[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4141-4158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1774]


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

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: 
[email protected].

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'' (65 FR 67249, 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