Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 4141

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.

such portion of the unpaid retroactive 

benefits as is necessary to reimburse the 

person for such expense. 

(2) Inapplicability of certain accrued 

benefit requirements. The provisions of 

38 U.S.C. 5121(a) and § 3.1000(a) 

limiting payment of accrued benefits to 

amounts due and unpaid for a period 

not to exceed two years do not apply to 

payments under this section. The 

provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5121(c) and 

§ 3.1000(c) requiring survivors to file 

claims for accrued benefits also do not 

apply to payments under this section. 

When a Nehmer class member dies prior 

to receiving retroactive payments under 

this section, VA will pay the amount to 

an identified payee in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section without 

requiring an application from the payee. 

Prior to releasing such payment, 

however, VA may ask the payee to 

provide further information as specified 

in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.

(3) Identifying Payees. VA shall make 

reasonable efforts to identify the 

appropriate payee(s) under paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section based on 

information in the veteran’s claims file. 

If further information is needed to 

determine whether any appropriate 

payee exists or whether there are any 

persons having equal or higher 

precedence than a known prospective 

payee, VA will request such information 

from a survivor or authorized 

representative if the claims file provides 

sufficient contact information. Before 

releasing payment to an identified 

payee, VA will ask the payee to state 

whether there are any other survivors of 

the class member who may have equal 

or greater entitlement to payment under 

this section, unless the circumstances 

clearly indicate that such a request is 

unnecessary. If, following such efforts, 

VA releases the full amount of unpaid 

benefits to a payee, VA may not 

thereafter pay any portion of such 

benefits to any other individual, unless 

VA is able to recover the payment 

previously released. 

(4) Bar to accrued benefit claims. 

Payment of benefits pursuant to 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall bar 

a later claim by any individual for 

payment of all or any part of such 

benefits as accrued benefits under 38 

U.S.C. 5121 and § 3.1000. 

(g) Awards covered by this section. 

This section applies only to awards of 

disability compensation or DIC for 

disability or death caused by a disease 

listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

[FR Doc. 03–1834 Filed 1–27–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[NV–039–0053; FRL–7444–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Nevada; Clark County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Nevada to provide for attainment of the 

carbon monoxide (CO) national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) in the 

Clark County Nonattainment Area. EPA 

is proposing to approve the SIP 

revisions under provisions of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act) regarding EPA 

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for 

national primary and secondary ambient 

air quality standards, and plan 

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposal must be received by February 

27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to the EPA contact below. 

You may inspect and copy the 

rulemaking docket for this notice at the 

following location during normal 

business hours. We may charge you a 

reasonable fee for copying parts of the 

docket.

Steven Barhite, Chief, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air 

Division, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the addresses 

listed below:

Nevada Dept. of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Division of 

Environmental Protection, 333 West 

Nye Lane, Room 138, Carson City, NV 

89706. 

Clark County Department of Air Quality 

Management, 500 S. Grand Central 

Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karina O’Connor, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 

9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

CA 94105–3901. Telephone: (775) 833–

1276. E-mail: oconnor.karina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents

I. Background 

A. Why Is CO an Air Quality Problem? 

B. How Are CO Levels Assessed? 

C. What Clean Air Act Statutory, 

Regulatory, and Policy Requirements 

Must Las Vegas Meet To Improve CO 

Levels? 

D. Has EPA Acted on Prior and Related Las 

Vegas Valley CO SIP Revisions? 

E. What Is Included in the 2000 Las Vegas 

Valley CO Plan? 

II. EPA Action 

A. What Is EPA Proposing To Approve? 

B. Does the 2000 CO Plan Meet All of the 

Procedural Requirements? 

C. What Levels of CO Are Estimated For 

the Base Year and Projected for Future 

Years and Does the Plan Provide for 

Reasonable Further Progress? 

D. How Does the CO Plan Show 

Attainment of the CO Standards? 

E. How Are Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Reduced in Las Vegas Valley? 

F. Are Any Special Fuels Used in Motor 

Vehicles Operated in Las Vegas Valley? 

G. Are There Any Other Programs That 

Reduce Overall Motor Vehicle Emissions 

in Las Vegas? 

H. Are There Controls on Stationary 

Sources of CO? 

I. What Expected Growth of Vehicle Traffic 

Is Projected for the Area? 

J. Does the Plan Include Contingency 

Measures? 

K. Are the Emissions Budgets Approvable? 

L. Summary of EPA’s proposed actions 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background 

A. Why Is CO an Air Quality Problem?

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, 

odorless gas emitted in combustion 

processes. In Clark County, like most 

urban areas, CO comes primarily from 

tailpipe emissions of cars and trucks.1

Exposure to elevated CO levels is 

associated with impairment of visual 

perception, work capacity, manual 

dexterity, and learning ability, and with 

illness and death for those who already 

suffer from cardiovascular disease, 

particularly angina or peripheral 

vascular disease.

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 nonoverlapping 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). 

4142 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

2The CO nonattainment area is the ‘‘Las Vegas 

Valley Hydrographic Area 212’’ within Clark 

County. See 40 CFR 81.329.

3Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 

81, § 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).

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.

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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 4143

4EPA 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).

5Under 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.

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.

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.

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 

4144 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

6A summary of public participation activities in 

the development of the plan are included in 

Appendix D, section 11 of the 2000 CO plan.

7See, 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.

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.

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 offcycle 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.

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

Source categories Emissions

(Tons/day) 

Emissions

(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 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 4145

TABLE 2.—1996 CO EMISSIONS—AVERAGE DAILY CO SEASON—Continued

Source categories Emissions

(Tons/day) 

Emissions

(Percent) 

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 

Source Category 

Emissions

(tons/day) 

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 

4146 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

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 hotspot modeling analysis at heavilytraveled 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. Onroad 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] 

Year Uncontrolled

Scenario 

Controlled

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 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 higheremitting 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 inuse 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, 

§ 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 onboard 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

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 gasolinepowered vehicles MY 1968 through 

1995, and for all heavy-duty gasolinepowered vehicles MY 1968 and newer 

on an annual basis. Until recently, lightduty 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

4148 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

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 testand-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 lightduty 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 lightduty, 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 OBDequipped 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; onroad 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

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 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-andrepair 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 gasolinepowered 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, 

4150 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

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° 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 4151

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).

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-qualityrelated 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 

Method I 

Compliance Method II 

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.

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 

4152 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonconventional-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 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 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 employerbased 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 

4154 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

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:

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 4155

9Some 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.)

—On Board Diagnostics II (OBD II) 

Testing; 9

—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 

4156 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

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 areawide 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 mid1990’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; 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 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 

4158 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

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 costeffective 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[AL–058–1–200312b; FRL–7444–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plan for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: Alabama

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

section 111(d)/129 State Plan submitted 

by the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM) for 

the State of Alabama on February 21, 

2002, for implementing and enforcing 

the Emissions Guidelines applicable to 

existing Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incinerators. The Plan was 

submitted by ADEM to satisfy Federal 

Clean Air Act requirements. In the Final 

Rules Section of this Federal Register, 

the EPA is approving the Alabama State 

Plan revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this revision as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

significant, material, and adverse 

comments are received in response to 

this rule, no further activity is 

contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this rule. 

The EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this document. Any 

parties interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to: Joydeb Majumder, EPA 

Region 444, Air Toxics and Management 

Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Copies of 

documents relative to this action are 

available for inspection during normal 

business hours at the above listed 

Region 4 location. Anyone interested in 

examining this document should make 

an appointment with the office at least 

24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joydeb Majumder at (404) 562–9121 or 

Sean Lakeman at (404) 562–9043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: January 16, 2003. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 03–1868 Filed 1–27–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 03–185, MB Docket No. 03–20, RM–

10634] 

Television Broadcast Service; 

Christiansted, VI

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests 

comments on a petition filed by Virgin 

Blue, Inc., requesting the substitution of 

channel 39 for station WCVI–TV’s 

channel 27. TV Channel 39 can be 

allotted to Christiansted, Virgin Islands 

with a zero offset consistent with the 

minimum distance separation 

requirements of sections 73.610 and 

73.698 of the Commission’s Rules. The 

coordinates for channel 39 at 

Christiansted are 17–44–53 N. and 64–

43–40 W.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before March 24, 2003, and reply 

comments on or before April 8, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve the petitioner, or its counsel or 

consultant, as follows: Victor A. Gold, 

President, WCVI–TV, PO Box 24027, 

Christiansted, Virgin Islands 00824 

(petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam 

Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418–

1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking, MB Docket No.