ANPs for years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
27 The EPA sent NDEP approval letters pertaining
to 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 ANPs. See letters
from Joseph Lapka, Acting Chief, Air Quality
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to
Leo Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, dated October
30, 2009; from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Greg
Remer, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning,
NDEP, dated November 1, 2010; from Matthew
Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region
9 Air Division, to Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air
Quality Planning, NDEP, dated November 1, 2011;
and from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Rob
Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning,
NDEP, dated February 28, 2013, respectively.
25 See
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Audits (TSAs) on a periodic basis. The
last TSA the EPA performed for NDEP
that included CO was in 2011 (‘‘2011
TSA Report’’).28 In the 2011 TSA
Report, the EPA made no findings
specific to CO.29
G. Verification of Continued Attainment
The CO LMP guidance indicates that
an LMP should contain provisions for
continued operation of ‘‘an appropriate,
EPA-approved air quality monitoring
network’’ in the maintenance area, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 (the
EPA’s air quality monitoring
regulations). The guidance explains that
verifying continued maintenance is
especially important for an LMP since
the area will not have a cap on
emissions.30
The Lake Tahoe Nevada Area has
discontinued air quality monitoring for
CO. In today’s action, the EPA is
approving, in accordance with part 58,
a surrogate CO monitoring method that
relies on traffic counts. Since 2012,
when air quality monitoring was
discontinued, reports for traffic counts
in the Area have shown no significant
(25 percent or greater) increase. The
State commits to maintaining readiness
of the Harvey’s monitoring site during
the maintenance period, in case air
monitoring is triggered by traffic counts.
The State further has provided a
decision matrix for continued operation
of the monitor, in the event that either
CO concentrations or traffic counts are
elevated, in order to ensure both that
any violation of the CO NAAQS is
monitored directly, as well as to ensure
that contingency measures are
implemented at the level approved in
the first 10-year maintenance plan, at 85
percent of the NAAQS. The State has
already commenced, and commits to
continue during the maintenance
period, reporting annually to the EPA
the traffic counts in north and south
portions of the Area. The EPA therefore
determines that the LMP satisfies this
element of the CO LMP guidance.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
H. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to
promptly correct any violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation
of an area. Under 175A(d), contingency
28 The EPA’s final TSA prior to CO monitor
discontinuation was performed in 2011. See letter
and 2011 TSA Report enclosure from Deborah
Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division,
to Colleen Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, dated
August 1, 2013.
29 Ibid, p. 24.
30 See CO LMP guidance, p. 4, section c,
‘‘Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued
Attainment.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
measures do not have to be fully
adopted at the time of redesignation.
However, the contingency plan is
considered to be an enforceable part of
the SIP and should ensure that the
contingency measures are adopted
expeditiously once they are triggered by
a specific event. The EPA’s CO LMP
guidance recommends that, to meet the
contingency plan requirement, a state
should identify appropriate contingency
measures along with a schedule for the
development and implementation of
such measures.31
The State’s contingency plan for the
Area was approved in the first 10-year
LMP. Section 4 of the 2012 plan
addresses a contingency plan for the
Area for the second 10-year
maintenance period. However, the 2016
supplement requests that the EPA
replace section 4 of the 2012 plan with
a paragraph in section II of the 2016
supplement. Section II, ‘‘Revision to
Section 4 of the 2012 CO LMP,’’
indicates that the contingency plan in
the first 10-year maintenance plan will
apply for the second 10-year
maintenance period.
The contingency plan in the first 10year maintenance plan contains a
detailed, multi-step process for
addressing any potential CO NAAQS
violations. First, the plan provides a
triggering mechanism through which
NDEP will determine when a previolation action level is reached.
Second, the plan spells out the
procedures that will be followed if the
pre-violation action level is reached,
including activation of a multi-agency
Conformity Task Force, analysis of
monitoring data and development of
recommendations for action. Finally,
the plan provides for these
recommendations to be implemented by
NDEP and/or the appropriate local
jurisdictions in the Area, all of which
have committed to implementing
expeditiously any and all measures
necessary to achieve emissions
reductions needed to maintain the CO
NAAQS.32
We find that the contingency plan the
EPA approved in the first 10-year LMP,
which the State indicates in the 2016
31 See CO LMP guidance, p. 4, section d,
‘‘Contingency Plan.’’
32 As we noted in our approval of the first 10-year
maintenance plan, the following local jurisdictions
have passed resolutions promising to adhere to the
provisions of the contingency plan in the 2003 Lake
Tahoe Nevada Limited Maintenance Plan: The
Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, the
Washoe County District Health Department and the
State of Nevada Department of Transportation,
which is a participant in the Interagency
Consultation Procedures established by the Tahoe
Metropolitan Planning Organization. See 68 FR
69611, 69615, footnote 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13241
supplement will continue to apply
during the second 10-year maintenance
period, is sufficient to meet the
requirements of section 175A(d) of the
CAA and the CO LMP guidance.
III. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA is fully approving the
State of Nevada’s second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Area, titled
‘‘2012 Revision to the Nevada State
Implementation Plan: Updated Limited
Maintenance Plan for the Nevada Side
of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Including
Douglas, Carson City and Washoe
Counties,’’ submitted to the EPA on
April 3, 2012, and as amended by a
submittal on August 26, 2016, titled
‘‘2016 Supplement to Nevada’s 2nd 10Year Maintenance Plan at Lake Tahoe.’’
Consistent with the State’s request in
the 2016 supplement, we are approving
two sections of the 2016 supplement as
revisions to the 2012 plan and therefore
take no action on the original, 2012
versions of those sections. First, we are
not acting on section 3.2.4 of the 2012
plan, containing the State’s alternative
CO monitoring strategy and contingency
plan, because we are instead approving
into the SIP the revised section 3.2.4
included in the 2016 supplement, still
titled ‘‘3.2.4 Surrogate Method for
Tracking CO Concentrations.’’ Second,
we are not acting on section 4 of the
2012 plan, titled ‘‘4. Contingency
Measures,’’ because we are instead
approving into the SIP the revised
section 4 included in the 2016
supplement, titled ‘‘II. Revision to
Section 4 of the 2012 CO LMP.’’
Other parts of the 2016 supplement
that we are approving are the 2011
emissions inventory and 2024 projected
emissions inventory (i.e., Attachment A,
titled ‘‘Mobile Source Emissions
Inventory and Future Year Projections
for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan’’),
evidence of public participation (i.e.,
Attachment B, titled ‘‘Evidence of
Public Participation’’) and revised table
of contents for the 2012 submittal (i.e.,
Attachment F, titled ‘‘Replacement for
2012 CO LMP Contents Page’’).
Also consistent with the State’s
request in the 2016 supplement, our
approval takes no action on the 2016
supplement’s Attachments C, D and E,
titled respectively ‘‘Statistical Support
for Criteria Used to Determine Whether
to Continue CO Monitoring,’’ ‘‘Surrogate
Method Report for Tracking Carbon
Monoxide at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, 2011–
2015,’’ and ‘‘Inventory Preparation Plan
for the Mobile Source Emissions
Inventory and Future Year Projections
for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin Carbon
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
13242
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan.’’
These three attachments each have
header text that includes the statement
‘‘Not for inclusion in Nevada’s SIP.’’
We do not think anyone will object to
these approvals, so we are finalizing
them without proposing them in
advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register,
we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submitted plans. If
we receive adverse comments by April
10, 2017, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that the direct final
approval will not take effect and we will
address the comments in a subsequent
final action based on the proposal. If we
do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will
be effective without further notice on
May 9, 2017.
This action incorporates the 2012
plan, as amended by the 2016
supplement, and specific portions of the
2016 supplement itself, into the
federally enforceable SIP. Together,
these two submittals meet the
applicable CAA requirements, and the
EPA has determined they are sufficient
to provide for maintenance of the CO
NAAQS over the course of the second
10-year maintenance period through
2024.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40 CFR
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (see 58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (see
76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (see 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (see
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (see Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (see 64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (see 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (see 66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (see 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(see 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175. See
65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act (see 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
appropriate circuit by May 9, 2017.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the Proposed Rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
the EPA can withdraw this direct final
rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See CAA
section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 22, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD—Nevada
2. In § 52.1470, paragraph (e) is
amended by adding, under the table
heading ‘‘Air Quality Implementation
Plan for the State of Nevada,’’ two
entries ‘‘2012 Revision to the Nevada
State Implementation Plan for Carbon
Monoxide, April 2012’’ and ‘‘2016
Supplement to Nevada’s 2nd 10-Year
CO Limited Maintenance Plan at Lake
Tahoe, August 26, 2016’’ after the entry
‘‘Addendum to the October 27, 2003
letter of transmittal of the redesignation
request and maintenance plan,’’ to read
as follows:
■
§ 52.1470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
*
*
13243
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
Name of SIP provision
State submittal
date
EPA approval
date
Explanation
Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 1
*
2012 Revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan for Carbon
Monoxide, April 2012.
2016 Supplement to Nevada’s 2nd 10-Year
CO Limited Maintenance Plan at Lake
Tahoe, August 26,
2016.
*
*
*
Nevada portion of Lake
Tahoe Basin—portions of Carson City,
Douglas and Washoe
counties.
Nevada portion of Lake
Tahoe Basin—portions of Carson City,
Douglas and Washoe
counties.
*
4/3/2012
8/26/2016
*
*
*
[Insert Federal Register citation] 3/10/
2017).
*
*
Adopted on 4/3/2012. Approval excludes sections 3.2.4 and 4. With 2016 supplement, fulfills requirement for second ten-year maintenance plan.
[Insert Federal Register citation] (3/10/
2017).
Adopted on 8/26/2016. Approval includes revised sections 3.2.4 and 4 (alternative CO
monitoring strategy and contingency plan),
2011 emissions inventory and 2024 projected
emissions inventory (Attachment A), evidence
of public participation (Attachment B) and revised table of contents for 2012 submittal (Attachment F). Excludes Attachments C, D and
E.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada’s original 1972 SIP, which was divided into 12
sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans, are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small
Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or
quasi-regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR 52.1470(c).
1 The
[FR Doc. 2017–04771 Filed 3–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0305; FRL–9956–52–
Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan
Revisions, Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District; Prevention
of Significant Deterioration
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve revisions to the Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD
or District) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
State of California (State) is required
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
SUMMARY:
to adopt and implement a SIP-approved
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit program. We are
approving SIP revisions that would
incorporate a PSD rule for the VCAPCD
into the SIP to establish a PSD permit
program for pre-construction review of
certain new and modified major
stationary sources in attainment and
unclassifiable areas within the District.
DATES: This rule will be effective on
April 10, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0305. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YaTing (Sheila) Tsai, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3328, Tsai.Ya-Ting@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA’s Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
Table 1 lists the two VCAPCD rules
addressed by our proposed action and
this final action. On September 23,
2016, the EPA proposed to approve
VCAPCD Rule 26.13 into the California
SIP and to remove VCAPCD Rule 26.10
from the California SIP. (See 81 FR
65595.)
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
TABLE 1
Rule No.
Rule title
26.10 ...............................
26.13 ...............................
New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration ............................................................................................
New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) .................................................................................
We proposed these actions because
we determined that they complied with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:26 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Action
the relevant CAA requirements. Our
proposed action contains more
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Remove.
Approve.
information on the rules and our
evaluation.
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13235-13243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0399; FRL-9958-11-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Lake Tahoe; Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Nevada (``State''). On April 3, 2012, the
State of Nevada submitted to the EPA a second 10-year limited
maintenance plan (LMP) for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area (``Area'') for
the carbon monoxide (CO) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ``standards''). This LMP addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a
second 10-year period beyond the original 10-year maintenance period.
On August 26, 2016, the State amended the 2012 submittal with a
supplemental SIP submittal (``2016 supplement'' or ``supplement''). The
EPA is also approving the 2011 emissions inventory, the 2024 projected
emissions inventory and the revised alternative monitoring strategy
included with the 2016 supplement. We are taking these actions under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'').
DATES: This rule is effective on May 9, 2017 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comments by April 10, 2017. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0399 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, Planning Office (Air-2),
Air Division, Region IX, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 947-4151,
kelly.johnj@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area's CO Limited Maintenance Plan
B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy
C. Adjacent Maintenance Areas in California
D. Transportation Conformity
II. The EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's Submittal
A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
B. Alternative Monitoring Strategy
C. Attainment Emissions Inventory
D. Maintenance Demonstration
E. Transportation Conformity
F. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network
G. Verification of Continued Attainment
H. Contingency Plan
III. Public Comment and Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area's CO Limited Maintenance Plan
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area was
designated as nonattainment and classified as a ``not classified'' CO
area. This was because the Area had been designated as nonattainment
before November 15, 1990, the date of enactment, but had not violated
the CO NAAQS in 1988 and 1989, prior to enactment. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). On October 27, 2003, the State of Nevada submitted
a request to the EPA to redesignate the Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along with this request, the State
submitted a CAA section 175A(a) LMP that demonstrated that the Area
would maintain the CO NAAQS for 10 years following our approval of the
redesignation request. A LMP is an option whereby an area's maintenance
demonstration is considered to be satisfied for ``not classified''
areas if the monitoring data show the design value is at or below 7.65
parts per million (ppm), or 85 percent of the level of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS.\1\ We approved the
[[Page 13236]]
State's redesignation request and 10-year LMP on December 15, 2003,
effective February 13, 2004. See 68 FR 69611 (December 15, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the EPA guidance memorandum, ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,'' from Joseph
Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), to Air Branch Chiefs,
October 6, 1995 (``CO LMP guidance''). Also note that the EPA uses
the terms ``nonclassifiable'' and ``not classified'' interchangeably
with respect to CO nonattainment areas. See e.g., 57 FR 13498, 13535
(April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight years after the EPA redesignates an area to attainment, CAA
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit to the EPA a subsequent
maintenance plan covering a second 10-year period.\2\ This second
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS
during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of the
CAA, the State submitted to the EPA on April 3, 2012, the second 10-
year update of the Area's CO maintenance plan titled ``2012 Revision to
the Nevada State Implementation Plan: Updated Limited Maintenance Plan
for the Nevada Side of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Including Douglas, Carson
City and Washoe Counties'' (hereinafter, ``2012 plan'' or ``plan''). On
August 26, 2016, the State amended the plan with a supplemental
submittal. With this action, we are approving the 2012 plan, as amended
by the 2016 supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended
through 2014. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9.0 ppm is attained when such value is not
exceeded more than once a year. See 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Lake Tahoe
Nevada Area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1979 to the present.
According to the CO LMP guidance, areas that have design values (2nd
highest maximum CO concentration) at or below 7.65 ppm (that is, at or
below 85 percent of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight consecutive quarters
qualify to use the LMP option. The Area qualified for and used the
EPA's CO LMP option for the first 10-year maintenance period. See 68 FR
69611. For the 2012 plan, the State again used the LMP option to
demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Area. We have
determined that the Area continues to qualify for the LMP option
because the design value at the time the State adopted the plan was 3.1
ppm, based on eight consecutive quarters of certified data from 2010
and 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Table 2. Additionally, according to the CO LMP guidance,
an area using the LMP option must continue to have a design value
``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the
redesignation.'' See CO LMP guidance, page 2. Although this action
is not a redesignation but merely approval of a second 10-year
maintenance plan, we note that the Area would meet this requirement
if it applied, even with the higher design value (i.e., 5.4 ppm for
2011-2012) measured after the State submitted the 2012 plan to the
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy
The State's 2012 plan included notification to the EPA that the
State intended to discontinue monitoring for CO at the Stateline,
Nevada location and that the State would submit a separate request to
discontinue CO monitoring. The 2012 plan included the State's
alternative monitoring strategy for monitoring continued attainment of
the CO NAAQS in the Area. The State submitted the alternative
monitoring strategy to enable it to conserve resources by discontinuing
the only remaining gaseous CO ambient monitor in the Lake Tahoe basin
(``basin''). The State's alternative monitoring strategy relies on
vehicle counts collected from automatic traffic recorders in the Area.
Gaseous CO ambient monitoring is triggered when a specified level of
higher vehicle counts is exceeded.
Shortly after its submittal of the 2012 plan, the State submitted a
request to discontinue the CO monitor located at Harvey's Resort and
Hotel in Stateline, Nevada (hereinafter, the ``Harvey's monitor'').\4\
This action does not address the State's request to discontinue the
Harvey's monitor. The EPA intends to respond to the State's request in
a future action. In 2016, the State submitted the supplement to
include, among other things, a revised alternative CO monitoring
strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The State's request to discontinue CO monitoring for the
Lake Tahoe Nevada Area was submitted to the EPA on April 25, 2012.
See letter from Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning,
Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, State of Nevada, to Matthew Lakin, Chief, Air
Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, subject
``Discontinuation of the SLAMS CO Monitor at Harvey's Resort and
Hotel, Stateline, Nevada (AQS ID #32-005-0009-4201-1).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Adjacent Maintenance Areas in California
In addition to the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, there are two adjacent
CO maintenance areas to the west just over the Nevada-California state
line. These two areas occupy the remainder of the basin on the
California side. The Lake Tahoe North Shore area and the Lake Tahoe
South Shore area are both California maintenance areas for CO. In 1998,
the EPA redesignated both areas to attainment and approved maintenance
plans for each as revisions to the California SIP. See 63 FR 15305
(March 31, 1998). At the conclusion of their initial 10-year
maintenance period, the EPA approved second 10-year maintenance plans
for each area as a revision to the California SIP, effective January
30, 2006. See 70 FR 71776 (November 30, 2005). The second 10-year
maintenance plans for each of the two California areas demonstrated
maintenance through 2018.
D. Transportation Conformity
Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as meeting the SIP's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of
violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such
standards. The Act further defines transportation conformity to mean
that no federal transportation activity will: (1) Cause or contribute
to any new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the
frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any
area; or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The
federal transportation conformity rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 93 subpart A)
sets forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects that are
developed, funded or approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and by metropolitan planning organizations or other recipients of
federal funds under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws.
The transportation conformity rule applies within all nonattainment
and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants.
See 40 CFR 93.102(b). As prescribed by the transportation conformity
rule, once an area has an applicable SIP with motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets''), the expected emissions from planned
transportation activities must be consistent with such established
budgets for that area.
II. The EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's Submittal
The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification
of continued attainment, contingency plan, and conformity
determinations.\5\ The 2012 plan contains the following sections to
address these elements: (1) An introductory section containing a
general discussion of plan approvals for the Area and its redesignation
to attainment; (2) a maintenance plan section including subsections on
monitoring data for the Area, air quality trends and background on the
State's intention to discontinue monitoring CO at the Harvey's site;
(3) a section titled ``Verification of Continued Attainment'' that
addresses population change, traffic volumes, meteorology and the
State's
[[Page 13237]]
surrogate monitoring method; (4) contingency measures for the Area; and
(5) transportation conformity requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See CO LMP guidance, pp. 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 supplement revises several sections of the 2012 plan and
contains an emissions inventory. Below, we describe our evaluation of
the 2012 plan and 2016 supplement as they pertain to each of the
required LMP elements.
The EPA evaluation sections that follow appear generally in the
order of appearance of each section in the State's 2012 plan.
Exceptions include the monitoring data, which the EPA includes first to
provide background and context for the State's submittal, and the
emissions inventory. The inventory is the first element listed in the
CO LMP guidance. It wasn't submitted as part of the 2012 plan but was
included in the 2016 supplement.
A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
As noted previously, the primary NAAQS for CO are: 9 ppm (or 10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year and 35 ppm (or 40 milligrams per
cubic meter) for a 1-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year. See 40 CFR 50.8(a).
The 2012 plan includes a summary of 8-hour CO design values for the
years 1975 to 2011, the year prior to the State's submittal of the
plan. See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5-6. Table 1 shows the complete,
quality assured and certified ambient air monitoring design values for
CO for the years 1998 to 2012.\6\ The first maintenance plan for the
Area covered the years 2004 to 2014. The 2012 plan covers the years
2014 to 2024. The year 2012 is the last year for which we have
complete, quality assured and certified design values for CO in the
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Design values were derived from EPA's Air Quality System.
For 1-hour CO design values, see the Lake Tahoe Nevada 1-Hour CO
1975-2013 Maximum Values Report, dated September 26, 2016. For 8-
hour CO design values, see the Lake Tahoe Nevada 8-Hour CO 1975-2013
Maximum Values Report, dated September 21, 2016. Design values for
each two-year period were derived from the annual values shown in
these reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1984, no Lake Tahoe Nevada Area CO monitor has registered an
8-hour design value greater than 6.6 ppm,\7\ which is 73 percent of the
9 ppm NAAQS, and since 2005, no monitor has registered a design value
greater than 5.4 ppm, 60 percent of the NAAQS.\8\ The EPA also notes
that the Area never violated the 1-hour CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5-6.
\8\ See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5-6. See also Table 1.
Table 1--Carbon Monoxide Design Values for Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, 1998-
2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value
(ppm)
Years -----------------
1-hour 8-hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998-99............................................... 9.5 4.3
1999-00............................................... 12.1 4.3
2000-01............................................... 12.1 4.2
2001-02............................................... 13.2 6.1
2002-03............................................... 13.2 6.5
2003-04............................................... 11.2 6.5
2004-05............................................... 9.4 4.4
2005-06............................................... 7.8 3.6
2006-07............................................... 7.5 3.7
2007-08............................................... 7.5 3.7
2008-09............................................... 7.6 2.6
2009-10............................................... 7.6 3.1
2010-11............................................... 6.8 3.1
2011-12............................................... 9.2 5.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Alternative Monitoring Strategy
Citing the consistently low CO monitor values described above, and
expressing a desire to conserve monitoring resources, the State
requested in an April 25, 2012 letter that the EPA allow
discontinuation of ambient air CO monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Nevada
Area and instead use a surrogate monitoring method for monitoring
maintenance of the CO NAAQS (``surrogate method'' or ``surrogate'').\9\
This surrogate method was initially set forth in the 2012 plan. In its
2016 supplement, the State replaced the section on its surrogate
monitoring method described in the 2012 plan. See 2012 plan, section
3.2.4 on page 14 titled ``Surrogate Monitoring Method,'' and 2016
supplement, section I, titled ``Revision to Section 3.2.4 of the 2012
CO LMP,'' on page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the EPA's monitoring regulations, a State and Local Air
Monitoring Station may be discontinued if the monitor in question has
not measured violations of the applicable NAAQS in the previous five
years, and the approved SIP provides for a specific, reproducible
approach to representing the air quality of the affected county in the
absence of actual monitoring data. See 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3). Accordingly,
the EPA has evaluated whether the surrogate method constitutes a
specific, reproducible approach to representing the air quality of the
Lake Tahoe Nevada Area.\10\ As noted previously, the State's surrogate
method relies on vehicle counts in the Area. The State reasons that
motor vehicles are the major contributor to CO pollution in the Area
and that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an indicator of growth and can
therefore be used as a surrogate for monitoring of CO.\11\ In
particular, the State points to the long-term downward trend in both CO
design values and annual average daily traffic (AADT) over the 2001-
2010 period.\12\ Citing in the supplement the potential for high
ambient air CO concentrations during winter months, the State presents
a surrogate approach that uses monthly average daily traffic counts
(MADT) during the CO ``season'' months (i.e., October 1 to March 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA will evaluate whether the Harvey's monitor has
measured violations of the applicable NAAQS in the previous five
years when we take a separate action to approve or disapprove the
State's request to discontinue the Harvey's monitor under 40 CFR
58.14(c).
\11\ The 2001 emissions inventory prepared by NDEP for the
original redesignation request and maintenance plan estimated actual
emissions during the peak CO season (specifically, the month of
January) from mobile sources, including on-road and non-road
vehicles. Stationary and area sources were not included in the
inventory but are considered de minimis considering the lack of
industrial activity in the area and the small residential
population. Therefore, the vehicle count is a reasonable surrogate
for overall CO emissions in the area.
\12\ See 2012 Lake Tahoe plan, pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although both VMT and AADT are measures of traffic volume, AADT has
the advantage in representing air quality in that it is measured in the
Area on a daily basis and at two locations. While the State chose, in
the 2012 plan, to use annual AADT as the measure of traffic volume, in
the 2016 supplement the State chose to use the more narrowly focused
MADT, calculated from traffic counts during the CO season. The State
will perform an annual review utilizing MADT counts collected in the
Area by the Nevada Department of Transportation's permanent automatic
traffic recorders in Incline Village, NV to the north, and Stateline,
NV to the south.
In the supplement, the State lists seasonal MADT levels measured at
these two traffic monitors from 2008 to 2015. See Table 2. Baseline
MADT levels for each site are calculated using the average of 2008-
2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasonal MADT levels. These baseline
levels are 24,201 for Stateline and 10,260 for Incline Village. Each
spring, the State will compare the latest rolling 3-year average MADT
levels to those baselines and report the results to the EPA in the
Area's annual monitoring network plan.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)
submitted AADT reports in a supplement to their ANPs for the initial
maintenance years 2012, 2013 and 2014 in a letter. See letter,
Phillip W. Shoopman, P.E., Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning,
NDEP, to Meredith Kurpius, Chief, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air
Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated July 22, 2015. Henceforth the
NDEP commits to submit annual AADT reports as part of their ANP for
the Area. The July 2015 ANP supplement shows that three-year average
AADT levels for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013 and 2012-2014 were
all below the 2008-2010 baseline level at both AADT station
(Stateline and Incline Village). Therefore ambient air monitoring
was not triggered.
[[Page 13238]]
Table 2--Seasonal MADT Counts for Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, 2008-2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incline
Stateline, NV Village, NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008-2009 Season........................ 24,791 10,276
2009-2010 Season........................ 24,212 10,109
2010-2011 Season........................ 23,600 10,396
2011-2012 Season........................ 23,122 10,125
2012-2013 Season........................ 22,848 10,154
2013-2014 Season........................ 23,333 10,348
2014-2015 Season........................ 24,319 10,618
Baseline (average of 2008-11)........... 24,201 10,260
Initial Trigger (baseline plus 25 30,251 12,825
percent)...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, if the State's annual MADT report shows an
average at either site that is 25 percent or more above the baseline at
that site (that is, equal to or greater than 30,251 for Stateline and
12,825 for Incline Village), the State will conduct, concurrent with
continued MADT counting, ambient CO monitoring at the Harvey's monitor
during the following CO season. The State commits to retain the
Harvey's monitor site intact so that ambient monitoring can be resumed
soon after being triggered. See 2016 supplement, page 2. These levels
(i.e., 30,251 for Stateline and 12,825 for Incline Village) represent
the initial ``trigger'' for ambient air quality monitoring. Once
triggered, the State will determine whether to continue ambient air
monitoring. The State has developed a matrix for this purpose. See
Table 3.
After the initial trigger and upon discontinuation of the first
instance of ambient air monitoring that it triggered, the State
identifies subsequent, incrementally larger triggers for future ambient
air monitoring that would then apply. These subsequent triggers would
apply at incremental 5 percent MADT average levels above the first
trigger. That is, after the initial trigger where MADT exceeds 25
percent of the baseline, ambient monitoring would be triggered a second
time if the Area measured more than 30 percent above the MADT baseline,
and then again at 35 percent, etc.
It is important to note that the trigger levels to initiate ambient
air monitoring are independent of the matrix table for continued air
monitoring, and that the triggering MADT level will be followed by a
new rolling average MADT by the time monitoring of the subsequent CO
season is complete. To illustrate, the initial MADT trigger in CO
season 1 requires air monitoring in CO season 2. MADT monitoring
continues during CO season 2 (and throughout the maintenance period).
The State then has two possible triggers for ambient air monitoring in
season 3. First, if the MADT level in season 2 is higher than baseline
plus 25 percent, plus 5 percent, the State will monitor ambient air in
season 3. Independent of that, however, the criteria in Table 3 could
indicate continued air monitoring. To emphasize this point, we note
that even a MADT level 20 percent above baseline can trigger continued
ambient air monitoring in season 3 (or in any maintenance period CO
season, where ambient air monitoring was performed in the prior
season), if season 2 air monitoring yielded concentrations in excess of
75 percent of the CO NAAQS.
The decision matrix in Table 3 provides conditions for
discontinuing ambient air monitoring, once such monitoring is
triggered, in order to return to a surrogate-only approach. The matrix
is structured such that, if the MADT rises above the baseline and the
2nd-high CO concentration also rises to approach the level of the
standard, ambient air monitoring is continued during the next CO
season. Conversely, as MADT and CO concentrations decline, the State
would rely on the MADT surrogate method alone. This approach minimizes
the amount of ambient air monitoring needed and State resources used in
such monitoring when CO concentrations are low with respect to the
standard, while ensuring that ambient air quality is directly monitored
when conditions indicate that concentrations may be trending to
elevated levels closer to the standard.
Table 3--Decision Matrix To Determine Whether To Continue CO Monitoring *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd-high 8-hour average CO concentration as percent of NAAQS
Percent change in 3-year rolling average ---------------------------------------------------------------
seasonal MADT from the baseline <=50 >50 but <=65 >65 but <=65 >75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=20............................................ S S S M
>20 but <=25.................................... S S M M
>25 but <=30.................................... S M M M
>30............................................. S M M M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: see 2016 supplement, Table 6, page 3.
Key: S = surrogate method only; M = monitoring of ambient air continues in following CO season (in addition to
ongoing MADT surrogate method).
* Assumes ambient air monitoring has been triggered. This matrix is used to determine whether the State will
continue ambient air monitoring, once triggered.
If the MADT review or the decision matrix indicates that ambient
air quality monitoring must be performed, the monitoring data will be
submitted to the EPA's Air Quality System. See Supplement, page 2. The
State will
[[Page 13239]]
include in its Annual Network Plan (ANP) a report on MADT, as
previously stated. After the initial CO season air monitoring is
completed, the State will summarize the results of such monitoring in
the next ANP.
Also, in each instance where ambient air monitoring has been
triggered by MADT levels, once the ambient air monitoring has been
performed during the next CO season, the State will also include in its
ANP the results of its assessment of which conditions in the matrix
apply so as to determine whether to continue ambient air monitoring. If
such monitoring is indicated, the State would conduct the air
monitoring and then again report in the following ANP the results of
its assessment with regard to the air monitoring performed and which
conditions of the matrix apply.
We note that the Area benefits from the adjacent Lake Tahoe North
Shore and the Lake Tahoe South Shore maintenance areas on the CA side
of the basin. In both of these areas, the State of California's ongoing
motor vehicle program continues to be implemented, including the
State's low-emission vehicles and clean fuels programs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 2012 Lake Tahoe plan, p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA finds that the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection's (NDEP) surrogate monitoring method constitutes a specific,
reproducible approach to representing the air quality of the Area.
Specific traffic volume targets are listed by the State, and comparison
of future traffic volumes to the trigger volumes are reproducible in
that the State is using data from permanent traffic counters and
comparing that data to specific percent-above-baseline MADT trigger
levels. If air monitoring is triggered, the matrix provides a specific
set of conditions for the State to determine whether to continue air
monitoring.
Given the long history of low CO concentrations in the Area, the
relationship between CO levels and MADT and the triggers for both re-
starting ambient air monitoring and, once re-started, to discontinue
that monitoring, the EPA considers NDEP's surrogate to be adequate to
represent CO concentrations in the Area. We also note that the EPA has
previously approved similar traffic volume-based monitoring
alternatives for CO in other LMPs.\15\ Accordingly, the EPA is
approving the surrogate monitoring method into the Nevada SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., final approval of LMP and alternative monitoring
strategy for Billings, Montana CO maintenance area, 80 FR 16571
(March 30, 2015); final approval of LMP and alternative monitoring
strategy for Great Falls, Montana CO maintenance area, 80 FR 17331
(April 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Attainment Emissions Inventory
For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions that are sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with the EPA's
most recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For CO, the
inventory should reflect typical wintertime conditions. Further, the
EPA's CO LMP guidance recommends that an LMP include an attainment
emissions inventory that represents emissions during the time period
associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.\16\ The NDEP
submitted such an inventory for 2001 as part of the original Lake Tahoe
Nevada Area redesignation request and maintenance plan that the EPA
approved in 2003.\17\ The NDEP did not include an attainment emissions
inventory in the 2012 plan. They reasoned it wasn't needed because they
provide CO point source emissions data to the EPA as part of the
National Emission Inventory (NEI) process each year and submits
emissions model inputs that enable EPA to develop a comprehensive
emissions inventory every third year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See CO LMP guidance, page 3.
\17\ See 68 FR 69611, 69614 (December 15, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently however, in its 2016 supplement, the NDEP provided the
EPA with a 2011 emissions inventory for the Area. The Area continued to
maintain the NAAQS in 2011, immediately prior to submittal of the 2012
plan (see Table 1) and, as such, 2011 is an appropriate year for which
to provide the EPA with an emissions inventory in support of the second
maintenance plan.
The supplement also provided a projected emissions inventory for
2024, with a least conservative and most conservative projection. As
noted in the supplement, mobile sources account for the vast majority
of CO emissions in the Area. The State's initial 10-year maintenance
plan included an emissions inventory for onroad and nonroad mobile
sources.\18\ Therefore, the supplement provides a similar inventory for
the second 10-year maintenance plan.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 68 FR 69611, 69615 (December 15, 2003).
\19\ The State included an attachment to its 2016 supplement
titled ``Mobile Source Emissions Inventory and Future Year
Projections for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin Carbon Monoxide Limited
Maintenance Plan,'' and requested that the EPA append the attachment
to its 2012 plan. See 2016 Supplement, page 4 and Attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting with the NEI CO emissions in 2011 for Carson City, Douglas
and Washoe counties, each of which accounts for a portion of the basin,
the State developed a 2011 inventory for the Area. The NEI provides
countywide annual emissions for both onroad and nonroad source
categories. The State adjusted NEI annual emissions from the three
counties to represent the Area's emissions by applying ratios of either
county-to-area VMT (for onroad) or county-to-area population (for
nonroad), and then adjusted the resulting Area annual emissions to
seasonal emissions. In order to provide a sense of trending emissions
over time, the State used the same methodology to provide emissions
inventories for the Area for 2002, 2005 and 2008, and also presented
the emissions for 2001 from the Area's first 10-year maintenance plan.
The State also prepared a future year inventory for 2024, the last
year of the second 10-year maintenance plan. The State developed the
projected inventory with input and data from the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency (TRPA). TRPA used a travel demand model to estimate
both 2010 and 2020 AADT under five development scenarios. The State
used the difference between the AADT for 2010 and 2020 to develop
onroad emissions inventories from 2011 to 2024 for the five TRPA
development scenarios, resulting in a ``least-conservative'' and a
``most-conservative'' projection of emissions in 2024.
Table 4 is the summary of mobile source emissions inventories
between 2001 and 2024, contained in the 2016 supplement. See 2016
supplement, Appendix A, page A-6. As shown in Table 4, the State
estimates both that emissions in 2011 were 23 percent lower than in
2001, and that emissions in 2024 are projected to be between 13 percent
and 25 percent lower than in 2001. These declining emissions levels are
consistent with the traffic-based methodology the State chose for its
surrogate method to monitor air quality in the Area.
[[Page 13240]]
Table 4--Lake Tahoe Nevada Area CO Season Mobile Emissions Inventory
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2001 2002 2005 2008 2011 2024LC 2024MC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad Emissions........................ 5,832 5,832 5,766 3,496 4,529 4,396 5,089
Nonroad Emissions....................... 375 375 323 252 207 178 190
Total Emissions......................... 6,207 6,207 6,089 3,748 4,736 4,574 5,279
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: LC = least conservative; MC = most conservative.
Source: 2016 supplement, page A-6.
The EPA finds that the attainment emissions inventory in the 2012
plan, as amended by the 2016 supplement, is adequate.
D. Maintenance Demonstration
We consider the maintenance demonstration requirement to be
satisfied for areas that qualify for and use the LMP option.\20\ As
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS). EPA
maintains that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design
value no greater than 7.65 ppm, the combination of prevention of
significant deterioration permit requirements, the control measures
already in the SIP, and federal measures should provide adequate
assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period.
Therefore, the EPA does not require areas using the LMP option to
project emissions over the maintenance period. Because CO design values
in the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area are consistently well below the LMP
threshold (see Table 1), the EPA finds that the State has adequately
demonstrated that the Area will continue to maintain the CO NAAQS in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See CO LMP guidance, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. See CAA section 176(c)(1)(B). The
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are consistent with the MVEB contained in the control strategy
SIP revision or maintenance plan. See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and
93.124. An MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a
pollutant relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to
attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or
maintenance area.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule. See 58 FR 62193--62196
(November 24, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, under the CO LMP guidance and the EPA's conformity rule,
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period. While the guidance does not exempt an area from
the need to determine conformity, it explains that the area may
demonstrate conformity without submitting a MVEB because it is
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth
in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\22\
Therefore, for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, all actions that require
conformity determinations for CO under our conformity rule provisions
are considered to have already satisfied the regional emissions
analysis and budget test requirements in 40 CFR 93.118.\23\ However,
since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects must still demonstrate that
they are fiscally constrained (see 40 CFR 93.108) and that they meet
the criteria for consultation and Transportation Control Measure
implementation (see 40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In
addition, projects in LMP areas are required to meet the applicable
criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy project level conformity
determinations (see 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must also
incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available (see
40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See CO LMP guidance, p. 4. See also 69 FR 40004, page 40063
(July 1, 2004), explaining revisions to make the conformity rule
consistent with the EPA's existing limited maintenance plan
policies.
\23\ See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
\24\ See 40 CFR 93.109(b), Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our approval of the 2012 plan, as amended by the 2016 supplement,
effectively affirms our adequacy finding \25\ such that no regional
emissions analyses for future transportation CO conformity
determinations are required for the CO LMP period and beyond. The other
transportation conformity requirements listed above continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 68 FR 69611 (December 15, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network
As noted previously, the EPA is approving the State's surrogate
monitoring method for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area as part of this
action. We conclude that this method is adequate to verify continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area. Accordingly,
we find that the 2012 plan contains adequate monitoring provisions.
Prior to making their submittal of the 2012 plan, the State ran a
CO monitoring network that consisted of the Harvey's monitor. The State
provided ANPs to the EPA according to requirements in 40 CFR part
58.\26\ The EPA approved these ANPs.\27\ The EPA also performed
Technical System
[[Page 13241]]
Audits (TSAs) on a periodic basis. The last TSA the EPA performed for
NDEP that included CO was in 2011 (``2011 TSA Report'').\28\ In the
2011 TSA Report, the EPA made no findings specific to CO.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ There are four ANPs relevant to this action, covering each
of the three years prior to submittal of the 2012 plan, as well as
the year 2012, the last year that the State monitored CO in the
Area. See NDEP's ANPs for years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
\27\ The EPA sent NDEP approval letters pertaining to 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012 ANPs. See letters from Joseph Lapka, Acting
Chief, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division,
to Leo Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, dated October 30, 2009; from
Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air
Division, to Greg Remer, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning,
NDEP, dated November 1, 2010; from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Rob Bamford,
Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, NDEP, dated November 1, 2011;
and from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region
9 Air Division, to Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality
Planning, NDEP, dated February 28, 2013, respectively.
\28\ The EPA's final TSA prior to CO monitor discontinuation was
performed in 2011. See letter and 2011 TSA Report enclosure from
Deborah Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Colleen
Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, dated August 1, 2013.
\29\ Ibid, p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Verification of Continued Attainment
The CO LMP guidance indicates that an LMP should contain provisions
for continued operation of ``an appropriate, EPA-approved air quality
monitoring network'' in the maintenance area, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58 (the EPA's air quality monitoring regulations). The guidance
explains that verifying continued maintenance is especially important
for an LMP since the area will not have a cap on emissions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See CO LMP guidance, p. 4, section c, ``Monitoring Network/
Verification of Continued Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lake Tahoe Nevada Area has discontinued air quality monitoring
for CO. In today's action, the EPA is approving, in accordance with
part 58, a surrogate CO monitoring method that relies on traffic
counts. Since 2012, when air quality monitoring was discontinued,
reports for traffic counts in the Area have shown no significant (25
percent or greater) increase. The State commits to maintaining
readiness of the Harvey's monitoring site during the maintenance
period, in case air monitoring is triggered by traffic counts. The
State further has provided a decision matrix for continued operation of
the monitor, in the event that either CO concentrations or traffic
counts are elevated, in order to ensure both that any violation of the
CO NAAQS is monitored directly, as well as to ensure that contingency
measures are implemented at the level approved in the first 10-year
maintenance plan, at 85 percent of the NAAQS. The State has already
commenced, and commits to continue during the maintenance period,
reporting annually to the EPA the traffic counts in north and south
portions of the Area. The EPA therefore determines that the LMP
satisfies this element of the CO LMP guidance.
H. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. Under 175A(d),
contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of
redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency
measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a
specific event. The EPA's CO LMP guidance recommends that, to meet the
contingency plan requirement, a state should identify appropriate
contingency measures along with a schedule for the development and
implementation of such measures.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See CO LMP guidance, p. 4, section d, ``Contingency Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's contingency plan for the Area was approved in the first
10-year LMP. Section 4 of the 2012 plan addresses a contingency plan
for the Area for the second 10-year maintenance period. However, the
2016 supplement requests that the EPA replace section 4 of the 2012
plan with a paragraph in section II of the 2016 supplement. Section II,
``Revision to Section 4 of the 2012 CO LMP,'' indicates that the
contingency plan in the first 10-year maintenance plan will apply for
the second 10-year maintenance period.
The contingency plan in the first 10-year maintenance plan contains
a detailed, multi-step process for addressing any potential CO NAAQS
violations. First, the plan provides a triggering mechanism through
which NDEP will determine when a pre-violation action level is reached.
Second, the plan spells out the procedures that will be followed if the
pre-violation action level is reached, including activation of a multi-
agency Conformity Task Force, analysis of monitoring data and
development of recommendations for action. Finally, the plan provides
for these recommendations to be implemented by NDEP and/or the
appropriate local jurisdictions in the Area, all of which have
committed to implementing expeditiously any and all measures necessary
to achieve emissions reductions needed to maintain the CO NAAQS.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ As we noted in our approval of the first 10-year
maintenance plan, the following local jurisdictions have passed
resolutions promising to adhere to the provisions of the contingency
plan in the 2003 Lake Tahoe Nevada Limited Maintenance Plan: The
Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Washoe County District
Health Department and the State of Nevada Department of
Transportation, which is a participant in the Interagency
Consultation Procedures established by the Tahoe Metropolitan
Planning Organization. See 68 FR 69611, 69615, footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that the contingency plan the EPA approved in the first 10-
year LMP, which the State indicates in the 2016 supplement will
continue to apply during the second 10-year maintenance period, is
sufficient to meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA and
the CO LMP guidance.
III. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving the State of Nevada's second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Area, titled ``2012 Revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan:
Updated Limited Maintenance Plan for the Nevada Side of the Lake Tahoe
Basin, Including Douglas, Carson City and Washoe Counties,'' submitted
to the EPA on April 3, 2012, and as amended by a submittal on August
26, 2016, titled ``2016 Supplement to Nevada's 2nd 10-Year Maintenance
Plan at Lake Tahoe.''
Consistent with the State's request in the 2016 supplement, we are
approving two sections of the 2016 supplement as revisions to the 2012
plan and therefore take no action on the original, 2012 versions of
those sections. First, we are not acting on section 3.2.4 of the 2012
plan, containing the State's alternative CO monitoring strategy and
contingency plan, because we are instead approving into the SIP the
revised section 3.2.4 included in the 2016 supplement, still titled
``3.2.4 Surrogate Method for Tracking CO Concentrations.'' Second, we
are not acting on section 4 of the 2012 plan, titled ``4. Contingency
Measures,'' because we are instead approving into the SIP the revised
section 4 included in the 2016 supplement, titled ``II. Revision to
Section 4 of the 2012 CO LMP.''
Other parts of the 2016 supplement that we are approving are the
2011 emissions inventory and 2024 projected emissions inventory (i.e.,
Attachment A, titled ``Mobile Source Emissions Inventory and Future
Year Projections for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin Carbon Monoxide Limited
Maintenance Plan''), evidence of public participation (i.e., Attachment
B, titled ``Evidence of Public Participation'') and revised table of
contents for the 2012 submittal (i.e., Attachment F, titled
``Replacement for 2012 CO LMP Contents Page'').
Also consistent with the State's request in the 2016 supplement,
our approval takes no action on the 2016 supplement's Attachments C, D
and E, titled respectively ``Statistical Support for Criteria Used to
Determine Whether to Continue CO Monitoring,'' ``Surrogate Method
Report for Tracking Carbon Monoxide at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, 2011-2015,''
and ``Inventory Preparation Plan for the Mobile Source Emissions
Inventory and Future Year Projections for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin
Carbon
[[Page 13242]]
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan.'' These three attachments each have
header text that includes the statement ``Not for inclusion in Nevada's
SIP.''
We do not think anyone will object to these approvals, so we are
finalizing them without proposing them in advance. However, in the
Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously
proposing approval of the same submitted plans. If we receive adverse
comments by April 10, 2017, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval
will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent
final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on May 9, 2017.
This action incorporates the 2012 plan, as amended by the 2016
supplement, and specific portions of the 2016 supplement itself, into
the federally enforceable SIP. Together, these two submittals meet the
applicable CAA requirements, and the EPA has determined they are
sufficient to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course
of the second 10-year maintenance period through 2024.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus,
in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866
(see 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (see 76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (see 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (see Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (see 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (see 62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (see 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (see 15 U.S.C.
272 note) because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (see 59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175. See 65 FR 67249 (November 9,
2000).
The Congressional Review Act (see 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 9, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 22, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DD--Nevada
0
2. In Sec. 52.1470, paragraph (e) is amended by adding, under the
table heading ``Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of
Nevada,'' two entries ``2012 Revision to the Nevada State
Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, April 2012'' and ``2016
Supplement to Nevada's 2nd 10-Year CO Limited Maintenance Plan at Lake
Tahoe, August 26, 2016'' after the entry ``Addendum to the October 27,
2003 letter of transmittal of the redesignation request and maintenance
plan,'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 13243]]
EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2012 Revision to the Nevada Nevada portion of 4/3/2012 [Insert Federal Adopted on 4/3/2012.
State Implementation Plan for Lake Tahoe Basin-- Register Approval excludes
Carbon Monoxide, April 2012. portions of citation] 3/10/ sections 3.2.4 and 4.
Carson City, 2017). With 2016 supplement,
Douglas and fulfills requirement
Washoe counties. for second ten-year
maintenance plan.
2016 Supplement to Nevada's 2nd Nevada portion of 8/26/2016 [Insert Federal Adopted on 8/26/2016.
10-Year CO Limited Maintenance Lake Tahoe Basin-- Register Approval includes
Plan at Lake Tahoe, August 26, portions of citation] (3/10/ revised sections 3.2.4
2016. Carson City, 2017). and 4 (alternative CO
Douglas and monitoring strategy
Washoe counties. and contingency plan),
2011 emissions
inventory and 2024
projected emissions
inventory (Attachment
A), evidence of public
participation
(Attachment B) and
revised table of
contents for 2012
submittal (Attachment
F). Excludes
Attachments C, D and
E.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\1\ The organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada's original
1972 SIP, which was divided into 12 sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans,
are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small Business Stationary Source Technical and
Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or quasi-
regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR
52.1470(c).
[FR Doc. 2017-04771 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
