Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Nevada; Clark County

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: January 28, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 18)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4141-4158]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28ja03-24]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NV-039-0053; FRL-7444-1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Nevada; Clark County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Nevada to provide for attainment of
the carbon monoxide (CO) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
in the Clark County Nonattainment Area. EPA is proposing to approve the
SIP revisions under provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)
regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for
nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by February
27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the EPA contact below. You
may inspect and copy the rulemaking docket for this notice at the
following location during normal business hours. We may charge you a
reasonable fee for copying parts of the docket.

Steven Barhite, Chief, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air
Division, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at
the addresses listed below:

Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Protection, 333 West Nye Lane, Room 138, Carson City, NV
89706.
Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, 500 S. Grand Central
Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Telephone: (775) 833-1276. E-mail:
oconnor.karina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. Why Is CO an Air Quality Problem?
B. How Are CO Levels Assessed?
C. What Clean Air Act Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy
Requirements Must Las Vegas Meet To Improve CO Levels?
D. Has EPA Acted on Prior and Related Las Vegas Valley CO SIP
Revisions?
E. What Is Included in the 2000 Las Vegas Valley CO Plan?
II. EPA Action
A. What Is EPA Proposing To Approve?
B. Does the 2000 CO Plan Meet All of the Procedural
Requirements?
C. What Levels of CO Are Estimated For the Base Year and
Projected for Future Years and Does the Plan Provide for Reasonable
Further Progress?
D. How Does the CO Plan Show Attainment of the CO Standards?
E. How Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Reduced in Las Vegas Valley?
F. Are Any Special Fuels Used in Motor Vehicles Operated in Las
Vegas Valley?
G. Are There Any Other Programs That Reduce Overall Motor
Vehicle Emissions in Las Vegas?
H. Are There Controls on Stationary Sources of CO?
I. What Expected Growth of Vehicle Traffic Is Projected for the
Area?
J. Does the Plan Include Contingency Measures?
K. Are the Emissions Budgets Approvable?
L. Summary of EPA's proposed actions
III. Request for Public Comment
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. Why Is CO an Air Quality Problem?

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted in
combustion processes. In Clark County, like most urban areas, CO comes
primarily from tailpipe emissions of cars and trucks.\1\ Exposure to
elevated CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception,
work capacity, manual dexterity, and learning ability, and with illness
and death for those who already suffer from cardiovascular disease,
particularly angina or peripheral vascular disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In the 1996 base year inventory, on-road vehicles accounted
for approximately 86 percent of CO emissions while nonroad sources
contributed roughly 11 percent and stationary and area sources
contributed roughly 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How Are CO Levels Assessed?

Under section 109 of the Act, we have established primary, health-
related NAAQS for CO: 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour
period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour. Attainment of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS is achieved if not more than one non-overlapping 8-hour average
per monitoring site per year exceeds 9 ppm in any consecutive 2-year
period (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and are not considered
exceedances).

[[Page 4142]]

Clark County has never exceeded the 1-hour NAAQS. For this reason,
the Clark County CO plan and this action address only the 8-hour NAAQS.
The area has been monitoring ambient air for CO levels since the early
1980's. In 1985, the Las Vegas area recorded 41 exceedances of the 8-
hour NAAQS; however, the area has recorded less than 5 exceedances each
year since the early 1990's. Most of the CO exceedances in Clark County
occur during the months of January, February, and December, with peak
concentrations typically in the evenings. The last exceedances of the
eight-hour CO NAAQS were recorded in 1998 at the Sunrise Avenue site in
Las Vegas, and while the ambient monitoring data provides a preliminary
basis for EPA to propose an attainment finding for Las Vegas Valley,
this notice does not address that issue. EPA will publish an attainment
finding for Las Vegas Valley in a separate notice, if appropriate
following a detailed review of the monitoring data.

C. What Clean Air Act Statutory, Regulatory and Policy Requirements
Must Las Vegas Meet To Improve CO Levels?

Las Vegas Valley was first designated as a CO nonattainment area in
1978. See 43 FR 8962, 9012 (March 3, 1978). The CAA Amendments of 1977
required states to prepare plans to achieve the NAAQS in nonattainment
areas. The original attainment deadline was 1982. EPA conditionally
approved the initial CO plan for Las Vegas Valley into the Nevada SIP
in 1981. See 46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981). EPA removed the conditions
on the CO plan in 1982. See 47 FR 15790 (April 13, 1982.) Updated plans
were required for nonattainment areas, like Las Vegas Valley, that did
not achieve the original 1982 deadline. EPA approved this updated plan
into the Nevada SIP in 1984. See 49 FR 44208 (November 5, 1984) and 40
CFR 52.1470(c)(32).
The Federal CAA was substantially amended in 1990 to establish new
planning requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS. Under
section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas designated nonattainment prior
to enactment of the 1990 amendments, including Las Vegas Valley, were
designated nonattainment by operation of law.\2\ Under section 186(a)
of the Act, each CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d)
was also classified by operation of law as either moderate or serious,
depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas
with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such
as the Las Vegas Valley area, were classified as moderate. (The design
value for Las Vegas Valley for initial classification purposes was 14.4
ppm, which was based on monitoring data from the late 1980's.) These
nonattainment designations and classifications were codified into 40
CFR part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Section 172 of the Act
contains general requirements applicable to SIP revisions for
nonattainment areas, and sections 186 and 187 of the Act set out
additional air quality planning requirements for CO nonattainment
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The CO nonattainment area is the ``Las Vegas Valley
Hydrographic Area 212'' within Clark County. See 40 CFR 81.329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most fundamental of these provisions is the requirement that CO
nonattainment areas with design values greater than 12.7 ppm submit a
SIP revision demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the deadline applicable to the area's
classification: December 31, 1995, for moderate areas. See CAA sections
186(a)(1) and 187(a)(7). Such a demonstration must provide enforceable
measures to achieve emission reductions each year leading to emissions
at or below the level predicted to result in attainment of the NAAQS
throughout the nonattainment area.
Las Vegas Valley failed to reach attainment by December 31, 1995,
but, under section 186(a)(4) of the Act, the State of Nevada requested,
and EPA granted, a one-year extension of the attainment date to
December 31, 1996. See 61 FR 57331 (November 6, 1996). However, in the
first quarter of 1996, Clark County recorded three exceedances of the
CO standard at the East Charleston monitoring station and thus was
unable to show attainment of the standard by the new attainment date
and could not qualify for an additional one-year extension under
section 186(a)(4) of the Act.
Subsequently, on October 2, 1997, we published a final rule that
found that the Las Vegas Valley CO nonattainment area did not attain
the CO NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that reclassified
the area from ``moderate'' to ``serious'' nonattainment under section
186(b)(2) of the Act.\3\ See 62 FR 51604 (October 2, 1997). Areas
reclassified as serious are given more time to develop a SIP revision
and a new attainment date but are subject to additional requirements
beyond those that are required in moderate nonattainment areas. For Las
Vegas Valley, the effect of the reclassification to ``serious'' was to
allow Nevada 18 months from the effective date of the reclassification
to submit a new SIP demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2000, the
CAA attainment date for serious CO nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 81, Sec.
81.329 (40 CFR 81.329) was not updated at that time to reflect this
final action but was recently updated in a separate action. See 67
FR 12474 (March 19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have issued a ``General Preamble'' describing the agency's
preliminary views on SIP revisions submitted under Title I of the Act.
See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992). The reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more
detailed discussion of our preliminary interpretations of Title I
requirements. In this proposed rulemaking action, we are applying these
interpretations to the Las Vegas Valley CO SIP submittals, taking into
consideration the specific factual issues presented.

D. Has EPA Acted on Prior and Related Las Vegas Valley CO SIP
Revisions?

Under a letter dated November 13, 1992, the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (``NDEP'') submitted the first CO attainment
plan for Las Vegas Valley (``1992 CO plan'') under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Because the 1992 CO plan was superceded by the 1995
CO plan, discussed below, we will be taking no action on that plan.
From 1992 through 1994, the State of Nevada submitted various
required CO SIP elements to us for Las Vegas Valley, and, in 1995, the
State of Nevada submitted a new CO attainment plan for Las Vegas Valley
under a letter from NDEP dated November 8, 1995 (``1995 CO plan''). The
1995 CO plan was adopted by the Clark County Board of Commissioners on
October 17, 1995. The 1995 CO plan was deemed complete by operation of
law on May 13, 1996 under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act. The 1995 CO
plan included emissions inventories, including motor vehicle emissions
estimates referred to as budgets, and several CO control measures,
including a specification for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of wintertime
gasoline sold in Clark County, a wintertime oxygenated fuels program,
contingency measures related to technician training for the vehicle
inspection and maintenance (``I/M'') program and heavy duty vehicle
inspection, and an additional commitment to implement an expanded
remote vehicle sensing program.
Until today's notice, the only portion of the 1995 CO plan that was
acted upon

[[Page 4143]]

by us was the motor vehicle emission budgets. We were required to make
positive or negative adequacy determinations on all emission budgets in
response to the March 2, 1999 court decision in Environmental Defense
Fund v. EPA, 167 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1999). We acted on the motor
vehicle emission budgets contained in the 1995 CO plan on May 5, 1999.
See 64 FR 31217 (June 10, 1999). We found the conformity emission
budget (298.6 tons per day, or tpd) in the 1995 CO plan inadequate
since the area failed to meet attainment by the required date for
moderate nonattainment areas and was subsequently reclassified to
``serious.''
In today's action, we are proposing to approve several control
measures derived from those cited in the 1995 CO plan, including the
State's wintertime RVP regulation for gasoline sold in Clark County,
into the Nevada SIP. In addition, we are proposing to approve Nevada's
vehicle I/M program, which now includes training and certification
requirements for vehicle I/M repair technicians and which now requires
annual inspection of heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles.
One of the individual SIP elements submitted in the 1992 to 1994
timeframe referred to above was the vehicle I/M program. Under a letter
dated July 28, 1994, NDEP submitted a SIP revision related to the
State's vehicle I/M program, and we determined that submittal to be
complete on January 31, 1995. In the wake of changes to our
requirements for such programs, NDEP submitted another SIP revision
related to the vehicle I/M program under a letter dated March 20, 1996.
This 1996 vehicle I/M submittal superceded the 1994 vehicle I/M
submittal and was deemed complete by operation of law on September 20,
1996. Subsequent revisions of the I/M regulations were submitted in
August 2000 as part of the 2000 CO plan, described below, and in 2002,
the State submitted additional adopted revisions to the I/M
regulations, a draft revision to the I/M provisions related to
inspection of model year 1996 and newer vehicles, and supplemental
materials related to vehicle roadside remote sensing (on-road testing).
In today's action, we are proposing to approve the 1996 vehicle I/M
program submittal as revised to reflect the changes in that program
through 2002.
As noted above, the ``serious area'' CO SIP revision was due 18
months from the effective date (i.e., November 3, 1997) of
reclassification to ``serious,'' or May 3, 1999. By that date, Nevada
had not submitted the required SIP revision, and on September 10, 1999,
we published a Federal Register notice finalizing a finding of failure
to submit a ``serious area'' SIP revision for CO. See 64 FR 49084
(September 10, 1999). This finding, which was effective on August 31,
1999, triggered an 18-month time clock for sanctions and a 2-year time
clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP) under the Act.
Subsequently, under a letter dated September 29, 1999, NDEP
submitted the ``Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Implementation Plan--
September 1999.'' This plan, referred to herein as the 1999 CO plan,
was adopted by the Clark County Board of Commissioners on September 21,
1999 and was developed to respond to the CO serious area requirements.
On January 12, 2000, we sent a letter to John Schlegel, Director of the
Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning (CCDCP), summarizing
problems with the plan and stating the we had made an inadequacy
finding on the emission budgets in the plan, and in February of 2000,
we published an inadequacy notice on conformity budgets contained in
the 1999 CO plan. See 65 FR 4965 (February 2, 2000). The budgets in
that CO plan were found inadequate because we determined that the
measures contained in the 1999 CO plan would not be sufficient to reach
attainment. Since the 1999 CO plan was superceded by the 2000 CO plan
discussed below, we will be taking no action on that plan.
Under a letter dated August 9, 2000, NDEP submitted the 2000 CO
plan for Las Vegas Valley, adopted by the Clark County Board of
Commissioners on August 1, 2000 (referred to herein as the 2000 CO
plan). We determined this submittal to be complete on September 12,
2000, with respect to portions of the plan relating to CO SIP
requirements.\4\ On November 20, 2000, we also found that the motor
vehicle emission budgets in the 2000 CO plan were adequate for
transportation purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the Act,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In June 2001, the Governor of Nevada designated the Clark County
Board of Commissioners as the regulatory, enforcement and permitting
authority for implementing the Federal Clean Air Act within Clark
County. This action by the Governor necessitated a transfer of certain
pre-existing authorities from the Clark County Board of Health to the
County Board of Commissioners. In response to the Governor's
designation, the Clark County Board of Commissioners created the Clark
County Air Quality Management Board (CCAQMB) as the governing agency
for air quality programs and regulations in Clark County. CCAQMB acts
through a new County department, referred to as the Clark County
Department of Air Quality Management (CCDAQM), which has assumed the
responsibilities for air quality enforcement functions that had been
performed by the Clark County Health District as well as for air
quality planning functions previously performed by CCDCP.
Lastly, under letters dated January 30, 2002 and June 4, 2002, NDEP
submitted additional information to supplement the 2000 CO plan,
including, among other items, current versions of certain adopted I/M
and fuel regulations, a draft version of revised I/M regulations and a
request that EPA ``parallel process'' \5\ these draft regulations as
part of our proposed action on the 2000 CO plan, and the current
statutory authority for the I/M program in Las Vegas Valley. In today's
action, we are proposing to approve the plan elements and measures
contained in this 2000 CO plan as supplemented by the materials
submitted by NDEP in January and June 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Under the ``parallel processing'' procedure, EPA proposes
rulemaking action concurrently with the state's procedures for
approving a SIP submittal and amending its regulations (40 CFR part
51, appendix V, 2.3). If a state's proposed revision is
substantially changed in areas other than those identified in this
document, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another
notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made,
EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions after
responding to any submitted comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA
will occur only after the SIP revision has been fully adopted by the
state and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What Is Included in the 2000 Las Vegas Valley CO Plan?

This 2000 CO plan provides, among other things, a revised CO
attainment demonstration based on updated vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
projections reflecting new forecasts prepared by the Clark County
Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), revised motor vehicle
emission modeling, new emissions inventories, amended control measures,
and updated areawide Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM) and hotspot (CAL3QHC)
air quality modeling analyses using the updated inventories and
improvements to other modeling inputs.

II. EPA Action

A. What Is EPA Proposing To Approve?

In this document, we are proposing to approve the 2000 CO plan,
with respect to the CAA requirements for notice and adoption, baseline
and projected emissions inventory, the reasonable

[[Page 4144]]

further progress (RFP) demonstration, the attainment demonstration, and
VMT forecasts. In addition, we are proposing to approve Nevada's low
enhanced I/M program for Clark County under section 187(a)(6) of the
Act, Clark County's wintertime Cleaner Burning Gasoline program under
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act, and Nevada's wintertime gasoline
specification for Clark County related to Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP).
These three programs, along with previously-approved oxygenated fuel
regulations and natural vehicle turnover (replacement of older higher-
emitting vehicles with newer models manufactured to meet increasingly
stringent emissions standards), are the main control programs relied
upon to reach attainment. We are also proposing to approve an
alternative fuel program for government vehicles, voluntary
transportation control measures, a determination that stationary
sources do not contribute significantly to CO levels for the purposes
of section 187(c) of the Act, a contingency measure, commitments for
further submittals and control measures, as needed, and CO emissions
budgets for conformity purposes.

B. Does the 2000 CO Plan Meet All the Procedural Requirements?

As noted in our earlier completeness finding for the 2000 CO plan
(letter dated September 12, 2000 from Amy Zimpfer to Allen Biaggi), the
CCDCP has satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements
for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption of the plan
and each of the plan amendments. The CCDCP conducted numerous public
workshops and public hearings prior to the adoption hearing on August
1, 2000, at which the 2000 CO plan was adopted by the Clark County
Board of County Commissioners, the lead agency for local air quality
planning in the Las Vegas Valley area. The SIP submittal \6\ includes a
description of public meetings and hearings where the public had the
opportunity to comment on the issues addressed in the plan. Public
noticing for these meetings occurred through advertisements in the Las
Vegas Review Journal and the Las Vegas Sun as well as on the Internet.
Also included are the comments received from the public and responses
developed by the CCDCP staff. Therefore, we propose to approve the 2000
CO plan as meeting the procedural requirements of section 110(a)(2) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A summary of public participation activities in the
development of the plan are included in Appendix D, section 11 of
the 2000 CO plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Levels of CO Are Estimated for the Base Year and Projected for
Future Years and Does the Plan Provide for Reasonable Further Progress?

The revised and updated emissions inventory included in the 2000 CO
plan is consistent with our guidance documents.\7\ The motor vehicle
emissions factors used in the plan were generated by the EPA MOBILE5
model. The base-year (1996) inventory was developed using MOBILE5a (as
adjusted to account for off-cycle emissions); MOBILE5b was used for
emissions projections for years 2000, 2010, and 2020 (also adjusted to
account for off-cycle emissions). The gridded CO inventory for motor
vehicles was then produced using the Direct Travel Impact Model version
2.0 (DTIM2), distributed by the California Department of
Transportation, which combines motor vehicle emission factors with
transportation modeling performed by RTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See, for example, Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon
Monoxide State Implementation Plans, EPA--450/4-91-011; Procedures
for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and
Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary
Sources EPA--450/4-91-016; Procedures for Emission Inventory
Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA 450/4-91-026d Revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point source inventory was prepared primarily from a mail
survey by the Clark County Health District (CCHD). Survey results were
supplemented by information obtained through personal contacts during
compliance inspections. VMT data necessary to calculate on-road mobile
source emissions was provided by RTC. Table 1 below contains
demographic information for Clark County.

Table 1.--Demographic Data Used in Developing Emission Inventories and to Project Activity Levels for
Nonattainment Area \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Population Employment VMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................................................ 1,037,844 493,213 22,469,020
2000............................................................ 1,269,600 609,400 24,929,485
2010............................................................ 1,790,700 859,500 38,022,330
2020............................................................ 2,406,500 1,115,100 57,492,333
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data is based on Clark County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) 1997 Estimates/Projections.

Base Year Emissions
The results of the Las Vegas Valley 1996 base year CO emissions
inventory for stationary point and area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and nonroad mobile sources categories are tabulated in this
section. The biogenics category has been omitted, as it is not
applicable to CO emissions. Table 2 below contains a detailed listing
of average daily CO season emissions by source category. Large
stationary sources at the periphery of the nonattainment area (State
hydrographic area No. 212) have also been included in the inventory.

Table 2.--1996 CO Emissions--Average Daily CO Season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Emissions
Source categories (Tons/day) (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources:
Titanium Metals..................... 2.84 0.60
Kerr McGee-BMI...................... 0.24 0.05
Chemical Lime Co. Apex.............. 0.82 0.17
Bonanza Materials................... 0.28 0.06

[[Page 4145]]

James Hardie Gypsum................. 0.55 0.12
Southern Nevada Paving.............. 0.55 0.12
Pabco Cogeneration/NCA 2............ 0.55 0.12
Georgia Pacific@Apex/NCA 1.......... 0.62 0.13
-----------------
Point Source Total.............. 6.45 1.36
=================
Area Sources:
Small Stationary.................... 2.70 0.57
Boiler Emissions.................... 1.24 0.26
Fireplaces.......................... 2.12 0.45
Structural Fires.................... 0.87 0.18
Vehicular Fires..................... 0.07 0.01
Brush Fires......................... 1.68 0.36
Residential Natural Gas............. 0.78 0.16
Commercial Natural Gas.............. 0.17 0.04
Industrial Natural Gas.............. 0.36 0.08
Electrical Utility Generation....... 0.56 0.12
Cigarette Smoking................... 0.05 0.01
-----------------
Area Source Total............... 10.59 2.24
=================
Nonroad Mobile Sources:
County Airports..................... 36.4 7.69
Nellis AFB.......................... 2.86 0.60
Locomotive Emissions................ 0.23 0.05
Lawn and Garden Equipment........... 0.86 0.18
Construction Equipment.............. 7.84 1.66
MC & Recreational Equipment......... 2.93 0.62
-----------------
Total Nonroad Sources........... 51.12 10.79
=================
On-road Mobile Sources.................. 405.40 85.61
-----------------
Total Daily Emissions....... 473.56 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total average daily, CO season emissions associated with the Las
Vegas Valley nonattainment area for the 1996 base year are 473.56 tons
per day. The methodologies used to prepare the base year emissions
inventory, as described in chapter 3 and appendix A of the 2000 CO
plan, are acceptable. Accordingly, we propose to approve the 2000 CO
plan with respect to the base year emissions inventory requirements of
sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the Act.
Future Year Emissions
The plan must estimate future year emission levels to determine if
Las Vegas Valley can reduce CO levels to acceptable levels. Emission
estimates for the year 2000 are projected using growth factors from the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (for stationary, area and nonroad sources)
and using projected population, employment and VMT data from RTC (for
on-road sources). Levels are estimated both with and without the impact
of the new control programs included in the 2000 CO plan. A summary of
these emission estimates is given in Table 3.

Table 3.--CO Emissions by Major Source Category--Average Daily
Emissions, CO Season, Year 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions (tons/day)
Source Category -------------------------------
Uncontrolled Controlled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources...................... 6.45 6.45
Area Sources............................ 12.41 12.41
On-road Vehicles........................ 353.23 310.18
Other Mobile............................ 53.45 53.45
-----------------
Total............................... 425.44 382.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The decline in emissions from uncontrolled to controlled shown in
Table 3, above, is attributed to the wintertime Cleaner Burning
Gasoline regulation, on-road vehicle fleet turnover, the technician
training and certification requirements of the State's vehicle I/M
program, an alternative fuels program for government fleets and
voluntary transportation control measures. Also, as described in the
following section, the CO emissions reductions under the 2000 CO plan
are sufficient to demonstrate attainment by the applicable date. Thus,
the 2000 CO

[[Page 4146]]

plan includes a control strategy that has been implemented to produce
annual incremental reductions of emissions and that has thereby
provided for RFP toward attainment of the standard by the applicable
attainment date (December 31, 2000).
In this action, therefore, we propose to approve the projected
emissions inventories, under sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the
Act, and approve the 2000 CO plan with respect to the RFP requirements
in sections 172(c)(2) and 187(a)(7) of the Act.

D. How Does the CO Plan Show Attainment of the CO Standards?

The attainment demonstration includes both an areawide and a hot-
spot modeling analysis at heavily-traveled intersections. The areawide
analysis was conducted using the Urban Airshed Model (UAM), according
to our ``Guidance for Application of Urban Areawide Models for CO
Attainment Demonstrations'' (1992). The UAM analysis uses a December 8-
9, 1996 episode. This episode predicted an 8-hour concentration of 11.2
ppm after all adjustments were incorporated. In addition to high 8-hour
values on this day, the highest one-hour value (11.8 ppm) was also
recorded on this episode day.
Emissions inventory data used in the base year (1996) UAM analysis
were derived from the data shown in Table 2, above. The emissions
inventory data used for the UAM analysis were disaggregated into 5
kilometer grid cells throughout the modeling domain. On-road emissions
were distributed using the 1996 roadway network and emission factors.
Model performance for the base year UAM simulation is within our
acceptable range of accuracy: +17 percent for the unpaired peak
prediction, 0 percent for the paired peak prediction, and 3 hours for
the timing error. See 2000 CO plan, page 5-5.
For the attainment year (2000) and for additional future years, on-
road emissions were distributed using the Direct Travel Impact Model
(DTIM) with latest projected roadway networks including future
transportation projects from RTC. Thus, projected changes in Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT), speed and vehicle occupancy rates were
incorporated into the modeling.

Table 4.--UAM Results for Controlled and Uncontrolled Scenarios
Concentrations [ppm]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled Controlled
Year Scenario Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................... 11.2 11.2
2000.................................... 9.1 8.1
2010.................................... 8.7 7.2
2020.................................... 10.5 8.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2000 CO plan, Table 6-3.

The table shows the results of the UAM analysis for the 8-hour
average (the corresponding NAAQS is 9 ppm). Concentrations for the 8-
hour average are shown for the maximum concentration predicted over the
modeling domain. The predicted regional maximum 8-hour average CO
concentration is 8.1 ppm in the year 2000, assuming implementation of
all new control measures. The UAM analysis thus shows attainment with a
margin of safety based on fully adopted regulations. However, an
additional model, CAL3QHC must be used to determine the maximum CO
levels in the area. CAL3QHC is needed to predict the micro-scale
impacts of vehicles operating at congested intersections. Vehicles
operating within congested conditions spend more time in idle modes
that can contribute to high levels of CO near the roadways.
Microscale modeling was conducted for three intersections within
Las Vegas Valley; (1) Charleston Blvd./Eastern Avenue, (2) Charleston
Blvd./Fremont Street and (3) Eastern Avenue/Fremont Street. These three
intersections comprise the ``5 points'' area which is near the Sunrise
Acres CO monitoring station. For years 2000, 2010, and 2020, traffic
data from the roadways were combined with emission factors from
MOBILE5b and meteorological data to predict local hotspot
concentrations. These hourly results from the microscale model were
then combined with hourly concentrations from the background UAM grid
cell to compute maximum running 8-hour concentrations. The combined
results of the CAL3QHC and UAM results are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5.--Intersection Maximum Predicted Combined 8-hour CO Levels (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection 2000 2010 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston/Eastern..................... 8.3 7.3 7.6
Charleston/Fremont..................... 6.7 5.9 6.4
Eastern/Fremont........................ 7.6 6.6 7.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: 2000 CO plan, Table 6-4.
In addition to roadway intersections, high microscale CO levels can
occur at airports. To model the impact of airport sources, the
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) model was used. This
model was developed for evaluating the specific emission sources
typically located at airports. As with CAL3QHC, the hotspot results
from EDMS must be combined with the results of the UAM analysis to
predict the concentrations at receptors around the airports. The 2000
CO plan presents results of the combined UAM and EDMS models for the
base case (uncontrolled). Even without controls, no values above the
9.0 ppm standard are shown for the attainment year (2000). The peak
combined concentration at McCarran International Airport for future
years is 9.07 ppm for 2020. However, with the addition of just one of
the controls included in the plan (specifically, Cleaner Burning
Gasoline), the predicted concentration is reduced to 7.67 ppm, well
below the 8-hour standard. Therefore, we propose to grant

[[Page 4147]]

approval to the 2000 CO plan with respect to the attainment
demonstration requirement of section 187(a)(7) of the Act.

E. How Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Reduced in Las Vegas Valley?

Motor vehicle emissions in Las Vegas Valley are reduced primarily
by a combination of natural fleet turnover, which effectively replaces
older higher-emitting vehicles with models manufactured to meet more
stringent exhaust emissions standards established under the federal
motor vehicle control program, a vehicle I/M program for in-use
vehicles, and wintertime specifications for gasoline. Other measures
that contribute to lower CO emissions include an alternative fuel
program for government vehicles and voluntary transportation control
measures. This section addresses the vehicle I/M program, and following
sections address wintertime gasoline specifications and the other
control measures.
Summary of the Nevada I/M Program
The State of Nevada has implemented an I/M program for vehicle
emissions in Las Vegas Valley since 1978. In 1981, we approved the
statutory basis for the vehicle I/M program for Las Vegas Valley. See
46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981) and 40 CFR 52.1470(14)(iv) and (16)(vi).
In 1984, we approved the regulatory basis for that program into the
Nevada SIP. See 49 FR 44208 (November 5, 1984) and 40 CFR
52.1470(c)(26)(iii). Because Las Vegas Valley was designated as a
moderate CO nonattainment area with a design value greater than 12.7
ppm under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the State of Nevada was required
under section 187(a)(6) of the Act, as amended in 1990, to revise the
vehicle I/M program within Las Vegas Valley to meet ``enhanced''
performance standards, referred to as an enhanced vehicle I/M program.
On November 5, 1992, we published rules in the Federal Register
related to plans for vehicle I/M programs (see 57 FR 52950). The Act
was prescriptive regarding the various elements that are required as
part of an enhanced I/M performance standard. It also required that we
provide states with flexibility in meeting the requirement for enhanced
or basic I/M programs. Title 40, part 51, Sec. 51.351(g) Alternate Low
Enhanced I/M Performance Standard in the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR 51.351(g)) allows states that meet certain specific criteria to
select the alternate ``low'' enhanced I/M performance standard instead
of the ``high'' enhanced performance standards. We established an
alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard for those areas that
are required to implement enhanced I/M but do not have a major mobile
source component to the air quality problem or can obtain adequate
emission reductions from other sources to demonstrate RFP and
attainment.
The State of Nevada chose to adopt a low enhanced vehicle I/M
program and submitted this program to us as a SIP revision on March 20,
1996. The 1996 SIP Submittal for Nevada's vehicle I/M program
supercedes and builds upon the ``basic'' program that we approved in
1984.
The 1996 SIP Submittal contained an overview of the State's I/M
program, a checklist/review of the plan relating it to our
requirements, legislation, rules, implementation of the program,
MOBILE5a analysis (the 2000 CO plan included a revised analysis of the
I/M program based on MOBILE5b), motor vehicle fleet characteristics,
and numerous other appendices containing material describing the
program.
The State Environmental Commission (SEC) and the Department of
Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), which was the predecessor
agency to today's DMV and Department of Public Safety, revised the I/M
regulations in 1996, 1998, and 2000 to, among other things, increase
the cost enabling a registrant to qualify for a waiver (to $450) and
exempt ``restored vehicles'' from certain provisions of the program.
The 2000 CO plan included a revised emissions analysis using MOBILE5b
(see appendix E, section 7 of the plan) taking into account the changes
in the program through 2000, including 100% emissions credit for their
technician training and certification program.
In two supplemental SIP submissions dated January 30, 2002 and June
4, 2002, NDEP submitted current versions of the statutory and
regulatory authority for the low enhanced I/M program in Clark County,
draft revisions to Nevada Administrative Code (``NAC'') 445B.580
relating to procedures for inspecting on-board diagnostics (OBD)
systems on light-duty MY 1996 or newer vehicles (and a request that we
``parallel process'' those draft revisions), contractural materials
related to emissions inspections analyzer equipment for licensed
emission inspection stations, and contractual materials related to on-
road testing.
The technical support document (TSD) provides an evaluation of the
State's complete low enhanced vehicle I/M program relative to our
requirements for such programs, including applicability; low enhanced
I/M performance standard, network type and program evaluation; adequate
tools and resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage,
test procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control;
waivers; motorist compliance enforcement; quality assurance;
enforcement against contractors, stations, and inspectors; data
collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and
certification; public information and consumer protection; improving
repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; and on-road
testing.
EPA Review of the Low Enhanced SIP Revisions
EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs are
contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. The SIP revisions submitted by
NDEP must be consistent with these requirements and must meet EPA's
requirements for enforceability, as well as, CAA section 110(l)
requirements. Although the required elements under Nevada's low
enhanced I/M program differ from those described in EPA's I/M
requirements for low enhanced programs, a side-by-side comparison
demonstrates that, overall, they are not less stringent (see discussion
of emissions modeling results in subsection 8, below).

1. Network Type, Test Frequency, Exhaust Emission Test Type and Vehicle
Coverage

Basic and enhanced I/M programs can be centralized (i.e., state-run
or a single contractor), decentralized (i.e., private small
businesses), or a hybrid of the two, but the network type selected by a
given state together with the other elements of the state I/M program
must achieve the same or better level of emission reduction as the
applicable performance standard. The low enhanced I/M performance
standard assumes annual testing through a centralized testing network
of all model year (MY) 1968 and newer light duty vehicles and light
duty trucks, rated up to a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500
pounds. The low enhanced [chyph]I/M performance standard assumes that
the exhaust emissions of the subject vehicles are subject to the idle
test.
The current low enhanced vehicle I/M program for Las Vegas Valley
and Boulder City requires two speed idle testing of all light-duty
gasoline-powered vehicles MY 1968 through 1995, and for all heavy-duty
gasoline-powered vehicles MY 1968 and newer on an annual basis. Until
recently, light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles MY 1996 and newer were
also subject to two speed idle testing; but recent changes in the State
I/M program now require that

[[Page 4148]]

such vehicles be tested via on-board diagnostic systems checks instead
of the two speed idle test. For the State I/M program, ``light-duty
vehicles'' refers to passenger cars and trucks up to 8,500 pounds GVWR;
``heavy-duty vehicles'' refers to trucks which have a GVWR of 8,500
pounds or more. The network is decentralized and includes both test-
and-repair and test-only stations. All 304 stations are privately owned
stations, 96 of which are test-only stations.

2. Exhaust Standards for CO and Hydrocarbons (HC)

Standards for exhaust emission testing are specified in 40 CFR part
85, subpart W. Consistent with those standards, the State I/M program
establishes, for those vehicles that are subject to emissions testing,
maximum exhaust emissions for MY 1981 and newer vehicles of 1.2% for CO
and 220 ppm for HC. For older light-duty vehicles (MY 1968 through
1980), maximum CO (%) and HC (ppm) range from 4.0%-2.0% and 800 ppm-500
ppm, respectively. The standards for heavy-duty gasoline-powered trucks
MY 1981 and newer are 3.5% for CO and 1000 ppm for HC; for older heavy-
duty vehicles (MY 1968 through 1980), maximum CO (%) and HC (ppm) range
from 7.0%-4.0% and 1,400 ppm-1,000 ppm, respectively. As stated
previously, all light-duty motor vehicles MY 1996 and newer are subject
to on-board diagnostic system checks.
Diesel vehicles are tested under separate requirements, and the
requirements that relate to diesel vehicles are not being approved into
the SIP.

3. Geographic Coverage

EPA's I/M regulations require that state I/M programs be
implemented in the entire urbanized area, based on the 1990 census. See
40 CFR 51.350. The designation for the low enhanced I/M areas are the
boundaries of Hydrographic Basin 212, as established by the State
Engineer, and the city limits of Boulder City.

4. Vehicle Coverage

The performance standard for low enhanced I/M programs assumes
coverage of all MY 1968 and later light-duty vehicles and trucks up to
8,500 pounds GVWR. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the
necessary emission reductions are achieved. See 40 CFR 51.356.
As mentioned above, the Nevada low enhanced I/M program applies to
light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and
heavy-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles within the CO nonattainment area
of Clark County and Boulder City. While still subject to annual vehicle
registration requirements, new vehicles are exempt from emissions
inspections under the Nevada I/M program until the third registration
cycle. Subsequent annual registration or re-registration will require
proof of compliance with emission testing. Vehicles MY 1967 and older,
and motorcycles are also exempt from the I/M testing. The two-year
exemption of newer model year vehicles from emissions testing results
in a relatively small loss in emission benefit since newer vehicles are
generally anticipated to be cleaner than older vehicles. Furthermore,
recent data suggest that newer vehicles stay cleaner longer due to the
slower rate of emission control system deterioration.
The federal regulations also require basic and enhanced I/M
programs to include inspection of all 1996 and later motor vehicles
equipped with on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. EPA has required that
I/M programs begin OBD checks on January 1, 2002 (OBD mandatory start-
up dates were delayed for one year). See 40 CFR 51.373. OBD consists of
a computer which performs checks of a number of different vehicle
systems for malfunctions or deterioration which could result in the
vehicle exceeding its emissions standards and a malfunction indicator
light which is required to be illuminated when the system detects a
problem.
Some inspection stations in Las Vegas began OBD testing MY 1996 and
newer OBD-equipped light-duty vehicles in February 2002 using the
NV2000 analyzer (Nevada's previous I/M emissions analyzer, referred to
as the ``Nevada 94'' analyzer, was not programmed to conduct OBD
testing). By May 1, 2002, all inspection stations in Las Vegas Valley
were conducting OBD tests for MY 1996 and newer OBD-equipped vehicles.
Vehicles which receive an OBD inspection do not receive a two speed
idle tailpipe test.

5. Emission Control Device Inspections

The low enhanced I/M performance standard assumes visual inspection
of the positive crankcase ventilation valve on all 1968 through 1971 MY
vehicles, inclusive, and of the exhaust gas recirculation valve on all
1972 and newer MY vehicles. Nevada's program requires visual inspection
of the presence of a properly installed gas cap on all gasoline-powered
vehicles MY 1968 through 1980, and on heavy-duty gasoline-powered MY
1968 and newer. For light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles MY 1981
through 1995 vehicles visual inspections include: (1) Determining the
presence of an exhaust gas recirculation valve, (2) examining the
catalytic converter, air injection system and fuel inlet restricter;
and (3) determining whether that equipment appears to be operating in
accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer of the vehicle.

6. On-Road Testing

EPA regulations require on-road testing in enhanced I/M programs;
on-road testing is optional for basic I/M programs. The on-road testing
requirement may be met by measuring on-road emissions through the use
of remote sensing devices or through roadside pullovers including
tailpipe or evaporative emission testing or a check of the OBD system.
The federal regulations require on-road testing to evaluate annually
the emission performance of 0.5% of the subject fleet statewide or
20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, per inspection cycle. See 40 CFR
51.371.
Nevada's legal authority for on-road testing was adopted by its
Legislature in Senate Bill 570, which was signed into law by the
Governor on July 5, 1995. This legislation added a new section to
Chapter 445B of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) providing authority
to implement a remote sensing program as part of the vehicle I/M
program (i.e., NRS 445B.798). In the June 2002 SIP Submittal, Nevada
submitted a copy of the executed contract between the State and MD
Laser Tech for on-road testing services, effective through June 30,
2003. DMV has contracted with MCI Worldcom to develop and maintain the
vehicle information emission database (VID). The MCI Worldcom VID
communicates with the DMV registration database. All emission test
results are transmitted from the vehicle information emission database
to the DMV's registration database. The MCI Worldcom system (VID) also
maintains the licensee and administrative programs which are used to
identify emission stations and produce program statistical reports. On-
road testing is located in the administrative program which can be used
to store statistical records for vehicles tested through this process.
Letters can also be generated to vehicle owners when regulatory action
is determined to be proper. The MD Laser Tech contract calls for the
contractor to perform remote sensing of motor vehicle exhaust emissions
for a specified time period at specified locations within Clark County.
The primary operational objective is to obtain information concerning
gross emitting vehicles and use this

[[Page 4149]]

information to ensure that these vehicles are brought into compliance
with Nevada's motor vehicle regulations. Failure of a test conducted
under the on-road testing program may lead to cancellation of vehicle
registration under NRS 482.461 unless, within the prescribed period,
the registered owner has the vehicle inspected and repaired (if
necessary) and provides the DMV with evidence of compliance with the I/
M requirements.

7. Waivers

EPA's requirements allow I/M programs to provide a waiver which
lets the motorist comply with the program without meeting applicable
test standards so long as certain prescribed criteria are met. See 40
CFR 51.360. In basic programs, a minimum of $75 for pre-1981 vehicles
and $200 for 1981 and newer vehicles must be spent by the motorist for
appropriate repairs in order to qualify for a waiver. See 40 CFR
51.360(a)(6). Beginning January 1, 1998, enhanced programs must require
motorists to spend at least $450 for appropriate repairs. See 40 CFR
51.360(a)(7).
Nevada's I/M regulations (NAC 445B.590) require at least $450 in
expenditures on emissions-related vehicle repairs to qualify for a
waiver in Clark County. Only the DMV may grant a waiver from the
standards for emissions. Nevada's rules provide that a waiver from the
applicable standards may only be issued after a retest is failed after
qualifying repairs. The number of failed vehicles that require waivers
is not expected to exceed the current waiver rate of approximately 1
percent. If the waiver rate exceeds 1 percent, Nevada will re-evaluate
their procedures. EPA's model waiver rate is a 3 percent waiver rate,
as a percentage of failed vehicles. Under the State's program, waivers
are denied if the parts have not been installed or the repairs have not
been performed as indicated on the receipts. A waiver applies for only
the one year vehicle registration period. If a vehicle were to fail the
next year, the procedure must be performed again.

8. Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard

EPA's I/M regulations require that the state perform modeling using
the most current version of EPA's mobile source emissions model to
determine that the emissions levels achieved by the state I/M program
meet the minimum performance standard. See 40 CFR 51.351(g). The
minimum performance standard reflects the ``model program'' elements
list in 40 CFR 52.351(g) (e.g. centralized annual testing of light-duty
vehicles and trucks up to 8,500 GVWR MY 1968 and newer).
For the 2000 CO plan, Clark County updated the emissions analysis
of the Nevada I/M program design using MOBILE5b. (The 1996 I/M SIP
submittal included emissions analysis based on MOBILE5a.) The Nevada
vehicle I/M program design includes: computerized test and repair (50%
default values were used to discount emissions reduction benefits of
Nevada's largely test-and-repair network relative to a test-only
network); 1983 start date; 1999 last model year covered (reflects the
first two years exemption on new vehicles and a model run for calendar
year 2002); annual frequency; 1968 and newer model year coverage;
vehicle types include light duty gasoline-powered autos and trucks
(LDGV, LDGT1, and LDGT2) and heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles
(HDGV); five-element visual inspection and gas cap check on all
vehicles MY 1981 and newer; stringency rate for pre-1981 vehicles of 20
percent; waiver rate of 1 percent; a 96 percent compliance rate; and
100 percent emissions credit for the State's technician training and
certification program.
The emissions evaluation of the State's I/M program reflects two
speed idle testing for all subject vehicles. Given an analysis year of
2002 and the State's two-year exemption for new vehicles, the emissions
evaluation reflects two speed idle testing for all subject vehicles MY
1968 through MY 1999. The additional emissions reductions associated
with OBD checks were not included in the emissions evaluation of the
State's program or in the emissions evaluation of the low enhanced I/M
performance standard with which the State's program is compared.
(Recent changes in the State program now require OBD checks for subject
vehicles MY 1996 and newer instead of the two speed idle test).
Section 7 of appendix E of the 2000 CO plan includes the input and
output files from MOBILE5b. As shown in these files, the composite CO
emissions factor for January 1, 2002 under the State's program (15.18
grams per mile) is below the corresponding emission level target (15.49
grams per mile) that reflects the EPA model program; and thus, the
State's low enhanced I/M program for Las Vegas Valley and Boulder City
meets the EPA performance standard for CO.

9. Legal Authority for the Program

The federal I/M rule requires that a state I/M SIP submittal cover
the legal authority requiring or allowing implementation of the I/M
program and providing either broad or specific authority to perform all
required elements of the program as well as implementing regulations,
interagency agreements, and memoranda of understanding. See 40 CFR
51.372(a)(5) and (7). Nevada's 1996 I/M SIP submittal included the
legal authority and implementing regulations for the low enhanced
vehicle I/M program in Las Vegas Valley and Boulder City. The 2000 CO
plan, submitted as a SIP revision in 2000, and the two supplemental SIP
submittals in 2002 provided updated statutes and regulations for this
State program.
The legal authority for the program is vested in the Nevada SEC
under Title 40 (Public Health & Safety) of the Nevada Revised Statutes
(NRS), section 445B.210 and sections 445B.700 through 445B.845, and in
the DMV under Title 43 (Public Safety; Vehicles; Watercraft) of NRS,
sections 481.047-481.083, 482.155-482.283, 482.385, 482.461, 482.565,
and 484.644-484.6441. The implementing regulations are found at Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC) 445B.400 through 445B.735.
The federal I/M rule requires the state I/M program to remain in
operation until it is no longer necessary. See 40 CFR 51.372(a)(6).
Nevada's I/M program does not undergo a sunset review. We believe that
NDEP has demonstrated that the Nevada I/M programs will remain in
operation as long as necessary and the requirements of 40 CFR 51.372
have been satisfied.
Conclusion and Proposed Approval of I/M program
We conclude, based on our review of the vehicle I/M program
relative to our requirements and within the context of the 2000 CO
plan, that the 1996 SIP Submittal for the low enhanced vehicle I/M
program, as revised and supplemented through 2002, meets our
requirements and contributes to the demonstration of attainment of the
CO NAAQS by the applicable date. We, therefore, propose to approve the
vehicle I/M program for Las Vegas Valley and Boulder City into the
Nevada SIP. Specifically, we propose to approve the statutory and
regulatory basis for the revised program in NRS, title 40, section
445B.210 and sections 445B.700 through 445B.845, and title 43, sections
481.047-481.083, 482.155-482.283, 482.385, 482.461, 482.565, and
484.644-484.6441, as amended by Nevada through 2001, and NAC sections
445B.400 through 445B.735 (not including 445B.576, 445B.577, and
445B.578), as adopted through March 8,

[[Page 4150]]

2002, by SEC and DMV, and, in the case of draft revisions to NAC
445B.580 Inspection of vehicle: Procedure (NRS 445B.785), as submitted
by NDEP by letter dated January 30, 2002. We will consider final action
on the vehicle I/M program once we receive the final adopted version of
NAC 445B.580. (This section includes final test procedures and
equipment used for inspecting certified OBD systems. A new section
number will replace NAC 445B.580.) Our approval of the statutory and
regulatory basis for the revised vehicle low enhanced I/M program would
supercede the existing statutory and regulatory basis for vehicle I/M
in the Nevada SIP (as approved by EPA in 1981 and 1984) as it relates
to Las Vegas Valley.

F. Are Any Special Fuels Used in Motor Vehicles Operated in Las Vegas
Valley?

Wintertime gasoline specifications in Clark County reduce CO
emissions in Las Vegas Valley. Specifically, these wintertime
specifications relate to oxygen, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), sulfur
content and aromatic hydrocarbons (``aromatics''). In a separate, prior
action, we approved the wintertime oxygenated fuels regulation in Clark
County under sections 187(b)(3) and 211(m) of the Act. See 64 FR 29573
(June 2, 1999). The low RVP wintertime gasoline regulation was
submitted as part of the 1995 CO plan and the most recent version of
that regulation was submitted to EPA on June 4, 2002. EPA is proposing
to approve that regulation into the Nevada SIP in this notice, as
discussed below. The wintertime sulfur and aromatics specifications are
contained in Clark County's Cleaner Burning Gasoline regulation, which
has been submitted as an additional control measure in the 2000 CO plan
and which is discussed following the low RVP wintertime gasoline
discussion.
Low RVP Wintertime Gasoline
RVP is a measure of the stabilized pressure exerted by a volume of
liquid at 100[deg]
F, and is generally used as a measure of the
volatility of gasoline fuel. Fuels with high RVP values volatilize more
readily than fuels with low RVP values. The effect of the increased
rate of volatilization at any given RVP value is largely dependent on
ambient temperature. Lowering the RVP specification of gasoline reduces
CO emissions from vehicles equipped with functional evaporative control
systems (e.g., on-board carbon-canister). The evaporative control
systems adsorb gasoline vapors which are then desorbed into the
vehicle's fuel intake system causing enrichment of the fuel mixture and
an increase in CO exhaust emissions. A lower volatility gasoline
decreases the amount of vapors adsorbed by carbon canisters which in
turn lowers subsequent fuel mixture enrichment and CO exhaust
emissions. Newer vehicles operate ``closed-loop,'' using oxygen sensors
and constantly adjusting the air/fuel ratio. Such vehicles, which
represent virtually all 1990 and later cars, are programmed to make
adjustments to avoid undue enrichment (and associated emission
increases) during canister purge. As a result, the effect of lower RVP
on CO emissions on average will be larger for open-loop than for
closed-loop cars, but there is considerable variation among
manufacturers, models and model years.
The Nevada legislature granted authority to adopt regulations
relating to fuel standards to the State Board of Agriculture through
NRS chapter 590, section 590.070. Nevada Board of Agriculture's
wintertime RVP regulations are found in chapter 590, section 590.065 of
the Nevada Administrative Code (``NAC 590.065''). The specific
regulation that was submitted as a control measure in the 1995 CO plan
was adopted by the Board of Agriculture on September 21, 1995. Since
that date, this regulation has been revised several times, e.g. to
modify the applicable wintertime period, most recently on October 28,
1998. The current regulation, NAC 590.065 paragraphs (3) and (4),
limits the RVP of gasoline sold in Clark County during the winter
season (October 1 through March 31) to 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi)
with no allowance for ethanol blended fuel. NDEP submitted the current
adopted regulation to us for incorporation into the SIP under a letter
dated June 4, 2002.
The wintertime low RVP requirement is enforced through random
sampling and testing conducted by the Nevada Department of Agriculture.
Funding for enforcement and monitoring activities associated with the
RVP requirement is provided through a portion of the annual vehicle
emission testing certificate fee.
To evaluate the effects of RVP on exhaust emissions, state and
local air agencies use our MOBILE model. CCDCP used MOBILE5a to
evaluate the CO emissions benefits of low RVP under wintertime
conditions for the 1995 CO plan. At the time of the 1995 CO plan, the
supporting documentation indicated that CCDCP properly modeled RVP
controls using appropriate temperatures. However, members of the
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) objected to the 1995 CO
plan's conclusion that gasoline with higher RVP results in higher CO
emissions, especially during vehicle startup. They asserted that
MOBILE5a overestimated the benefit of reducing RVP and expressed their
concern over the related emission reduction predictions contained in
the plan.
To address these concerns, CCHD commissioned a study of vehicle
emissions to assess the validity of MOBILE5a results. Because of the
unusual meteorological conditions in Las Vegas Valley that are
associated with historic CO exceedances, and the relative lack of data
within the MOBILE5a model for evaluating the RVP effects on CO
emissions under colder temperatures, the study called for a shift in
the normal series of events specified by the Federal Test Procedure for
vehicle certification to simulate the effect of a diurnal temperature
profile accompanied by a morning and evening commute.
This study culminated in the publication of the Society of
Automotive Engineers' (SAE971726), Effects of RVP Reduction on Vehicle
CO Emissions During Las Vegas and Los Angeles Winter Conditions--
Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project Number 95-06 in May
1997. As part of this study, two fleets of vehicles were emissions-
tested to determine the effect of gasoline RVP reductions on tailpipe
CO emissions in Las Vegas and Los Angeles under conditions typical of
winter CO exceedances. The analyses had two locations and two RVP's (9
and 12 psi), including separate sets of temperature ranges, base
gasoline types, and oxygenate types and levels. The conclusion was that
RVP reduction is a significant control measure for reducing CO
emissions under conditions typical of CO exceedances in Las Vegas and
Los Angeles. It was estimated that reducing RVP by 3 psi (from 12 psi
to 9 psi) would reduce winter CO emissions by 12% in Las Vegas and
between 0 and .8% in Los Angeles.
As part of our decision whether to approve the State's low RVP
wintertime gasoline regulation into the Nevada SIP, we also must
consider whether the fuel specification in that regulation is preempted
under the Act. Under section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Act preempts certain
state fuel regulations by prohibiting a state from prescribing or
attempting to enforce ``any control or prohibition respecting any
characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive'' for the
purposes of motor vehicle emission control, if EPA has prescribed under
section 211(c)(1), ``a control or prohibition applicable to such
characteristic or component of the fuel or fuel additive,'' unless the
state

[[Page 4151]]

prohibition is identical to the prohibition or control prescribed by
EPA. The Federal controls on RVP, promulgated under section 211(h) and
section 211(c)(1), apply only in the summer months. There is no Federal
RVP control applicable to gasoline in the wintertime, and thus no
Federal preemption of the State's wintertime low RVP requirement.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the State's wintertime low
RVP requirement into the Nevada SIP as a CO control measure [i.e., NAC
590.065, as adopted on October 28, 1998]
because the State has
demonstrated that the measure is enforceable, contributes to the
attainment demonstration by reducing vehicular CO emissions in the Las
Vegas Valley nonattainment area, and is not preempted under section
211(c)(4) of the Act. The TSD provides a copy of the State's low RVP
wintertime regulation and additional information on the emissions
effects of the regulation.
Cleaner Burning Gasoline
The Clark County Board of Health, which governs the CCHD, adopted a
wintertime Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) regulation in 1999 that
results in lower CO emissions from motor vehicles. The CBG regulation
was included as one of the principal additional control measures
included in the 2000 CO plan. The CBG regulation requires that gasoline
sold in Clark County comply with limits on the maximum levels of sulfur
and aromatics during the period from November 1 to March 31.
As noted previously, the air-quality-related regulatory authority
that had been vested in the County Board of Health was transferred to
the County Board of Commissioners in 2001. On July 24, 2001, the Clark
County Board of Commissioners adopted County ordinance #2627,
which, among other items, adopted the Board of Health's air quality
regulations then in effect, including the CBG regulation, except for
substitutions in the references to the applicable agency (e.g., ``Clark
County Air Quality Management Board'' was substituted for ``Clark
County District Board of Health''). We have not yet received CCAQMB's
wintertime CBG regulation (i.e., CCDAQM regulation, section 54) from
NDEP as a SIP submittal, but are proposing approval of the CCAQMB's CBG
rule at this time based on the condition that the State submit to EPA
the CCAQMB version of the rule prior to our taking final action. In so
doing, and as discussed more fully below, we are proposing approval of
CCAQMB's CBG rule based on the substance of the Board of Health's CBG
regulation and our review of the analysis of that regulation contained
in the 2000 CO plan because the two versions of the CBG rule are the
same (but for the substitution in agency references as noted above).
The Board of Health's CBG regulation (CCHD regulation, section 54)
and the related technical support document are in appendix D, section
one, of the 2000 CO plan. The regulation includes sections on:
Definitions; applicability of the standards; the standards for sulfur
content and aromatics content; sampling, testing and recordkeeping;
requirements pertaining to CBG blendstock for oxygenated blending and
downstream blending; and enforcement.
The CBG regulation provides two alternative ways to be in
compliance for the specifications on sulfur and aromatics: (1)
marketers can meet a flat limit on a per gallon basis or (2) marketers
can comply via averaging, with each per gallon sample not to exceed a
certain cap. (The CBG rule does not change current State and local
regulations for wintertime RVP (9 psi) and minimum oxygen content
(3.5%).) A summary of the limitations is shown in Table 6.

Table 6.--Specifications for Aromatics and Sulfur In Clark County CBG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Compliance Method II
Method I -------------------------------
----------------
Flat Limit Average Cap
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur, ppm..................................................... 40 30 80
Aromatics, percent.............................................. 25 22 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, the CBG regulation establishes gasoline standards
for sulfur and aromatics, and as noted above in connection with low RVP
gasoline, under section 211(c)(4) of the Act, states are preempted from
prescribing any control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or
component of a fuel, where there is a nonidentical Federal control or
prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component. See section
5 of the TSD for further discussion of this prohibition and EPA's
guidance on approval of a state fuel measure under section
211(c)(4)(C).
Our analysis of preemption of the CBG regulation addresses the
specifications for sulfur and aromatics. To determine whether a state
fuel requirement is preempted by a federal requirement, we compare the
applicable federal fuel requirements in the area with the proposed
state fuel requirements. For the purposes of this analysis, the federal
fuel requirement in the Las Vegas Valley CO nonattainment area is
federal conventional gasoline.
In this proposed rulemaking, EPA does not need to determine whether
the federal requirements for conventional gasoline include requirements
for sulfur and aromatics which would preempt the CBG regulation under
section 211(c)(4)(A). If the sulfur and aromatics requirements are not
preempted, there is no bar to our approving them as a SIP revision.\8\
If they are preempted, we may approve the CBG regulation as necessary
under section 211(c)(4)(C) if we could approve each of these
requirements as a SIP revision, i.e., if CCHD's documentation for the
regulation shows that each requirement (i.e., the sulfur limit and the
aromatics limit) is ``necessary'' to achieve the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ It is clear, however, that as of December 21, 1999, EPA has
prescribed specific limits on maximum sulfur content in conventional
gasoline. See, Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline
Sulfur Control Requirements, 65 FR 6698, 6765 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sulfur and aromatics specifications both reduce CO emissions.
Emissions modeling data shows that each of these controls,
independently, contributes to CO emissions reductions. Thus, each
requirement can be determined ``necessary'' to achieve the CO NAAQS if
the remaining requirements of the necessity determination are met.
To make a necessity determination, we must consider whether there
are other reasonable and practicable measures available that would
produce sufficient emissions reductions to attain the CO NAAQS without
implementation of the CBG requirements. Section 211(c)(4) is intended
to ensure that a state resorts to a fuel measure only if there are no
available practicable and

[[Page 4152]]

reasonable non-fuel measures. In demonstrating that measures other than
sulfur and aromatics requirements for wintertime CBG are unreasonable
or impracticable, a state need not address the reasonableness or
practicability of other state fuel measures.
CCHD conducted an extensive public process to evaluate possible
future emissions control options, including revisions to the current I/
M program. CCHD considered eight control options other than wintertime
CBG requirements for sulfur and aromatics. These options were: (1)
Separation of test and repair stations to make its I/M program a
``high'' enhanced program, (2) creation of one-way streets, (3) adding
powerful air propellers to certain developments, (4) adding 600 non-
conventional-fueled buses to its municipal fleet, (5) transportation
control measures, (6) alternative fuels requirements for municipal
fleets, (7) lower smog cutpoints for the I/M program, and (8) episodic
woodburning control. The first four options were rejected as
unreasonable or impracticable due to unavailability and/or
ineffectiveness.
The remaining four control measures were subject to further
evaluation, but none of these measures provides significant emissions
reductions. CCHD's modeling calculations show that, even with emissions
reductions attributed to these four remaining measures, the CO design
value would not reach 9.0 ppm by the end of 2000 without adding the
reductions due to sulfur and aromatics controls for wintertime CBG.
Estimates prepared for the 2000 CO plan indicate that
implementation of the CBG regulation would reduce CO emissions by 31.9
tons per day and 53.96 tons per day in years 2000 and 2020,
respectively. These estimates are based on use of the Complex model
(with CO added), (``CO Complex model''), in combination with the
MOBILE5b model to show the emissions effects that are directly related
to the specific fuel specifications in the CBG regulation. (See
appendix E, section 1, of the 2000 CO plan.) In March of 1999, EPA
reviewed and approved the use of the CO Complex model for CO SIP
development purposes, due to the unique fuel program in use in Clark
County and the inability of MOBILE5b to fully assess the impact of all
of the fuel parameters. At that time, the CO Complex model was the best
approach available to assess these fuel parameters.
The CO Complex model was approved for SIP development purposes in a
letter dated March 23, 1999 from Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region 9, to
Michael Naylor, Director, Air Pollution Control Division, CCHD.
All future transportation conformity determinations for CO in Clark
County must be based on the CO Complex model with MOBILE5b until the
grace period for MOBILE6 has concluded. Because MOBILE6 is not capable
of estimating the benefits of this exact fuels program, EPA will work
with Clark County prior to the end of the MOBILE6 conformity grace
period to determine how the benefits of this program should be
estimated.
Results from the modeling demonstration showed that, by
implementing the wintertime CBG regulation, along with the other
measures identified in the CO attainment SIP, the Las Vegas Valley
should achieve the 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9 ppm by the December 31, 2000
attainment deadline.
Although CCHD did not identify the estimated quantity of CO
emissions that must be reduced in order to achieve the CO NAAQS, it did
estimate the CO emissions reductions attributable to each of the
individual control measures (including the CBG regulation) that were
subject to further evaluation. CCHD's modeling calculations showed
that, without the emissions reductions attributable to the CBG
regulation, Las Vegas Valley would not achieve the CO NAAQS by the end
of the year 2000. Therefore, the emission reductions from the CBG
regulation are necessary to achieve the CO NAAQS.
In general, to be approved as part of a SIP, regulations must
include adequate enforceability provisions, such as clear indications
of what constitutes a violation, who is liable, and what defenses are
available. Under the CBG regulation, those who fail to comply with the
CBG regulation are subject to enforcement action and may be assessed
penalties of up to $10,000 per day per section violated. CCDAQM has
adopted the requirements developed by CCHD for every entity in the
gasoline distribution system to ensure that Las Vegas Valley will
receive gasoline that meets the wintertime CBG standards. The
requirements, which include registration of gasoline suppliers, testing
and sampling, compliance surveys, and record keeping and reporting,
apply to any producer, importer, terminal, pipeline operator, trucker,
rail carrier, or retailer.
The requirements imposed by the wintertime CBG regulation apply to
activity occurring both within and outside of Clark County and the
State of Nevada. CCDAQM has been assigned the rights and duties of an
agreement between CCHD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to
have CARB sample and test CBG at the refineries in Southern California.
Clark County also made an agreement with the Nevada Department of
Agriculture to check fuel at the final destination (i.e., Clark
County). The Department of Agriculture agreed to check sulfur and
aromatics content of CBG fuel along with their normal testing. They
would notify the CCDAQM in the event that any sample exhibits non-
compliant CBG characteristics.
We have evaluated the wintertime CBG regulation and have determined
that it is consistent with section 110 of the CAA and EPA regulations.
We have also found that the various wintertime CBG requirements are
necessary for the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area to achieve the CO
NAAQS, pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act. Therefore, based on
the substance of the submitted Board of Health wintertime CBG
regulation, and the County ordinance adopting the CBG regulation as in
effect in mid-2001 (except for changes to agency references), we are
proposing to approve the CCAQMB's wintertime CBG regulation (i.e.,
CCDAQM regulation, section 54) into the Nevada SIP for the Las Vegas
Valley CO nonattainment area based on the condition that the State
submit to EPA the CCAQMB version of the rule prior to our taking final
action.

G. Are There Any Other Programs That Reduce Overall Motor Vehicle
Emissions in Las Vegas?

The 2000 CO plan includes two additional programs to reduce overall
emissions of motor vehicles. These programs are a Transportation
Control Measure/Transportation Demand Measure (``TCM/TDM'') program and
an alternative fuel program for government fleets.
TCM/TDM Program
Section 187(b)(2) of the Act requires states with serious CO
nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision that includes
transportation control strategies and measures to offset any growth in
emissions due to growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle
trips. In developing such strategies, a state must consider measures
specified in section 108(f) of the Act and choose from among and
implement such measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment with the
NAAQS.
Transportation control measures (``TCMs'') are designed to reduce
mobile pollutant emissions by either improving transportation
efficiency or reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. TCMs can

[[Page 4153]]

be divided into two general strategies: Transportation System
Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). The former
is intended to improve efficiency of existing transportation
infrastructure such as optimized use of capacity and improved speeds to
reduce travel time delays, and the latter is intended to reduce the
number of single-occupant vehicles on roadways by shifting people from
single-occupant vehicles to transit and high-occupancy vehicles. In the
process of preparing the 2000 CO plan, Clark County commissioned a
study to estimate the CO reductions due to various individual TCMs and
packages of TCMs and to identify those TCMs that showed the greatest
potential for reducing CO emissions in the Valley.
The findings and recommendations of this TCM study led to the
development by RTC of the CAT MATCH commuter services program, which is
a voluntary TDM program that includes employer-based commuter incentive
programs, telecommuting incentives and area-wide ridesharing programs.
On June 10, 1999, RTC adopted Resolution No. 177, which establishes
guidelines for administering the CAT MATCH commuter services program.
Portions of the CAT MATCH program became operational in July 1999.
Also, in connection with the CAT MATCH program, RTC adopted Resolution
No. 186 (on June 8, 2000), which commits that agency to implement the
CAT MATCH program, monitor participation levels, prepare annual reports
comparing actual participation levels with projected levels, and remedy
any shortfall of CO emission reductions resulting from actual
participation levels being lower than predicted levels.
The CAT MATCH program was included as an additional control measure
in the 2000 CO plan. The 2000 CO plan estimates that the CAT MATCH
program would reduce CO emissions by 0.3 tpd in 2000, 1.8 tpd in 2010,
and 2.3 tpd in 2020, and refers to our Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Program (VMEP) policy, described below, in support of the
identification of the CO emissions reductions from that voluntary
program as part of the overall CO control strategy.
A memorandum from Richard Wilson dated October 24, 1997 sets forth
our policy and interpretation regarding the granting of explicit credit
for VMEPs under section 110 of the Act. The VMEP policy was developed
since we wanted to encourage areas to consider innovative methods in
achieving air quality goals. Under the VMEP policy, emissions credit
can be approved under certain circumstances and if the appropriate
agency has committed to monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of
the voluntary measure, to reporting on the results of the evaluation,
and to remedying any emissions shortfall if the voluntary measure
proves to be less effective than projected in the plan.
We have evaluated the CAT MATCH program under our VMEP policy and
conclude that the emissions reduction credit in the 2000 CO plan for
that voluntary program is appropriate. We also have determined that the
CAT MATCH program complies with section 187(b)(2) of the Act.
Therefore, we propose to approve the CAT MATCH program under section
187(b)(2) of the Act, and we propose to approve into the Nevada SIP the
commitments by RTC to develop, implement, monitor, report, and remedy
any emissions shortfalls from this voluntary program under RTC's
Resolution No. 177 (adopted June 10, 1999) and Resolution No. 186
(adopted June 8, 2000). Our full review of the TCM/TDM measure is
included in the TSD for this proposed action.
Alternative Fuels Program
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) requires federal, state, and
fuel provider fleets to acquire alternative fuel vehicles. The State of
Nevada has chosen to develop a program that extends alternative fuel
requirements to local government agencies in their two most populated
counties, Washoe and Clark, and that provides for a more aggressive
schedule for implementation than would otherwise be required under
EPACT. The State law establishing this program is set forth at NRS
chapter 486A. NRS chapter 486A authorizes the State Environmental
Commission (SEC) to promulgate implementing regulations, and SEC's
regulations are set forth in NAC chapter 486A. Specifically, SEC's
regulations require applicable government agencies to acquire and use
an increasing proportion of alternative fuel vehicles up to 90% for
year 2001 and beyond when acquiring additional or replacement vehicles
for its fleet. The program began in 1995, and the 2000 CO plan
indicates that nearly all applicable agencies have chosen to comply by
acquiring natural gas vehicles and that presently there are over 1,400
alternative fuel vehicles operating in Las Vegas Valley. The
regulations also include record keeping and reporting requirements.
Under the regulatory scheme, the State Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources is responsible for enforcement.
The 2000 CO plan included the alternative fuels program set forth
in NAC chapter 486A, as revised through April 2000, as an additional
control measure. In estimating emission reductions in Clark County
associated with this measure, the 2000 CO plan assumes that most fleets
have chosen to purchase CNG vehicles to comply with the alternative
fuel regulations and that the number of CNG vehicles is expected to be
2,925 by year 2010, and 3,568 by year 2020. Under these assumptions,
implementation of the alternative fuel vehicle programs results in
emission reductions of 0.4 tpd in 2000, 1.1 tpd in 2010 and 1.4 tpd in
2020. The State's alternative fuel program contributes to the effort to
attain and maintain the CO NAAQS within Las Vegas Valley and meets all
CAA requirements (see the TSD for more details). Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the alternative fuel program into the Nevada SIP
for the Las Vegas Valley CO nonattainment area. Specifically, we
propose to approve, into the Nevada SIP, the legal authority vested in
SEC under NRS Chapter 486A and the implementing regulations set forth
in NAC Chapter 486A, as amended through April 20, 2000 by the State
Environmental Commission.

H. Are There Controls on Stationary Sources of CO?

Section 172(c)(5) of the Act requires states with nonattainment
areas to revise their SIPs to include a permit program for the
construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources
in the nonattainment areas.
Within Clark County, the State of Nevada, rather than the county,
has jurisdiction over plants which generate electricity by using steam
produced by the burning of fossil fuel. See NRS 445B.500. With respect
to such plants, EPA is not requiring the State to submit new source
review permit regulations under section 172(c)(5) of the Act because
the State has adopted a regulation that prohibits new power plants or
major modifications to existing power plants under its jurisdiction
within the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area (i.e., hydrographic area
212). See NAC 445B.22083.
Clark County has jurisdiction over all other stationary sources
within the county, and with respect to those sources, we approved the
new source review permit program for Clark County in 1999. See 64 FR
25210 (May 11, 1999). This program defines major stationary sources of
CO within Las Vegas Valley as those that have the potential to emit 70
tons per year or more, which is more stringent than required under
section 302(j) of the Act

[[Page 4154]]

and requires such new or modified sources locating within the
nonattainment area to obtain offsets in addition to installing control
equipment representing the lowest achievable emission rate.
However, on August 29, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit vacated our approval of Clark County's new source review
program. See Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). The court
vacated our approval, not because EPA had acted unreasonably in finding
that the program complies with the specific requirements of section
172(c)(5), but rather, because EPA did not have an adequate basis under
section 110(l) of the Act to conclude that the new program, even if it
met the minimum requirements of section 172(c)(5), would not interfere
with attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable deadline.
We intend to re-propose an action on the new source review program
in a separate notice in the near future. However, we note here that the
emissions inventory and attainment demonstration from the 2000 CO plan
that we are proposing to approve in this notice includes stationary
sources and the projections of emissions from those sources appear to
be generally consistent with the new source review program as submitted
to EPA. Specifically, the 2000 CO plan assumes that CO emissions from
major CO stationary sources will remain unchanged (which is consistent
with the offset requirement in their new source review program) whereas
the plan projects growth in CO emissions from non-major stationary
sources (which are not subject to federally-enforceable offsets under
their program).
Section 187(c) of the Act requires that, in the case of CO
nonattainment areas classified as serious and subject to significant
stationary source emissions of CO, the term ``major stationary source''
is to include any stationary source which emits, or has the potential
to emit, 50 tons per year or more of CO. The 2000 CO plan concludes
that Las Vegas Valley is not subject to significant stationary source
emissions of CO and thus not subject to the requirements of section
187(c). Generally, significance in this context is associated with
areas with individual stationary sources that generate 5,000 tons of CO
per year or more. (See guidance provided in a memorandum from William
G. Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, EPA, dated May 13,
1991.) Since the highest CO-emitting facility shown in the stationary
source inventory for the 2000 CO plan emits only 1,100 tons per year of
CO, we agree with the conclusion that stationary sources are not
significant contributors to ambient CO levels in Las Vegas Valley and
that section 187(c) of the Act does not apply within the Las Vegas
Valley CO nonattainment area.

I. What Expected Growth of Vehicle Traffic Is Projected for the Area?

Section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires states with CO
nonattainment areas with design values greater than 12.7 ppm, such as
Las Vegas Valley, to submit a plan revision that contains a forecast of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the nonattainment area for each year
until attainment of the CO NAAQS. Also, this plan revision must provide
for annual updates of the VMT forecasts to be submitted to EPA along
with annual reports regarding the extent to which the preceding annual
forecasts proved to be accurate. These annual reports must contain
estimates of actual VMT in each year for which a VMT forecast was
required.
The 2000 CO plan provides VMT forecasts for every year from 1997
through the attainment year of 2000 and then nearly every year between
2001 and 2030. The VMT forecasts were estimated using recent
transportation modeling results from RTC that incorporated more recent
socioeconomic data than had been used for VMT forecasts contained in
the earlier plans. The VMT forecasts are displayed in Table 7-1 of
Chapter 7 of the 2000 CO plan. The forecasts are broken down by roadway
type. The forecasts predict increases in VMT of roughly 5% each year
through 2005 consistent with recent trends, then roughly 4% each
thereafter until 2020, and then marginal decreases each year between
2020 and 2030 based on an assumption of highway saturation by that time
resulting in a mode shift to mass transit, ride sharing, and other
modes.
RTC is the local agency responsible for preparing VMT forecasts.
Through Resolution No. 149, as adopted on July 13, 1995, RTC has
committed to preparing annual VMT estimates and forecasts and to
submitting these reports (``VMT tracking reports'') to EPA. Under
section 187(a)(3) of the Act, annual VMT tracking reports provide a
potential basis for triggering implementation of contingency measures
in the event that estimates of actual VMT exceed the forecasts
contained in the prior annual VMT tracking report.
We propose to approve the VMT forecasts contained in the 2000 CO
plan as meeting the section 187(a)(2)(A) requirements. However, it is
noted that section 187(a)(2)(A) does not require forecasts extending as
far into the future as those provided in the 2000 CO plan, and, while
our approval of the emissions budgets through 2020 discussed in this
notice implies approval of the VMT forecasts through 2020, no such
implied approval is intended for VMT forecasts beyond 2020. Also, we
propose to approve RTC's commitment through Resolution No. 149 to
prepare and submit annual VMT tracking reports.

J. Does the Plan Include Contingency Measures?

Section 187(a)(3) of the Act requires states with CO nonattainment
areas with design values greater than 12.7 ppm, such as Las Vegas
Valley, to submit a plan revision that provides for contingency
measures. The Act specifies that such measures are to be implemented if
any estimate of VMT submitted in an annual VMT tracking report exceeds
the VMT predicted in the most recent prior forecast or if the area
fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. As a general rule,
contingency measures must be structured to take effect without further
action by the state or EPA upon the occurrence of certain triggering
events.
EPA believes that, for exceedances of a VMT forecast, one
appropriate choice of contingency measures would be to provide for the
implementation of sufficient VMT reductions or emissions reductions to
counteract the effect of 1 year's growth in VMT while the state revised
its SIP (including VMT projections) to provide for attainment by the
applicable date. These measures may offset either the excess VMT in the
nonattainment area or the additional CO emissions in the area that are
attributable to the additional VMT. In the case of Las Vegas Valley,
the annualized rate of growth in VMT over the 2000 to 2005 period is
approximately 5 percent; therefore, the contingency measures should
have the potential to achieve that level of reduction in VMT or a
corresponding reduction in CO emissions, which would be approximately
16 tons per day based on the 2000 CO motor vehicle estimate of 310 tons
per day.
For a failure to attain the CO NAAQS by the attainment date, EPA
believes that contingency measures should have the potential to provide
a reduction in CO emissions equivalent to 3 percent of the CO
inventory. In this instance, 3 percent of the total CO inventory
projection in 2000 (387 tons per day) is approximately 12 tons per day.
The three contingency measures included in the 2000 CO plan
include:

[[Page 4155]]

--On Board Diagnostics II (OBD II) Testing; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Some variety of OBD system has been an option on certain
vehicle models since the early 1980's, standardized OBD systems
(also known as OBD II) were not introduced until MY 1994, and such
systems did not appear on all new light-duty vehicles sold in this
country until MY 1996. Therefore, for I/M purposes, EPA does not
require or recommend that pre-1996 MY vehicles be subject to OBD
inspections. Additionally, EPA's MOBILE6 emission factor model will
not provide emission reduction on pre-1996 MY vehicles. (Nevada DMV
intends to submit final adopted regulations that are consistent with
EPA's definition for OBD systems.)

--Lower I/M Program Cutpoints; and
--On Road Remote Sensing.
From 1997 through 2000, when the Las Vegas serious area plan was
being developed, the implementation deadline for mandatory OBD testing
in I/M programs had not yet passed, and the plan identified OBD II
testing as a contingency measure that would be triggered by the
occurrence of either unanticipated growth in VMT or a CO exceedance.
However, the deadline for mandatory OBD testing is now expired. See 66
FR 18156 (April 5, 2001). Normally, a required measure does not qualify
as contingency measure; however, a measure that represents a
requirement but that is designed to allow for implementation prior to
its implementation deadline may qualify as a short-term contingency
measure. In this instance, because the implementation deadline for
mandatory OBD testing had not passed at the time of plan development
and adoption and the emissions benefits from mandatory OBD testing were
not included in the attainment demonstration, and because of Clark
County's commitment to provide documentation and additional measures if
necessary, as explained below, we propose to approve OBD testing as a
contingency measure of the 2000 CO plan for the purposes of section
187(a)(3) of the Act. As noted previously, in today's action, we are
proposing to approve (under our parallel processing procedure)
revisions to the I/M program to implement OBD II testing based on draft
revisions to the implementing regulations (specifically, revision to
NAC 445B.580) submitted by NDEP under a letter dated January 30, 2002.
Thus, as a practical matter, this contingency measure will not actually
be contingent upon occurrence of any particular event but will be
implemented fully by the end of 2002.
The 2000 CO plan did not provide emission reduction estimates for
implementation of OBD II testing because of the limitations of the
vehicle emissions model (MOBILE5b) available at the time of plan
preparation. However, in adopting the 2000 CO plan (resolution dated
August 1, 2000), Clark County committed to preparing and submitting a
plan revision to EPA that quantifies the actual benefits of the
contingency measures contained in the plan, within one year of the
release date of pending applicable guidance protocols and models. The
County also committed to monitoring the emission reductions associated
with the plan's control measures and remedying in a timely fashion any
shortfall for the purpose of complying with SIP control measure
requirements of the Act.
In January 2002, EPA approved and announced the availability of the
MOBILE6 motor vehicle emission factor model for official use outside of
California. See 67 FR 4254 (January 29, 2002). Unlike MOBILE5b, MOBILE6
has the capability of quantifying the emissions reductions associated
with implementation of OBD. Based on Clark County's commitment cited
above, we anticipate that the County will develop and, via NDEP, submit
emissions estimates by the end of January 2003 showing the emissions
reductions associated with OBD testing in Clark County and identifying
additional contingency measures, if necessary, to provide needed
emissions reductions if VMT growth exceeds projections or if the CO
NAAQS is exceeded.
In addition, the Nevada State Environmental Commission adopted a
resolution dated April 9, 1999 that directs NDEP, DMV, the Department
of Agriculture, and Clark County to work together to identify and
propose to the appropriate adopting body the most cost-effective and
reasonably available control strategies necessary to achieve and
maintain the NAAQS and to ensure conformity between the transportation
improvement program and the SIP. Through this resolution, the Nevada
State Environmental Commission further committed itself to adopting
appropriate emission reduction measures as necessary to ensure that the
NAAQS can be achieved and maintained in Las Vegas Valley.
We agree that MOBILE6 is the appropriate tool to use in estimating
emissions reductions from OBD testing, and we agree that implementing
OBD testing will provide substantial emissions reductions beyond those
already accounted for in the 2000 CO plan. We expect that OBD testing
will ultimately be shown by Clark County to provide emissions
reductions beyond the minimum we believe contingency measures must
provide. Taken together with the County's commitments to provide
emissions documentation and remedial contingency measures, if
necessary, and the Nevada State Environmental Commission's April 9,
1999 resolution, we propose to approve OBD II testing as meeting
section 187(a)(3) requirements.
We are proposing to disapprove the other contingency measures in
the 2000 CO plan, lower I/M program cutpoints and on-road remote
sensing. With respect to lower I/M program cutpoints, we are proposing
disapproval because the measure has not been developed to allow for
implementation (upon the occurrence of triggering events) without
further action by the State. With respect to on-road remote sensing, in
proposing disapproval, we note that a minimum level of on-road testing
is required for all enhanced I/M programs (see 40 CFR 51.51.351(b), and
to the extent that this particular measure provides for that minimum
level of testing, it does not qualify as a contingency measure.
An on-road testing program designed to obtain measurable emission
reductions over and above those already predicted to be achieved by
other aspects of the I/M program can serve as a contingency measure,
but the description and documentation of the on-road remote sensing
contingency measure as included in the 2000 CO plan does not provide us
with the basis to conclude that it would provide emissions reductions
beyond those already predicted to be achieved by other aspects of the
I/M program. Nonetheless, we have concluded that these two measures are
not necessary for plan approval, and we propose to find that OBD II
testing and related commitments are sufficient in themselves to comply
with section 187(a)(3) of the Act. Therefore, our disapproval of these
contingency measures, if finalized, would not trigger sanctions clocks
under section 179(a) of the Act.

K. Are the Emissions Budgets Approvable?

Section 176(c)(1) of the Act prohibits federal agencies from
permitting, approving, or funding any activity in nonattainment or
maintenance areas that does not conform to a SIP once the SIP has been
approved by EPA under section 110 of the Act. Section 176(c)(1) also
prohibits metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), such as the Clark
County RTC, from approving any project, program, or plan that does not
conform to a SIP once the SIP has been approved by EPA under section
110 of the Act. With regards to regional transportation plans and
program, MPOs must demonstrate consistency between motor vehicle
emissions estimates under those plans and

[[Page 4156]]

programs and corresponding motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in
the applicable SIP. On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 167 F.3d 641 (DC Cir. 1999), that we
must make an affirmative determination that motor vehicle emission
budgets in submitted SIPs are adequate before transportation agencies
can use those budgets in conformity determinations under the
transportation conformity rule set forth in 40 CFR 93, subpart A.
Upon receipt of the 2000 CO plan, we announced receipt of the plan
on the Internet and requested public comment by September 29, 2000. The
November 20, 2000 letter from Amy Zimpfer to Allen Biaggi and the
November 30, 2000 Federal Register Notice (65 FR 71313) announced our
decision that the motor vehicle budgets in the CO Plan are adequate.
The technical support document that was attached to the letter
summarizes how the motor vehicle CO emission budgets for the years
2000, 2010 and 2020 meet the adequacy criteria contained in the
conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). These budgets are shown in Table
7.

Table 7.--Las Vegas Valley Peak Season Emission Budgets
[Emissions (tons/day)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2000 2010 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Motor Vehicles.......................................... 310.2 329.5 457.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: 2000 CO Plan, Table 8-3.
The 2000 CO plan predicts that the overall downward CO emissions
trend in the nonattainment area will reverse after year 2000 and will,
before 2020, exceed valley-wide CO emissions estimated for 1996 (i.e.,
473.56 tons per day) when CO NAAQS violations were recorded; however,
the results of area-wide and hot-spot modeling provided in the 2000 CO
plan indicate that CO NAAQS violations would not be expected in the
future despite these increases in overall CO emissions. The explanation
lies in the wider geographic distribution of traffic and related CO
emissions in 2020 compared to conditions that prevailed in the mid-
1990's due to land use development patterns that disperse new
development and related traffic congestion into outlying areas. Thus,
the CO motor vehicle emission budgets in the 2000 CO plan can be
approved despite the increases relative to emissions levels associated
with past NAAQS violations.
We re-affirm the evaluation provided in the TSD supporting the
adequacy determination and propose to approve the CO motor vehicle
emission budgets (shown in Table 7, above) contained in the 2000 CO
plan as meeting the purposes of section 176(c)(1) and the
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.

L. Summary of EPA's Proposed Actions

Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we propose the following
actions on elements of the 1995 CO plan, the vehicle I/M program for
Las Vegas Valley, and the 2000 CO plan.
(1) Approval of procedural requirements, under section 110(a)(1) of
the Act;
(2) Approval of baseline and projected emission inventories, under
sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the Act and approval of reasonable
further progress, under sections 172(c)(2) and 187(a)(7) of the Act;
(3) Approval of attainment demonstration, under section 187(a)(7)
of the Act;
(4) Approval of revisions to the Nevada vehicle I/M program for Las
Vegas Valley and Boulder City under section 187(a)(6) of the Act.
Specifically, we propose to approve the statutory and regulatory basis
for the revised program in NRS, title 40, section 445B.210 and sections
445B.700 through 445B.845, and title 43, sections 481.047-481.083,
482.155-482.283, 482.385, 482.461, 482.565, and 484.644-484.6441, as
amended by Nevada through 2001, and NAC sections 445B.400 through
445B.735 (not including 445B.576, 445B.577, 445B.578), as amended
through March 8, 2002 by SEC and DMV, and, in the case of draft
revisions to NAC 445B.580, as submitted by NDEP by letter dated January
30, 2002. We will consider final action on the vehicle I/M program once
we receive the final adopted version of NAC 445B.580 (and other NAC
sections that specify final test procedures and equipment used for OBD
checks);
(5) Approval of the State's low RVP wintertime requirement for
gasoline sold in Clark County. Specifically, we propose to approve NAC
590.065 as adopted on October 28, 1998 by the State Board of
Agriculture;
(6) Approval of the County's wintertime Cleaner Burning Gasoline
(CBG) regulation under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act. Specifically,
we propose to approve CCDAQM section 54 as adopted on July 24, 2001 by
CCAQMB based on the condition that the State submit to EPA the CCAQMB
version of the rule prior to our taking final action. CCAQMB's adopted
version of the CBG rule (CCDAQM section 54) is the same as the Board of
Health's CBG regulation that had been submitted to EPA in August 2000
as one of the principal control measures in the 2000 CO plan developed
to meet the applicable requirements under part D of title I of the Act
for the Las Vegas CO nonattainment area but for changes in the
references to the applicable agency;
(7) Approval of RTC's CAT MATCH commuter incentive program under
section 187(b)(2) of the Act and our voluntary mobile source emissions
reduction program policy. Specifically, we propose to approve CAT MATCH
guidelines as set forth in RTC's Resolution No. 177, adopted on June
10, 1999, and the commitments to implement and monitor the program, and
prepare annual reports, as set forth in RTC's Resolution No. 186,
adopted on June 8, 2000;
(8) Approval of the Alternative Fuels Program for government
vehicles in Clark County. Specifically, we propose to approve the
regulations set forth in NAC Chapter 486A, as amended through April 20,
2000 by the State Environmental Commission;
(9) Approval of a determination that stationary sources do not
contribute significantly to ambient CO levels in the Las Vegas CO
nonattainment area for the purposes of section 187(c) of the Act;
(10) Approval of VMT forecasts and the responsible agencies'
commitments to revise and replace the VMT projections as needed and
monitor actual VMT levels in the future, under section 187(a)(2)(A) of
the Act. Specifically, we propose to approve RTC's commitments to
prepare VMT estimates, forecasts, and annual VMT tracking reports as
set forth in Resolution No. 149, as adopted on July 13, 1995;

[[Page 4157]]

(11) Approval of contingency measures under section 187(a)(3) of
the Act. Specifically, we propose to approve the revisions to NAC
445B.580 related to implementation of OBD testing based on the draft
revisions to that section submitted by NDEP under letter dated January
30, 2002 and the commitments contained in Resolution of the Clark
County Board of Commissioners to Adopt the Las Vegas Valley Carbon
Monoxide State Implementation Plan, adopted August 1, 2000, to monitor
the emission reductions associated with the plan's control measures, to
remedy in a timely fashion any shortfall, to prepare and submit a plan
revision to EPA that quantifies the actual benefits of the contingency
measures contained in the plan, within one year of the release date of
pending applicable guidance protocols and models, and to the resolution
adopted by the Nevada State Environmental Commission on April 9, 1999;
(12) Disapproval of the other two contingency measures contained in
the 2000 CO plan, lower I/M program cutpoints and on-road remote
sensing, but our disapproval, if finalized, would not trigger sanctions
clocks because we are proposing to find that OBD II testing and related
commitments themselves provide the necessary compliance with section
187(a)(3) of the Act; and
(13) Approval of the CO motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2000,
2010, and 2020 as meeting the purposes of section 176(c)(1) and the
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. All future
transportation conformity determinations for CO in Clark County must be
based on the CO Complex model with MOBILE5b until the grace period for
MOBILE6 has concluded.

III. Request for Public Comment

We are soliciting public comment on all aspects of this proposal.
These comments will be considered before taking final action. To
comment on today's proposal, you should submit comments by mail or in
person (in triplicate if possible) to the ADDRESSES section listed in
the front of this document. Your comments must be received by February
27, 2003 to be considered in the final action taken by EPA.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism, and
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with
state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely proposes to approve a state plan implementing a federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not involve or
impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13211

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the state is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial

[[Page 4158]]

number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v.
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205,
EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that
the proposed approval action does not include a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either
state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: January 15, 2003.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 03-1774 Filed 1-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Nevada; Clark County

Local Navigation