Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Las Vegas Valley; Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan, 41416-41421 [2021-16453]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41416
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Quality (DEQ) transitioned from the
North Dakota Department of Public
Health, their Conflict of Interest
requirements changed. This revision
updates section 2.15 of the SIP to match
the current DEQ requirements.
III. Proposed Action
For the reasons described in section II
of this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is
proposing to approve North Dakota’s
August 3, 2020, submittal revisions to
NDAC, Article 33.1–15 (Air Pollution
Control) except for revisions to 33.1–15–
25 (Regional Haze Requirements) which
were addressed in a separate
rulemaking. The EPA is also proposing
to approve North Dakota’s revisions to
section 2.15 (Respecting Boards) located
in North Dakota’s EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures. Our action is
based on an evaluation of North
Dakota’s revisions against the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(c) and regulatory requirements
under 40 CFR 51.160–164 and 40 CFR
51.166.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
proposing to include regulatory text in
an EPA final rule that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the revisions
described in section II. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
V. 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.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 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 proposes to approve 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 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jul 30, 2021
Jkt 253001
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 (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 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (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 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide 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
(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 EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed 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 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2021.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2021–16093 Filed 7–30–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0242; FRL–8725–01–
R9]
Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Las Vegas
Valley; Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Nevada
Department of Environmental Protection
(NDEP). On September 27, 2010, the
EPA redesignated the Las Vegas Valley
area from nonattainment to attainment
for the carbon monoxide (CO) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
‘‘standard’’) and approved the State’s
CO maintenance plan ensuring the area
would maintain the NAAQS for ten
years through 2020. On June 18, 2019,
NDEP submitted to the EPA a second
10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP)
for the Las Vegas Valley area for the CO
NAAQS. The LMP addresses
maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a
second 10-year period ending in 2030.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
September 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2021–0166 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at 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. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Szeto, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4278, szeto.jonathan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
II. Nevada’s SIP Submittal
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s SIP
Submittal
A. Procedural Requirements
B. LMP Requirements
IV. Transportation Conformity
V. Proposed Action and Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Carbon monoxide is a colorless,
odorless gas that is generally emitted
from the incomplete combustion of
carbon-containing fuels. The largest
sources of CO in ambient environments
are cars, trucks, and other vehicles and
machineries that burn fossil fuels.
Inhalation of CO can impair oxygen
delivery to vital organs and tissues.
Those with pre-existing heart disease or
other conditions that make one unable
to compensate for tissue hypoxia are
particularly vulnerable to the
cardiovascular effects of ambient CO,
especially during exercise or when
under increased stress. At high levels,
CO exposure can also lead to dizziness,
confusion, and unconsciousness.1
In 1971 the EPA established primary
and secondary NAAQS for CO at 9 parts
per million (ppm), averaged over an 8hour period, and at 35 ppm, averaged
over a 1-hour period.2 On September 13,
1985, the EPA retained the primary
standards without revision and revoked
the secondary standards.3 The EPA
retained the primary standards without
revision again in both 1994 4 and 2011.5
The EPA retained the primary standards
based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that the existing
standards are requisite to protect public
health with an adequate margin of
safety. The EPA also found that analysis
of both the non-climate and climate
welfare effects of CO are insufficient to
1 76
FR 54294 (August 31, 2011).
FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
3 50 FR 37484 (September 13, 1985).
4 59 FR 38906 (August 1, 1994).
5 75 FR 54194 (August 31, 2011).
2 36
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jul 30, 2021
Jkt 253001
provide support for a secondary
standard.
Following the enactment of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) Amendments of
1990, the EPA designated the Las Vegas
Valley area as a ‘‘Moderate’’
nonattainment area.6 The area was
reclassified as a ‘‘Serious’’
nonattainment area on October 2, 1997,
when the EPA determined the area had
not attained the standard after receiving
a one-year extension of the 1995
attainment date.7 Under the CAA, states
are required to adopt and submit SIPs to
attain the NAAQS in nonattainment
areas within their state.
Under CAA section 175A, one of the
criteria for an area to be redesignated
from nonattainment to attainment is the
approval of a maintenance plan. The
maintenance plan must, among other
requirements, ensure control measures
are in place such that the area will
continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and include contingency
provisions to assure that violations of
the NAAQS will be promptly remedied.
In 1994, the EPA set forth new
guidelines establishing a streamlined
process for certain nonattainment areas
to meet CAA section 175A maintenance
plan requirements.8 This process
provides for maintenance by
demonstrating that future violations of
the standard are unlikely to occur
because the area’s design values 9 are
well below the NAAQS, and based on
the historical stability of the area’s air
quality. A design value is considered
well below the NAAQS when it is less
than or equal to 85 percent of the
standard. For CO specifically, this
would be 85 percent of the 9 ppm 8hour CO standard, or 7.65 ppm. The
EPA refers to this streamlined
demonstration as a limited maintenance
plan (LMP). Although the LMP
guidelines originally addressed the
ozone NAAQS, the EPA extended the
provisions to apply to other pollutants
and issued guidance specific for CO
nonattainment areas.10 The LMP must
be submitted as a SIP revision and
FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
FR 51604 (October 2, 1997).
8 Memorandum dated November 16, 1994, from
Sally L Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies &
Standards Divisions (MD–15) to Air Branch
Directors, Regions I–X, ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment
Areas.’’
9 A design value is a statistic that describes the
air quality status of a certain pollutant for a given
location relative to its NAAQS.
10 Memorandum dated October 6, 1995, from
Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Air Quality
Management Division (MD–15) to Air Branch
Chiefs, Regions I–X, ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas’’ (‘‘Paisie Memo’’).
PO 00000
6 56
7 62
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41417
should include an attainment emissions
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
provisions for the continued operation
of the ambient air quality monitoring
network for verification of continued
attainment, a contingency plan in the
event of a future violation of the
NAAQS, and conformity determination
provisions.11 12
In September 2010, the EPA approved
the ‘‘Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan, Las
Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark
County, Nevada (September 2008)’’ for
the Las Vegas Valley area and
redesignated the area to attainment.13
Under CAA section 175A, at the end of
the eighth year after the effective date of
redesignation, the state must submit a
second maintenance plan to ensure
ongoing maintenance of the standard for
an additional ten years. On June 18,
2019, the State of Nevada submitted the
‘‘Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide
Limited Maintenance Plan: Las Vegas
Valley Maintenance Area, Clark County,
Nevada (May 2019)’’ (‘‘2019 LMP’’) for
the Las Vegas Valley area to fulfill the
second maintenance plan requirement
in CAA section 175A.14 The 2019 LMP
includes a demonstration that the area
is expected to remain in attainment of
the CO NAAQS through the last year of
the second 10-year maintenance period,
that is, through the remainder of the
area’s full 20-year maintenance period.
II. Nevada’s SIP Submittal
On June 18, 2019, NDEP submitted
the 2019 LMP to the EPA as a revision
to the Nevada SIP. The submittal
includes the LMP and appendices.
Appendices to the plan include air
quality data, emissions inventory
information, air quality monitoring
information, and documentation of the
public review process.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s
SIP Submittal
A. Procedural Requirements
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the
CAA require that a reasonable notice
and public hearing occur before
revisions to a SIP can be adopted by the
state. Specifically, under 40 CFR part
51, subpart F, the EPA requires that
11 Id.
at 3–5.
12 Memorandum
dated September 4, 1992, from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division (MD–15), Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions I–X, ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment.’’
13 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010).
14 Letter of submittal dated June 13, 2019, from
Greg Lovato, Administrator, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, to Elizabeth Adams, Air
Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX (submitted electronically June 18,
2019).
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
41418
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
there must be a publication of a notice
by prominent advertisement in the
relevant geographic area of the proposed
SIP revision, a public comment period
of at least 30 days, and an opportunity
for a public hearing.
The Clark County Department of
Environment and Sustainability
(CCDES) 15 published a notice of a 30day comment period and notice of a
public hearing for the 2019 LMP on the
Clark County website, and the
department’s website, Twitter, and
Facebook pages. An email notice was
distributed to officials in relevant cities
as well as in state and local-level
departments, districts, authorities,
commissions, and associations. The
CCDES held a public comment period
from February 15, 2019 to March 18,
2019. No formal comments were
submitted. On May 7, 2019, the Clark
County Board of County Commissioners
held a public hearing on the 2019 LMP.
No formal comments were submitted
during this hearing. The CCDES then
forwarded the 2019 LMP to the State of
Nevada and the State submitted the plan
to the EPA as a revision to the Nevada
SIP. The process followed by the CCDES
adheres with procedural requirements
for SIP revisions outlined under CAA
section 110 and the EPA’s implementing
regulations.
B. LMP Requirements
The EPA reviewed the 2019 LMP that
addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS within the Las Vegas Valley
area through the end of the 20-year
period following the area’s
redesignation, as required under CAA
section 175A(b).
1. 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 sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. For CO, the inventory should
represent the typical winter day
emissions of CO for the time period
associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment.16 The 2019 LMP
includes a CO attainment inventory for
the Las Vegas Valley area that reflects
typical winter weekday emissions in
2017. Table 1 presents a summary of the
inventory for the year contained in the
maintenance plan. Under an LMP, states
are not required to project emissions
over the maintenance period.
TABLE 1—2017 AVERAGE WINTER
WEEKDAY CO EMISSIONS FOR THE
LAS VEGAS VALLEY AREA
[Tons per day]
latest release of the EPA’s Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES) model
version MOVES2014b.
Based on our review of the methods,
models, and assumptions used by
CCDES to develop the CO estimates, we
find that the 2019 LMP for the Las Vegas
Valley CO maintenance area includes a
comprehensive, accurate inventory of
CO emissions in the year 2017, and
conclude that the plan’s inventories are
acceptable for the purposes of a
subsequent maintenance plan under
CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
Consistent with prior EPA guidance,
if a maintenance area demonstrates a
maximum 8-hour CO design value of
less than or equal to 85 percent of the
CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm, for eight
consecutive quarters, then the EPA
Total ........................................... 448.96 considers the area to have met the
maintenance plan demonstration
requirement and that the area will
CCDES derived point source
emissions using semiannual compliance maintain the NAAQS for the second 10year maintenance period.18 Such a
reports submitted to the agency by
demonstration
also assumes continued
stationary sources located in the Las
applicability of prevention of significant
Vegas Valley area. These reports are
deterioration (PSD) requirements,19
required by CCDES’ federally-approved
continued implementation of any
CAA title V operating permits program
existing control measures in the SIP,
and include monthly reporting data for
and that federal measures will remain in
the facility.17 CCDES derived the
place through the end of the second 10nonpoint source emissions from the
year maintenance period. The EPA does
EPA’s 2016 modeling platform (alpha
not require areas using the LMP option
version) and used 2016 as a surrogate
to project emissions over the
for 2017 because the 2017 National
maintenance period.
Emissions Inventory (NEI) for nonpoint
sources was not available at the time
Table 2 presents the design values for
CCDES developed the 2019 LMP.
the Las Vegas Valley area over the 2012–
CCDES determined that the differences
2020 period. As shown in Table 2,
between 2016 and 2017 would be
historically, the area has consistently
insignificant. Aviation operation data
been well below 85 percent of the
for 2014 and 2017 were obtained from
NAAQS. Because the CO design values
the Federal Aviation Administration’s
in the Las Vegas Valley area are below
air traffic activity system and terminal
the LMP threshold over the most recent
area forecast databases and used in
eight quarters, the EPA finds that the
conjunction with the 2014 NEI to
State has adequately demonstrated that
estimate aviation CO emissions for
the area will continue to maintain the
2017. Onroad and nonroad mobile
CO NAAQS over the second 10-year
source data were generated using the
maintenance period and in the future.
Point ..................................................
Nonpoint ...........................................
Aviation .............................................
Onroad Mobile ..................................
Nonroad Mobile ................................
0.93
43.48
12.53
217.18
114.35
TABLE 2—CURRENT AND HISTORICAL CO DESIGN VALUES (DV) FOR THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY AREA
Highest second maximum 8-hour CO value
(ppm)
Year
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Jerome Mack
(320030540)
2012 ........................................................................
2013 ........................................................................
15 Formerly Clark County Department of Air
Quality.
16 Paisie Memo, 3.
17 CCDES used reporting data for the CO season
months January, February, and December 2017 to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jul 30, 2021
Jkt 253001
J.D. Smith
(320032002)
2.8
2.8
2.1
2.4
Rancho &
Teddy
(320031501)
........................
........................
develop emissions for those months and convert to
daily emissions. See 2019 LMP, 18.
18 Paisie Memo, 3.
19 PSD applies to new major sources or major
modifications at existing sources for pollutants
where the area of the source’s location is designated
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Sunrise Acres
(320030540)
3.1
3.1
DV
(ppm)
3.1
3.1
Is DV less
than 7.65
ppm?
Yes.
Yes.
by the EPA as attainment or unclassifiable with the
NAAQS. Its requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: Installation of best
available control technology, an air quality analysis,
an additional impact analysis, and public
involvement.
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
41419
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—CURRENT AND HISTORICAL CO DESIGN VALUES (DV) FOR THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY AREA—Continued
Highest second maximum 8-hour CO value
(ppm)
Year
J.D. Smith
(320032002)
Rancho &
Teddy
(320031501)
2.4
2.2
2
2
b 1.9
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
c 1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
Jerome Mack
(320030540)
2014 ........................................................................
2015 ........................................................................
2016 ........................................................................
2017 ........................................................................
2018 ........................................................................
2019 ........................................................................
2020 a ......................................................................
2.7
2.7
2.3
2.35
2.5
2.3
2.1
Sunrise Acres
(320030540)
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
DV
(ppm)
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
Is DV less
than 7.65
ppm?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Source: EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value Report, March 16, 2021.
a CO design values have no annual completeness requirement.
b The J.D. Smith station was permanently shut down with the EPA’s approval on December 31, 2017, due to measurement challenges posed
by siting obstructions.
c The Rancho & Teddy station opened in 2015 and began monitoring CO in January 2017.
3. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
The EPA periodically reviews the CO
monitoring network operated and
maintained by CCDES in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58. This network is
consistent with the Clark County
ambient air monitoring network plan
(AMNP) submitted annually to the EPA
after a public notification and comment
process. The EPA has reviewed and
approved the AMNP every year for the
past three years from 2018–2020. The
EPA is also required to conduct
technical systems audits (TSA) every
three years to ensure quality assurance
of monitoring organizations.20 The most
recent TSA for CCDES was in 2018, and
the EPA found that CCDES’s air
monitoring program meets EPA’s
requirements.21
To verify the attainment status of the
area over the maintenance period, the
maintenance plan should contain
provisions for continued operations of
an EPA-approved monitoring network
in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The
CCDES’s network in the Las Vegas
Valley area has been approved by the
EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part
58.22 Furthermore, the CCDES has
committed to continue to operate an air
quality monitoring network in the Las
Vegas Valley area in accordance with
the EPA requirements to verify
continued attainment of the CO
20 40
CFR 58 Appendix A, section 2.5.
dated August 23, 2018 from Elizabeth J.
Adams, Acting Director, Air Division Region IX, to
Marci Henson, Director, Clark County Department
of Air Quality with attached ‘‘Technical Systems
Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program:
Clark County Department of Air Quality October
23–25, 2017 and January 16–18, 2018.’’
22 For further details, see CCDES’s 2020 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP), the EPA’s
approval letter for the 2020, 2019 and 2018 AMNP,
as well as the EPA’s Clark County 2018 TSA report,
in the docket for this action.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
21 Letter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jul 30, 2021
Jkt 253001
NAAQS.23 For the reasons stated in this
section of the notice, we find Clark
County’s monitoring network adequate
to verify continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS in the Las Vegas Valley area.
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of
these provisions is to prevent future
violations of the NAAQS or promptly
remediate any NAAQS violations that
might occur during the maintenance
period. These contingency provisions
need not be fully adopted regulations at
the time of the redesignation. However,
the contingency plan is an enforceable
part of the SIP and should ensure that
contingency measures are adopted
quickly once the contingency plan is
triggered. The contingency plan should
also identify the measures to be
expeditiously adopted and provide a
schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation. The state is also
required to identify triggers that will be
used to determine when contingency
measures will need to be implemented.
In the 2019 LMP, the CCDES retains
the reduced Reid vapor pressure (RVP)
gasoline program contingency measure
from its first CO maintenance plan as a
contingency measure. The RVP gasoline
program relaxed the RVP from
wintertime fuels sold in Clark County
from 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi) to
13.5 psi, thereby increasing fuel
volatility and therefore fuel-related
emissions. The EPA approved this
measure, finding that relaxation of RVP
would not interfere with maintenance of
the CO standard in the area.24 The RVP
gasoline program contingency measure
23 See 2019 LMP, Section 3.3, ‘‘Monitoring
Network/Verification of Continued Attainment,’’
21.
24 75 FR 59090.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would reinstate the prior, lower RVP
level. That is, if future CO levels trigger
contingency measures, the CCDES will
seek reinstatement and tightening of the
RVP standard back to 9.0 psi. This
contingency measure would be triggered
by a verified second exceedance over 9
ppm during the winter season (October
1 through March 31) within a
consecutive two-year period.
The EPA proposes to find that the
contingency provisions in the 2019 LMP
satisfy the contingency measure
requirements of CAA section 175A for
the second 10-year maintenance plan
period.
IV. 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. The
EPA’s conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93
requires that transportation plans,
programs, and projects conform to SIPs
and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining conformity.
The conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the
regional transportation plan (RTP) and
the transportation improvement plan
(TIP) are consistent with the motor
vehicle emissions budget (MVEB or
‘‘budget’’) contained in the control
strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan.25 A budget 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
25 See
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124.
02AUP1
41420
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
NAAQS in the nonattainment or
maintenance area.26
Under the conformity rule, areas
submitting an LMP for the second 10year maintenance plan may demonstrate
conformity without a regional emissions
analysis as outlined in 40 CFR
93.109(e). When the EPA approves an
LMP, the EPA is concluding that a
budget may be treated as essentially not
constraining for the length of the
maintenance period. Areas that qualify
for an LMP may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emissions analysis
because it is unreasonable to expect that
such an area will experience so much
growth in the 10-year period of the LMP
that a violation of the CO NAAQS
would result.27 All actions that would
require transportation conformity
determinations for the Las Vegas Valley
area under the transportation
conformity rule provisions would be
considered to have already satisfied the
regional emissions analysis and ‘‘budget
test’’ requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as
a result of our final approval of the 2019
LMP.
However, because LMP areas are still
maintenance areas, approval of the 2019
LMP would not relieve transportation
agencies of certain determinations still
required for transportation plans,
programs, and projects. Specifically,
RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects
must still demonstrate that they are
fiscally constrained,28 meet the criteria
for consultation,29 and provide for
timely implementation of transportation
control measures from the applicable
implementation plan.30 Conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must
also be determined no less frequently
than every four years, and conformity of
plan and TIP amendments and
transportation projects demonstrated in
accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR
93.104. For projects to be approved they
must be listed in a currently conforming
RTP and TIP.31 In addition, projects in
LMP areas are required to meet the
applicable criteria for CO hot spot
analyses to satisfy ‘‘project level’’
conformity determinations,32 which
must also incorporate the latest
26 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.
27 Paisie Memo, 3–4.
28 40 CFR 93.108.
29 40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112.
30 40 CFR 93.113.
31 40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115.
32 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jul 30, 2021
Jkt 253001
planning assumptions and models
available.33
If the area should monitor CO
concentrations at or above the limited
maintenance eligibility criteria, or 7.65
ppm, then that maintenance area would
no longer qualify for a LMP and would
revert to a full maintenance plan. In this
event, the LMP would remain
applicable for conformity purposes only
until the full maintenance plan is
submitted and the EPA has either found
its motor vehicle emissions budget
adequate for conformity purposes or
approves the full maintenance plan SIP
revision. At that time regional emissions
analyses would resume as a
transportation conformity criterion.
The EPA posted Las Vegas Valley’s
2019 LMP for CO on its adequacy
review website on June 23, 2021.34 The
EPA will accept comments from the
public for up to 30 days after the LMP
has been posted on the website. The
EPA will consider the comments and
then may elect to proceed with finding
the 2019 LMP adequate for
transportation conformity purposes
either as part of the SIP’s final approval
or in a separate notice of adequacy. The
EPA’s adequacy review process is
described in 40 CFR part 93.118(f).
If finalized, our approval of the 2019
LMP would effectively affirm our
adequacy finding such that no regional
emissions analysis for future
transportation CO conformity
determinations are required for the 2019
LMP period and beyond. The other
transportation conformity requirements
listed above would continue to apply.
In addition to transportation
conformity, approval of the 2019 LMP
would have implications for general
conformity.35 Federal actions subject to
general conformity would be presumed
to conform under a limited maintenance
plan as actions in this area will
automatically satisfy the budget test of
40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), as described
in in an EPA memorandum entitled
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas’’ on limited maintenance plans
for CO nonattainment areas.36
V. Proposed Action and Public
Comment
Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA,
the EPA is proposing to approve the
2019 LMP as a revision to the Nevada
SIP because we find that it satisfies the
33 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111,
respectively. See 40 CFR 93.109(b), Table 1.
34 https://www.epa.gov/state-and-localtransportation/adequacy-review-stateimplementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity.
35 40 CFR part 93 Subpart B.
36 Paisie Memo, 4–5.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA.
The 2019 LMP adequately
demonstrates maintenance of the
CONAAQS well below the standard
through documentation of monitoring
data showing the historical CO design
values of the area. It also satisfies the
other core provisions of an LMP: It has
an accurate and comprehensive
emissions inventory representing
attainment, a contingency plan, and a
commitment to continue operation of an
acceptable ambient monitoring network
to verify continued attainment over the
second 10-year period. We find the 2019
LMP to be sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the
Las Vegas Valley area over the second
10-year maintenance period (through
2030) and thereby satisfy the
requirements for such a plan under CAA
section 175A(b).
The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this notice. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal for the
next 30 days and will consider these
comments before taking final action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
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 Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 (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 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (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 (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
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the 2019 LMP is not
proposed 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. The Las Vegas Tribe of
Paiute Indians has areas of Indian
country located in the Las Vegas Valley
CO maintenance area. In those areas of
Indian country, the 2019 LMP does not
apply, and therefore, this proposed
action does not have tribal implications
and would not, if approved, impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Carbon Monoxide, Pollution.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021–16453 Filed 7–30–21; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jul 30, 2021
Jkt 253001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0217; FRL–8690–01–
R3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Plans; Pennsylvania;
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Determinations for
Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997
and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
multiple state implementation plan
(SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These
revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for
fourteen major sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and/or
nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
conditionally approved RACT
regulations. In this rulemaking action,
EPA is proposing to approve sourcespecific (also referred to as ‘‘case-bycase’’) RACT determinations for sources
at fourteen major sources submitted by
PADEP. These RACT evaluations were
submitted to meet RACT requirements
for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 1,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2021–0217 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
opila.marycate@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41421
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. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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.
Ms.
Gwendolyn Supplee, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air and Radiation Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is (215) 814–2763.
Ms. Supplee can also be reached via
electronic mail at supplee.gwendolyn@
epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
On May 7,
2020, PADEP submitted a revision to its
SIP to address case-by-case NOX and/or
VOC RACT for sources at fourteen major
facilities. This SIP revision is intended
to address the NOX and/or VOC RACT
requirements under sections 182 and
184 of the CAA for the 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Table 1 of this
document lists the SIP submittal date
and the facilities included in PADEP’s
submittal. Although submitted in one
SIP revision by PADEP, EPA views each
facility as a separable SIP revision and
may take separate final action on one or
more facilities.
For additional background
information on Pennsylvania’s
‘‘presumptive’’ RACT II SIP see 84 FR
20274 (May 9, 2019) and on
Pennsylvania’s source-specific or ‘‘caseby-case’’ RACT determinations see the
appropriate technical support document
(TSD) which is available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0217.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\02AUP1.SGM
02AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 145 (Monday, August 2, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41416-41421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16453]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0242; FRL-8725-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Las Vegas Valley; Second 10-Year
Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by
the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP). On September
27, 2010, the EPA redesignated the Las Vegas Valley area from
nonattainment to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') and approved the
State's CO maintenance plan ensuring the area would maintain the NAAQS
for ten years through 2020. On June 18, 2019, NDEP submitted to the EPA
a second 10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the Las Vegas
Valley area for the CO NAAQS. The LMP addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS for a second 10-year period ending in 2030.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0166 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
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. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
[[Page 41417]]
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Szeto, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4278, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Nevada's SIP Submittal
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's SIP Submittal
A. Procedural Requirements
B. LMP Requirements
IV. Transportation Conformity
V. Proposed Action and Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is generally
emitted from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels. The
largest sources of CO in ambient environments are cars, trucks, and
other vehicles and machineries that burn fossil fuels. Inhalation of CO
can impair oxygen delivery to vital organs and tissues. Those with pre-
existing heart disease or other conditions that make one unable to
compensate for tissue hypoxia are particularly vulnerable to the
cardiovascular effects of ambient CO, especially during exercise or
when under increased stress. At high levels, CO exposure can also lead
to dizziness, confusion, and unconsciousness.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 76 FR 54294 (August 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1971 the EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for CO at 9
parts per million (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour period, and at 35 ppm,
averaged over a 1-hour period.\2\ On September 13, 1985, the EPA
retained the primary standards without revision and revoked the
secondary standards.\3\ The EPA retained the primary standards without
revision again in both 1994 \4\ and 2011.\5\ The EPA retained the
primary standards based on scientific evidence demonstrating that the
existing standards are requisite to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety. The EPA also found that analysis of both the
non-climate and climate welfare effects of CO are insufficient to
provide support for a secondary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
\3\ 50 FR 37484 (September 13, 1985).
\4\ 59 FR 38906 (August 1, 1994).
\5\ 75 FR 54194 (August 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
Amendments of 1990, the EPA designated the Las Vegas Valley area as a
``Moderate'' nonattainment area.\6\ The area was reclassified as a
``Serious'' nonattainment area on October 2, 1997, when the EPA
determined the area had not attained the standard after receiving a
one-year extension of the 1995 attainment date.\7\ Under the CAA,
states are required to adopt and submit SIPs to attain the NAAQS in
nonattainment areas within their state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
\7\ 62 FR 51604 (October 2, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 175A, one of the criteria for an area to be
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment is the approval of a
maintenance plan. The maintenance plan must, among other requirements,
ensure control measures are in place such that the area will continue
to maintain the standard for the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and include contingency provisions to assure that
violations of the NAAQS will be promptly remedied.
In 1994, the EPA set forth new guidelines establishing a
streamlined process for certain nonattainment areas to meet CAA section
175A maintenance plan requirements.\8\ This process provides for
maintenance by demonstrating that future violations of the standard are
unlikely to occur because the area's design values \9\ are well below
the NAAQS, and based on the historical stability of the area's air
quality. A design value is considered well below the NAAQS when it is
less than or equal to 85 percent of the standard. For CO specifically,
this would be 85 percent of the 9 ppm 8-hour CO standard, or 7.65 ppm.
The EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration as a limited
maintenance plan (LMP). Although the LMP guidelines originally
addressed the ozone NAAQS, the EPA extended the provisions to apply to
other pollutants and issued guidance specific for CO nonattainment
areas.\10\ The LMP must be submitted as a SIP revision and should
include an attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration,
provisions for the continued operation of the ambient air quality
monitoring network for verification of continued attainment, a
contingency plan in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS, and
conformity determination provisions.11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Memorandum dated November 16, 1994, from Sally L Shaver,
Director, Air Quality Strategies & Standards Divisions (MD-15) to
Air Branch Directors, Regions I-X, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option
for Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas.''
\9\ A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality
status of a certain pollutant for a given location relative to its
NAAQS.
\10\ Memorandum dated October 6, 1995, from Joseph W. Paisie,
Group Leader, Air Quality Management Division (MD-15) to Air Branch
Chiefs, Regions I-X, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' (``Paisie Memo'').
\11\ Id. at 3-5.
\12\ Memorandum dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division (MD-15), Regional Air
Division Directors, Regions I-X, ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2010, the EPA approved the ``Carbon Monoxide
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, Las Vegas Valley
Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada (September 2008)'' for the Las
Vegas Valley area and redesignated the area to attainment.\13\ Under
CAA section 175A, at the end of the eighth year after the effective
date of redesignation, the state must submit a second maintenance plan
to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional ten
years. On June 18, 2019, the State of Nevada submitted the ``Second 10-
Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan: Las Vegas Valley
Maintenance Area, Clark County, Nevada (May 2019)'' (``2019 LMP'') for
the Las Vegas Valley area to fulfill the second maintenance plan
requirement in CAA section 175A.\14\ The 2019 LMP includes a
demonstration that the area is expected to remain in attainment of the
CO NAAQS through the last year of the second 10-year maintenance
period, that is, through the remainder of the area's full 20-year
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010).
\14\ Letter of submittal dated June 13, 2019, from Greg Lovato,
Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to
Elizabeth Adams, Air Division Director, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX (submitted electronically June 18,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Nevada's SIP Submittal
On June 18, 2019, NDEP submitted the 2019 LMP to the EPA as a
revision to the Nevada SIP. The submittal includes the LMP and
appendices. Appendices to the plan include air quality data, emissions
inventory information, air quality monitoring information, and
documentation of the public review process.
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's SIP Submittal
A. Procedural Requirements
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA require that a reasonable
notice and public hearing occur before revisions to a SIP can be
adopted by the state. Specifically, under 40 CFR part 51, subpart F,
the EPA requires that
[[Page 41418]]
there must be a publication of a notice by prominent advertisement in
the relevant geographic area of the proposed SIP revision, a public
comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public
hearing.
The Clark County Department of Environment and Sustainability
(CCDES) \15\ published a notice of a 30-day comment period and notice
of a public hearing for the 2019 LMP on the Clark County website, and
the department's website, Twitter, and Facebook pages. An email notice
was distributed to officials in relevant cities as well as in state and
local-level departments, districts, authorities, commissions, and
associations. The CCDES held a public comment period from February 15,
2019 to March 18, 2019. No formal comments were submitted. On May 7,
2019, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners held a public
hearing on the 2019 LMP. No formal comments were submitted during this
hearing. The CCDES then forwarded the 2019 LMP to the State of Nevada
and the State submitted the plan to the EPA as a revision to the Nevada
SIP. The process followed by the CCDES adheres with procedural
requirements for SIP revisions outlined under CAA section 110 and the
EPA's implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Formerly Clark County Department of Air Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LMP Requirements
The EPA reviewed the 2019 LMP that addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS within the Las Vegas Valley area through the end of the 20-year
period following the area's redesignation, as required under CAA
section 175A(b).
1. 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 sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. For
CO, the inventory should represent the typical winter day emissions of
CO for the time period associated with the monitoring data showing
attainment.\16\ The 2019 LMP includes a CO attainment inventory for the
Las Vegas Valley area that reflects typical winter weekday emissions in
2017. Table 1 presents a summary of the inventory for the year
contained in the maintenance plan. Under an LMP, states are not
required to project emissions over the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Paisie Memo, 3.
Table 1--2017 Average Winter Weekday CO Emissions for the Las Vegas
Valley Area
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................... 0.93
Nonpoint....................................................... 43.48
Aviation....................................................... 12.53
Onroad Mobile.................................................. 217.18
Nonroad Mobile................................................. 114.35
--------
Total...................................................... 448.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCDES derived point source emissions using semiannual compliance
reports submitted to the agency by stationary sources located in the
Las Vegas Valley area. These reports are required by CCDES' federally-
approved CAA title V operating permits program and include monthly
reporting data for the facility.\17\ CCDES derived the nonpoint source
emissions from the EPA's 2016 modeling platform (alpha version) and
used 2016 as a surrogate for 2017 because the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) for nonpoint sources was not available at the time
CCDES developed the 2019 LMP. CCDES determined that the differences
between 2016 and 2017 would be insignificant. Aviation operation data
for 2014 and 2017 were obtained from the Federal Aviation
Administration's air traffic activity system and terminal area forecast
databases and used in conjunction with the 2014 NEI to estimate
aviation CO emissions for 2017. Onroad and nonroad mobile source data
were generated using the latest release of the EPA's Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES) model version MOVES2014b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ CCDES used reporting data for the CO season months January,
February, and December 2017 to develop emissions for those months
and convert to daily emissions. See 2019 LMP, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
CCDES to develop the CO estimates, we find that the 2019 LMP for the
Las Vegas Valley CO maintenance area includes a comprehensive, accurate
inventory of CO emissions in the year 2017, and conclude that the
plan's inventories are acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
Consistent with prior EPA guidance, if a maintenance area
demonstrates a maximum 8-hour CO design value of less than or equal to
85 percent of the CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm, for eight consecutive
quarters, then the EPA considers the area to have met the maintenance
plan demonstration requirement and that the area will maintain the
NAAQS for the second 10-year maintenance period.\18\ Such a
demonstration also assumes continued applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) requirements,\19\ continued
implementation of any existing control measures in the SIP, and that
federal measures will remain in place through the end of the second 10-
year maintenance period. The EPA does not require areas using the LMP
option to project emissions over the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Paisie Memo, 3.
\19\ PSD applies to new major sources or major modifications at
existing sources for pollutants where the area of the source's
location is designated by the EPA as attainment or unclassifiable
with the NAAQS. Its requirements include, but are not limited to,
the following: Installation of best available control technology, an
air quality analysis, an additional impact analysis, and public
involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 presents the design values for the Las Vegas Valley area
over the 2012-2020 period. As shown in Table 2, historically, the area
has consistently been well below 85 percent of the NAAQS. Because the
CO design values in the Las Vegas Valley area are below the LMP
threshold over the most recent eight quarters, the EPA finds that the
State has adequately demonstrated that the area will continue to
maintain the CO NAAQS over the second 10-year maintenance period and in
the future.
Table 2--Current and Historical CO Design Values (DV) for the Las Vegas Valley Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest second maximum 8-hour CO value (ppm)
---------------------------------------------------------------- DV
Year Jerome Mack J.D. Smith Rancho & Teddy Sunrise Acres (ppm) Is DV less than 7.65 ppm?
(320030540) (320032002) (320031501) (320030540)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012......................................... 2.8 2.1 .............. 3.1 3.1 Yes.
2013......................................... 2.8 2.4 .............. 3.1 3.1 Yes.
[[Page 41419]]
2014......................................... 2.7 2.4 .............. 2.9 2.9 Yes.
2015......................................... 2.7 2.2 .............. 2.8 2.8 Yes.
2016......................................... 2.3 2 .............. 2.6 2.6 Yes.
2017......................................... 2.35 2 \c\ 1.5 2.8 2.8 Yes.
2018......................................... 2.5 \b\ 1.9 1.5 2.8 2.8 Yes.
2019......................................... 2.3 .............. 1.4 2.8 2.8 Yes.
2020 \a\..................................... 2.1 .............. 1.4 2.4 2.4 Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value Report, March 16, 2021.
\a\ CO design values have no annual completeness requirement.
\b\ The J.D. Smith station was permanently shut down with the EPA's approval on December 31, 2017, due to measurement challenges posed by siting
obstructions.
\c\ The Rancho & Teddy station opened in 2015 and began monitoring CO in January 2017.
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
The EPA periodically reviews the CO monitoring network operated and
maintained by CCDES in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network is
consistent with the Clark County ambient air monitoring network plan
(AMNP) submitted annually to the EPA after a public notification and
comment process. The EPA has reviewed and approved the AMNP every year
for the past three years from 2018-2020. The EPA is also required to
conduct technical systems audits (TSA) every three years to ensure
quality assurance of monitoring organizations.\20\ The most recent TSA
for CCDES was in 2018, and the EPA found that CCDES's air monitoring
program meets EPA's requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 40 CFR 58 Appendix A, section 2.5.
\21\ Letter dated August 23, 2018 from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division Region IX, to Marci Henson, Director,
Clark County Department of Air Quality with attached ``Technical
Systems Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program: Clark County
Department of Air Quality October 23-25, 2017 and January 16-18,
2018.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operations of an EPA-approved monitoring network in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. The CCDES's network in the Las Vegas Valley area has been
approved by the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.\22\ Furthermore,
the CCDES has committed to continue to operate an air quality
monitoring network in the Las Vegas Valley area in accordance with the
EPA requirements to verify continued attainment of the CO NAAQS.\23\
For the reasons stated in this section of the notice, we find Clark
County's monitoring network adequate to verify continued attainment of
the CO NAAQS in the Las Vegas Valley area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ For further details, see CCDES's 2020 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan (AMNP), the EPA's approval letter for the 2020, 2019
and 2018 AMNP, as well as the EPA's Clark County 2018 TSA report, in
the docket for this action.
\23\ See 2019 LMP, Section 3.3, ``Monitoring Network/
Verification of Continued Attainment,'' 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent
future violations of the NAAQS or promptly remediate any NAAQS
violations that might occur during the maintenance period. These
contingency provisions need not be fully adopted regulations at the
time of the redesignation. However, the contingency plan is an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures
are adopted quickly once the contingency plan is triggered. The
contingency plan should also identify the measures to be expeditiously
adopted and provide a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation. The state is also required to identify triggers that
will be used to determine when contingency measures will need to be
implemented.
In the 2019 LMP, the CCDES retains the reduced Reid vapor pressure
(RVP) gasoline program contingency measure from its first CO
maintenance plan as a contingency measure. The RVP gasoline program
relaxed the RVP from wintertime fuels sold in Clark County from 9.0
pounds per square inch (psi) to 13.5 psi, thereby increasing fuel
volatility and therefore fuel-related emissions. The EPA approved this
measure, finding that relaxation of RVP would not interfere with
maintenance of the CO standard in the area.\24\ The RVP gasoline
program contingency measure would reinstate the prior, lower RVP level.
That is, if future CO levels trigger contingency measures, the CCDES
will seek reinstatement and tightening of the RVP standard back to 9.0
psi. This contingency measure would be triggered by a verified second
exceedance over 9 ppm during the winter season (October 1 through March
31) within a consecutive two-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 75 FR 59090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in the
2019 LMP satisfy the contingency measure requirements of CAA section
175A for the second 10-year maintenance plan period.
IV. 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. The EPA's conformity rule at 40
CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining conformity. The conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the regional transportation plan
(RTP) and the transportation improvement plan (TIP) are consistent with
the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB or ``budget'') contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan.\25\ A budget 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
[[Page 41420]]
NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124.
\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the conformity rule, areas submitting an LMP for the second
10-year maintenance plan may demonstrate conformity without a regional
emissions analysis as outlined in 40 CFR 93.109(e). When the EPA
approves an LMP, the EPA is concluding that a budget may be treated as
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period.
Areas that qualify for an LMP may demonstrate conformity without a
regional emissions analysis because it is unreasonable to expect that
such an area will experience so much growth in the 10-year period of
the LMP that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\27\ All actions
that would require transportation conformity determinations for the Las
Vegas Valley area under the transportation conformity rule provisions
would be considered to have already satisfied the regional emissions
analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as a result
of our final approval of the 2019 LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Paisie Memo, 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, approval of
the 2019 LMP would not relieve transportation agencies of certain
determinations still required for transportation plans, programs, and
projects. Specifically, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects must
still demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained,\28\ meet the
criteria for consultation,\29\ and provide for timely implementation of
transportation control measures from the applicable implementation
plan.\30\ Conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must also be
determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of
plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects demonstrated in
accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. For
projects to be approved they must be listed in a currently conforming
RTP and TIP.\31\ In addition, projects in LMP areas are required to
meet the applicable criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy
``project level'' conformity determinations,\32\ which must also
incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 40 CFR 93.108.
\29\ 40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112.
\30\ 40 CFR 93.113.
\31\ 40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115.
\32\ 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123.
\33\ 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively. See 40 CFR
93.109(b), Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the area should monitor CO concentrations at or above the
limited maintenance eligibility criteria, or 7.65 ppm, then that
maintenance area would no longer qualify for a LMP and would revert to
a full maintenance plan. In this event, the LMP would remain applicable
for conformity purposes only until the full maintenance plan is
submitted and the EPA has either found its motor vehicle emissions
budget adequate for conformity purposes or approves the full
maintenance plan SIP revision. At that time regional emissions analyses
would resume as a transportation conformity criterion.
The EPA posted Las Vegas Valley's 2019 LMP for CO on its adequacy
review website on June 23, 2021.\34\ The EPA will accept comments from
the public for up to 30 days after the LMP has been posted on the
website. The EPA will consider the comments and then may elect to
proceed with finding the 2019 LMP adequate for transportation
conformity purposes either as part of the SIP's final approval or in a
separate notice of adequacy. The EPA's adequacy review process is
described in 40 CFR part 93.118(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If finalized, our approval of the 2019 LMP would effectively affirm
our adequacy finding such that no regional emissions analysis for
future transportation CO conformity determinations are required for the
2019 LMP period and beyond. The other transportation conformity
requirements listed above would continue to apply.
In addition to transportation conformity, approval of the 2019 LMP
would have implications for general conformity.\35\ Federal actions
subject to general conformity would be presumed to conform under a
limited maintenance plan as actions in this area will automatically
satisfy the budget test of 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), as described in
in an EPA memorandum entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' on limited maintenance plans
for CO nonattainment areas.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 40 CFR part 93 Subpart B.
\36\ Paisie Memo, 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Proposed Action and Public Comment
Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is proposing to approve
the 2019 LMP as a revision to the Nevada SIP because we find that it
satisfies the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
The 2019 LMP adequately demonstrates maintenance of the CONAAQS
well below the standard through documentation of monitoring data
showing the historical CO design values of the area. It also satisfies
the other core provisions of an LMP: It has an accurate and
comprehensive emissions inventory representing attainment, a
contingency plan, and a commitment to continue operation of an
acceptable ambient monitoring network to verify continued attainment
over the second 10-year period. We find the 2019 LMP to be sufficient
to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Las Vegas Valley area
over the second 10-year maintenance period (through 2030) and thereby
satisfy the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this notice. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days and will consider these comments before taking
final action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 (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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive
[[Page 41421]]
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (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 (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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the 2019 LMP is not proposed 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. The Las Vegas Tribe of
Paiute Indians has areas of Indian country located in the Las Vegas
Valley CO maintenance area. In those areas of Indian country, the 2019
LMP does not apply, and therefore, this proposed action does not have
tribal implications and would not, if approved, impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Carbon Monoxide, Pollution.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-16453 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
