59490 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 31, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 17, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart S—Kentucky 

■ 2. Section 52.920(d) is amended by 

adding a new entry ‘‘LG & E Cane Run 

Generating Station NOX RACT Plan 

Amendment 2’’ at the end of the table 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit No. 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

LG & E Cane Run Generating Station NOX RACT Plan Amendment 

2.

N/A ................................................... 7/18/2012 8/30/2016, [Insert citation of publication].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–20656 Filed 8–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0096; FRL–9951–48– 

Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; Reno, Nevada; 

Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Nevada. On 

July 3, 2008, the EPA redesignated the 

Truckee Meadows area, consisting 

largely of the cities of Reno and Sparks 

in Washoe County, Nevada, from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

carbon monoxide (CO) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and approved the State’s plan 

addressing the area’s maintenance of the 

NAAQS for ten years. On November 7, 

2014, the State of Nevada submitted to 

the EPA a second maintenance plan for 

the Truckee Meadows area that 

addressed maintenance of the NAAQS 

through 2030. The EPA is now 

approving this second maintenance 

plan. The EPA is also finding adequate 

and approving transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for the years 2015, 

2020, 2025 and 2030. We are taking 

these actions under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

31, 2016 without further notice, unless 

the EPA receives adverse comments by 

September 29, 2016. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59491 

1For a detailed description of air quality planning 

in the area, see the EPA’s proposal to approve the 

first 10-year maintenance plan, published in the 

Federal Register on January 7, 2008, 73 FR 1175 at 

1177. The CO attainment table in 40 CFR 81.329 

lists the area as ‘‘Reno Area: Washoe County (part) 

Truckee Meadows Hydrographic Area 87.’’ 

2The initials EPA, and the words ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

3See Truckee Meadows 1980–2016 1-Hour CO 

Violation Day Count Report, data pulled from AQS 

on August 1, 2016. 

4 2014 Maintenance Plan, page 1. See also, 

Truckee Meadows 1991–2016 8-Hour CO Violation 

Day Count Report, data pulled from AQS on August 

1, 2016, which verifies the District’s assertion in the 

2014 Maintenance Plan that there have been no 8- 

hour CO violations in the Truckee Meadows area 

since 1991. This report also includes more recent 

monitoring data (up through the first quarter of 

2016) than the 2014 Maintenance Plan. 

5 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

extends through 2018. Thus, the second 10-year 

period must extend at least through 2028. The 

District’s demonstration is for maintenance through 

2030. 

OAR–2016–0096 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

John Kelly, Air Planning Office at 

kelly.johnj@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be removed or edited from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4151, 

kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Truckee Meadows Attainment Status 

B. 2014 Maintenance Plan 

C. Transportation Conformity 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s 

Submittal 

A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data 

B. Attainment Inventory 

C. Maintenance Demonstration 

D. Transportation Conformity 

E. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Network 

F. Verification of Continued Attainment 

G. Contingency Plan 

III. Public Comment and Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Truckee Meadows Attainment Status 

Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

the Truckee Meadows area (hereinafter 

referred to as Truckee Meadows, the 

Truckee Meadows area or the area), 

which includes the Reno-Sparks 

metropolitan area in Washoe County, 

Nevada, was designated and classified 

as a moderate CO nonattainment area.1

The primary CO NAAQS are attained 

when ambient concentration design 

values do not exceed either the 1-hour 

35 parts per million (ppm) (or 10 

milligrams per cubic meter) standard or 

the 8-hour 9 ppm (or 40 milligrams per 

cubic meter) standard more than once 

per year. See 40 CFR 50.8(a). According 

to monitoring data going back to 1980 in 

the EPA’s 2 Air Quality System (AQS), 

Truckee Meadows has not had a 

violation of the 1-hour CO standard.3

Regarding the 8-hour standard, the area 

has not had a violation since 1991.4 The 

EPA determined in 2005 that the area 

had attained the CO NAAQS by the 

area’s December 31, 1995 attainment 

deadline. See 70 FR 22803 (May 3, 

2005). This determination did not affect 

the designation of the area as 

nonattainment or its classification as a 

moderate area. 

On November 4, 2005, the State of 

Nevada (‘‘State’’ or ‘‘Nevada’’) 

submitted a request to the EPA to 

redesignate Truckee Meadows from 

nonattainment to attainment for the CO 

NAAQS. Along with this request, the 

State submitted a CAA section 175A(a) 

maintenance plan, which demonstrated 

that the area would maintain the CO 

NAAQS for the first 10 years following 

our approval of the redesignation 

request (‘‘2005 Maintenance Plan’’). We 

approved the State’s redesignation 

request and 10-year maintenance plan 

on April 2, 2008. See 73 FR 38124 (July 

3, 2008). For a detailed history of the CO 

planning efforts in the area up to 2005, 

please see the EPA’s proposal to 

approve the 2005 Maintenance Plan. See 

73 FR 1175 at 1177 (January 7, 2008). 

B. 2014 Maintenance Plan 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, CAA section 

175A(b) requires the State to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to the 

EPA, covering a second 10-year period.5

The second maintenance plan must 

demonstrate continued compliance with 

the NAAQS during this second 10-year 

period. To fulfill this requirement of the 

CAA, Nevada submitted the second 10- 

year update of the Truckee Meadows 

area CO maintenance plan to the EPA 

on November 7, 2014. The plan was 

developed by the Washoe County 

Health District’s (District) Air Quality 

Management Division (AQMD) and is 

titled ‘‘Second 10-Year Maintenance 

Plan for the Truckee Meadows 8-Hour 

Carbon Monoxide Attainment Area, 

August 28, 2014’’ (hereinafter, ‘‘2014 

Maintenance Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’). The 2014 

Maintenance Plan was adopted by the 

District’s Board of Health on August 28, 

2014. See Washoe County Board of 

Health Certificate of Adoption, August 

28, 2014. Air quality planning and 

monitoring in Truckee Meadows is the 

responsibility of the District, which 

administers air quality programs in 

Washoe County through the AQMD. The 

State Environmental Commission and 

the Nevada Department of Motor 

Vehicles are responsible for the motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

program in Truckee Meadows. 

C. Transportation Conformity 

Section 176(c) of the Act defines 

conformity as meeting the SIP’s purpose 

of eliminating or reducing the severity 

and number of violations of the NAAQS 

and achieving expeditious attainment of 

such standards. The Act further defines 

transportation conformity to mean that 

no Federal transportation activity will: 

(1) Cause or contribute to any new 

violation of any standard in any area; (2) 

increase the frequency or severity of any 

existing violation of any standard in any 

area; or (3) delay timely attainment of 

any standard or any required interim 

emission reductions or other milestones 

in any area. The federal transportation 

conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart 

A, sets forth the criteria and procedures 

for demonstrating and assuring 

conformity of transportation plans, 

programs and projects which are 

developed, funded or approved by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, and 

by metropolitan planning organizations 

or other recipients of Federal funds 

under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 

Transit Laws. 

The transportation conformity rule 

applies within all nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. As prescribed by the 

transportation conformity rule, once an 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

6 Design values were derived from AQS. The EPA 

notes that the 8-hour CO design value given in the 

2014 Maintenance Plan for the year 2011 (i.e., 2.9 

ppm) appears to be in error and should actually be 

as shown (i.e., 2.6 ppm). For 1-hour CO design 

values, see the Truckee Meadows 1-Hour CO 2006– 

2016 Maximum Values Report, dated August 1, 

2016. For 8-hour CO design values, see the Truckee 

Meadows 8-Hour CO 2006–2016 Maximum Values 

Report, dated August 1, 2016. 

7Preliminary design values for 2016 through 

March 31, 2016. See Truckee Meadows 2016 1-hour 

Completeness Report, dated August 1, 2016. 

8See the EPA’s September 4, 1992 John Calcagni 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ at 

page 9, available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/ 

calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_

requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_

090492.pdf. 

area has an applicable SIP with MVEBs, 

the expected emissions from planned 

transportation activities must be 

consistent with such established 

budgets for that area. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s 

Submittal 

The 2014 Maintenance Plan contains 

the following major sections: (1) An 

introductory section containing a 

general discussion of plan approvals 

and the area’s redesignation to 

attainment; and (2) a maintenance plan 

section including subsections on the 

attainment emissions inventory, a 

maintenance demonstration, MVEBs, 

the area’s monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and a contingency plan. See 2014 

Maintenance Plan, Chapters 1 and 2. 

Following is the EPA’s evaluation of 

the 2014 Maintenance Plan under the 

CAA, the EPA’s implementing 

regulations and relevant guidance. 

A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data 

As noted above, the primary NAAQS 

for CO are: 9 ppm (or 10 milligrams per 

cubic meter) for an 8-hour average 

concentration not to be exceeded more 

than once per year and 35 ppm (or 40 

milligrams per cubic meter) for a 1-hour 

average concentration not to be 

exceeded more than once per year. See 

40 CFR 50.8(a). 

The 2014 Maintenance Plan includes 

a summary of 8-hour CO design values 

for the years 2008 to 2013. See 2014 

Maintenance Plan, Table 1–1, page 2. In 

addition, the EPA examined monitoring 

data for Truckee Meadows for the last 

ten years, including a large portion of 

the period covered by the first 

maintenance plan. Table 1 shows the 

complete, quality assured and certified 

ambient air monitoring design values for 

CO in the area for the years 2006 to 2015 

and preliminary data for 2016. The first 

maintenance plan covers the years 

2008–2018. The year 2015 is the last 

year for which we have complete, 

quality assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring design values for CO in the 

area. The monitoring data show that CO 

design values in the Truckee Meadows 

area have been well below the level of 

the NAAQS throughout the last decade. 

TABLE 1—CO DESIGN VALUES FOR

TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV, YEARS

2006–2015 

Design Values (ppm) 6

Years 

1-Hour 8-Hour 

4.8 ..................... 3.3 2006 

4.7 ..................... 3.3 2007 

3.9 ..................... 2.9 2008 

4.2 ..................... 2.6 2009 

3.1 ..................... 2.6 2010 

3.4 ..................... 2.6 2011 

2.8 ..................... 2.3 2012 

2.8 ..................... 2.4 2013 

3.2 ..................... 2.4 2014 

2.7 ..................... 2.0 2015 

2.2 ..................... 1.5 7 2016 

B. Attainment Inventory 

Due to the area’s status at the time as 

moderate nonattainment for the CO 

standards, the District developed a 1990 

baseline emissions inventory and has 

continued to update the inventory 

pursuant to CAA requirements every 

three years. The most recent inventory 

at the time the state submitted the 2014 

Maintenance Plan was for the year 2011. 

The District is using the 2011 emissions 

inventory, adjusted down due to 

unusually high wildfire emissions that 

occurred that year, as the attainment 

inventory. The District refers to this 

attainment inventory as the Truckee 

Meadows maintenance emissions limit. 

With the level of emissions that 

occurred in 2011, the area still attained 

the CO standards. Levels at or below the 

downward-adjusted 2011 emissions 

(that is, the Truckee Meadows 

maintenance emissions limit) are 

therefore expected to maintain the 

standards. The unadjusted emissions 

levels are presented in Table 2. The 

District then adjusts the nonpoint 

source category to reflect more 

representative wildfire emissions, and 

then uses the adjusted total emissions 

for the area as the maintenance 

emissions limit, as explained in section 

III.C below. 

TABLE 2—2011 CO INVENTORY

Source category 

2011 Inventory 

(pounds per 

day) 

Point ...................................... 3,361 

Nonpoint ............................... 154,956 

Non-road ............................... 50,706 

TABLE 2—2011 CO INVENTORY— 

Continued 

Source category 

2011 Inventory 

(pounds per 

day) 

On-road ................................. 163,500 

Total * ................................ 372,522 

* Totals may not add up due to rounding. 

The EPA finds that the 2011 inventory 

information presented by the District is 

acceptable and consistent with the 

source category amounts and totals for 

the 2011 National Emissions Inventory 

for Washoe County, with one exception. 

The District’s information does not 

account for railroad (locomotive) 

emissions. Locomotive emissions would 

add 3.6 tons per year of CO emissions 

to the area, or 19.7 pounds per day (lbs/ 

day). Compared to a total inventory of 

372,522 lbs/day, however, the omission 

of railroad emissions amounts to less 

than 0.01% of the total CO emissions for 

the area, and the EPA therefore does not 

believe the omission to be significant. 

C. Maintenance Demonstration 

In general, a state may demonstrate 

that an area will maintain the NAAQS 

by showing that future emissions will 

not exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory.8 Attainment must be 

demonstrated for the 10-year period 

following the first ten years covered by 

the initial maintenance plan. For the 

Truckee Meadows area, the first 

maintenance period ranges from 2008, 

when the EPA approved the area’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan, through the year 2018. In the 2014 

Maintenance Plan, the District must also 

demonstrate attainment for the 10-year 

period following the first ten years. The 

2014 Maintenance Plan covers a portion 

of the first 10-year period (through 

2018), as well as the second ten years, 

2018 through 2028. In addition, a state 

may go beyond the minimum 

requirements of the CAA. The District 

has elected to make the horizon year for 

this Plan 2030 for the convenience of 

transportation planning. 

Although the 2005 Maintenance Plan 

addresses maintenance through the year 

2018, the emissions projections of the 

2014 Maintenance Plan replace those 

from the previous plan. The District’s 

rationale is that there are now better 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59493 

9See Washoe County, Nevada: 2011 Periodic 

Emissions Inventory and Appendices A, B, and C. 

10See ‘‘Procedures for Preparing Emissions 

Projections,’’ EPA–450/4–91–019, July 1991, 

available online at https://www.epa.gov/nscep. 

planning assumptions and improved 

emissions calculation methodologies 

that were not available in developing 

the previous plan. Updated 

methodologies include the change from 

using MOBILE6 mobile source modeling 

software, used for the 2005 Maintenance 

Plan, to the MOVES model used for the 

2014 Maintenance Plan. 

As noted above, the District used its 

2011 periodic emissions inventory 9 to 

develop the baseline 2011 ‘‘maintenance 

emissions limit’’ for the Truckee 

Meadows area, which is then used to 

compare future emissions inventories 

for the purpose of verifying continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS as long as 

those future emissions are lower than 

the maintenance emissions limit. 

As shown in Table 3, for most 

emissions categories, the District simply 

used emission levels from the 2011 

periodic emissions inventory to develop 

its 2011 maintenance emissions limit. 

However, for wildfires, the District 

noted that 2011 was an unusually active 

year for wildfires, with corresponding 

CO emissions of 105,092 lbs/day. To 

approximate more typical wildfire 

emissions for purposes of producing the 

2011 Truckee Meadows maintenance 

emissions limit, the District used the 

average of wildfire emissions for the 

four previous inventory years (1999, 

2002, 2005, and 2008). That average is 

217 lbs/day, which the District used to 

adjust the nonpoint source category. 

Due to this adjustment, total nonpoint 

emissions for the nonpoint source 

category are 50,081 lbs/day for the 

maintenance emissions limit, as 

compared with 154,956 lbs/day in the 

2011 emissions inventory, as shown in 

Table 3. See 2014 Maintenance Plan, 

Table 2–3. 

TABLE 3—TRUCKEE MEADOWS CO 

EMISSIONS INVENTORIES, IN POUNDS

PER DAY

Source 

category 

2011 2011 

Periodic 

inventory 

(lbs/day) 

Maintenance 

emissions 

limit 

(lbs/day) 

Point .................. 3,361 3,361 

Nonpoint ........... 154,956 50,081 

Non-Road Mobile ................. 50,706 50,706 

On-Road Mobile 163,500 163,500 

Total * ............ 372,522 267,648 

* Totals may not add up due to rounding. 

The District supports its use of 

267,648 lbs/day maintenance emissions 

limit as the attainment inventory 

because it uses the most accurate 

emissions inventory methodologies, is a 

current and comprehensive emissions 

inventory, identifies the level of 

emissions in the Truckee Meadows area 

sufficient to maintain the CO standards, 

and will be the emissions inventory 

most consistent with the 2030 projected 

inventory required for demonstrating 

maintenance of the CO standards. See 

2014 CO Maintenance Plan, page 6. 

The District used the following 

methodologies or models, as described 

in EPA guidance,11 to project the 2011 

maintenance emissions limit (i.e. the 

2011 periodic emissions inventory 

adjusted to exclude unusually high 

wildfire emissions) out to future 

milestone years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 

2030 for each of the emissions source 

categories, in order to demonstrate 

continued maintenance with the CO 

NAAQS. 

1. Baseline Emissions Projections. 

Washoe County’s 2030 population, 

employment and vehicle miles travelled 

(VMT) forecasts (2014 Maintenance 

Plan, Appendix A) were used as 

surrogates to project the 2030 emissions, 

and were consistent with those used by 

the local metropolitan planning 

organization. 

2. EPA Models. Non-road and on-road 

motor vehicle categories accounted for 

approximately 59% of the 2011 

emissions inventory. To ensure 

consistency throughout the maintenance 

demonstration period, the same nonroad and on-road models were used to 

estimate the 2030 projected emissions 

inventory. 

3. Emissions Category Surveys. The 

District uses surveys to estimate 

emissions from residential wood 

combustion (RWC). The District applied 

an adjustment factor based on heating 

degree days to the most recent survey 

(conducted in 2012–2013) to project 

RWC emissions from 2015 through 

2030. See 2014 Maintenance Plan, 

Appendix A.1 

Table 4 lists the 2011 Truckee 

Meadows maintenance emissions limit 

and projected emissions for 2015, 2020, 

2025 and 2030 for the four major CO 

emissions source categories in the area. 

See 2014 Maintenance Plan, Table 2–4. 

The District provides a more detailed 

inventory for 2011 and projected future 

years in the 2014 Maintenance Plan, 

Appendix B. 

TABLE 4—TRUCKEE MEADOWS CO MAINTENANCE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES (LBS/DAY) 

Source category 2011 * 2015 2020 2025 2030 

Point ..................................................................................... 3,361 3,768 4,357 4,974 5,678 

Nonpoint ............................................................................... 50,081 47,820 45,236 42,845 40,355 

Non-Road ............................................................................. 50,706 43,725 45,385 48,320 51,656 

On-Road ............................................................................... 163,500 150,330 140,129 138,938 142,686 

Total ** ........................................................................... 267,648 245,642 235,107 235,077 240,375 

* Truckee Meadows maintenance emissions limit. 

** Totals may not add up due to rounding. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59494 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

11Although the summary paragraph following 

Table 2–4 in the plan compares future year 

projections shown in the table to the ‘‘2011 Truckee 

Meadows maintenance emissions inventory,’’ EPA 

believes that the District clearly intended to make 

the comparison to the ‘‘Truckee Meadows 

Maintenance Emissions Limit,’’ as the District 

stated in this single-asterisk (*) note to the table. 

See 2014 Maintenance Plan, page 7. 

12Further information concerning the EPA’s 

interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in 

the preamble to the EPA’s November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193– 

62196). 

13See also letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, 

U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Leo M. Drozdoff, 

P.E., Director, Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection, dated February 14, 2006, available 

online at: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/statere

sources/transconf/adequacy/ltrs/

truckee033006.pdf. 

14See memo from John J. Kelly, Air Planning 

Office, EPA Region 9, to Docket EPA–R09–OAR– 

2016–0096, dated August 5, 2016. 

The District projects that population, 

number of households, employment and 

VMT will increase through 2030 and 

beyond, but that federally enforceable 

CO control programs targeting gasolinepowered motor vehicles, RWC and 

diesel-powered motor vehicles will help 

offset this growth. Because future 

emissions are not projected to exceed 

the level of the 2011 Truckee Meadows 

maintenance emissions limit of 267,648 

lbs/day, the District asserts that the CO 

NAAQS will be maintained through the 

maintenance demonstration period.11

The EPA agrees with the District’s 

conclusion. Even with the growth 

expected in the area in the future, 

overall emissions of CO in the area are 

declining and provide assurance that 

the area will not violate the CO standard 

in the future. With respect to wildfire 

emissions, we find that the District’s 

approach of adjusting both the 

attainment inventory (i.e., the 

maintenance emissions limit) and the 

projected future year emissions 

inventories to exclude unusually high 

2011 wildfire emissions is reasonable. 

D. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. See 

CAA section 176(c)(1)(B). The EPA’s 

conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A requires that transportation 

plans, programs and projects conform to 

SIPs and establishes the criteria and 

procedures for determining whether or 

not they conform. To effectuate its 

purpose, the conformity rule generally 

requires a demonstration that emissions 

from the Regional Transportation Plan 

and the Transportation Improvement 

Program are consistent with the MVEBs 

contained in the applicable control 

strategy SIP revision or maintenance 

plan. See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 

93.124. An MVEB is defined as the level 

of mobile source emissions of a 

pollutant relied upon in the attainment 

or maintenance demonstration to show 

compliance with the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment or maintenance area.12

The EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of 

a SIP submission; (2) providing the 

public the opportunity to comment on 

the MVEB during a public comment 

period; and, (3) making a finding of 

adequacy or inadequacy. See 40 CR 

93.118(f). In order for us to find an 

MVEB adequate and approvable, the 

submittal must meet the conformity 

adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). The 2005 

Maintenance Plan established CO 

MVEBs (in terms of pounds per typical 

CO season day) of 330,678 pounds per 

typical CO season day in year 2010 and 

321,319 pounds per typical CO season 

day in year 2016. The EPA found the CO 

MVEBs adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes effective March 30, 

2006 (March 15, 2006, 71 FR 13386) 13

and approved the MVEBs on July 3, 

2008 (73 FR 38124). 

The 2014 Maintenance Plan 

establishes new MVEBs for CO, as 

shown in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE TRUCKEE MEADOWS CO 

MAINTENANCE AREA

[lbs/day] 

Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 

CO MVEB ........................................................................................................ 172,336 172,670 171,509 169,959 

The District developed these MVEBs 

using emissions inventory projections 

for the years 2015 through 2030. The 

MVEBs include on-road vehicles, heavy 

duty diesel vehicle idling, and a safety 

margin. The latter is the excess 

emissions between the total projected 

emissions for a specific year and the 

2011 maintenance emissions limit. We 

note that the MVEBs in the 2014 

Maintenance Plan differ from those 

contained for similar years in the 2005 

Maintenance Plan. These differences are 

due to the use of the latest planning 

assumptions for the transportation 

network, including VMT, vehicle speeds 

and vehicle population for passenger 

cars and trucks, in the development of 

the Washoe County 2011 periodic 

emissions inventory. As in previous 

periodic emissions inventories, these 

planning assumptions were consistent 

with those used by the local 

metropolitan planning organization for 

their transportation plans. 

We are not announcing the 

availability of these MVEBs through the 

EPA’s Adequacy Web site and providing 

a separate comment period on the 

adequacy of the MVEBs. Instead, we are 

reviewing the adequacy of the MVEBs 

simultaneously with our review of the 

2014 Maintenance Plan itself. See 40 

CFR 93.118(f)(2). In order to determine 

whether these MVEBs are adequate and 

approvable, we have evaluated whether 

the MVEBs meet the conformity 

adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5) and have 

determined that the MVEBs meet the 

applicable criteria. These criteria 

include, for example, that the MVEBs 

are clearly identified and precisely 

quantified, that the Plan shows a clear 

relationship among the emissions 

budgets, control measures and the total 

emissions inventory, among other 

criteria. The details of the EPA’s 

evaluation of the MVEBs are provided 

in a memo to file for this rulemaking.14

In accordance with the State’s request 

and the EPA’s evaluation, with this 

action the EPA finds adequate and 

approves CO MVEBs for the years 2015, 

2020, 2025 and 2030. Upon the effective 

date of this action, the Washoe County 

Regional Transportation Commission 

and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation must use these budgets 

in future conformity analyses. Any and 

all comments on the adequacy and 

approvability of the 2015, 2020, 2025 or 

2030 MVEBs should be submitted 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59495 

15 ‘‘Washoe County Health District Air Quality 

Management Division 2016 Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan,’’ dated July 1, 2016. 

16 ‘‘Washoe County Health District Air Quality 

Management Division 2013 Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan,’’ dated July 1, 2013 and 

our approval, letter from Meredith Kurpius, 

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA 

Region 9 to Daniel Inouye, Chief, Monitoring and 

Planning Branch, Air Quality Management 

Division, Washoe County Health District, dated 

December 11, 2013. 

17 ‘‘Washoe County Health District Air Quality 

Management Division 2014 Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan,’’ dated July 1, 2014 and 

our approval, letter from Meredith Kurpius, 

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA 

Region 9 to Daniel Inouye, Chief, Monitoring and 

Planning, Air Quality Management Division, 

Washoe County Health District, dated October 29, 

2014. 

18 ‘‘Washoe County Health District Air Quality 

Management Division 2015 Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan,’’ dated July 1, 2015 and 

our approval, letter from Meredith Kurpius, 

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA 

Region 9 to Daniel Inouye, Chief, Monitoring and 

Planning, Air Quality Management Division, 

Washoe County Health District, dated October 21, 

2015. 

19See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, U.S. 

EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Charlene Albee, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, Washoe 

County Health District, dated August 19, 2014, 

transmitting a report titled ‘‘Technical System 

Audit Report, Washoe County Health District Air 

Quality Management Division Ambient Air 

Monitoring Program (September 4–6, 2013).’’ 

during the comment period stated in the 

DATES section of this document. 

E. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Network 

The District has maintained an 

ambient air quality monitoring network 

in Washoe County, including the 

Truckee Meadows area, in accordance 

with the EPA’s ambient air quality 

monitoring network regulations in 40 

CFR part 58. Monitors are operated by 

the District, and they submit an Annual 

Network Plans (ANPs) for the County to 

the EPA. 

The EPA is currently reviewing the 

2016 ANP submitted by the District.15

The EPA approved the District’s 

previous ANPs, the most recent three of 

which were submitted to the EPA by the 

District in 2013,16 2014 17 and 2015.18

The docket to this action includes these 

approvals and the associated ANPs, as 

well as the ANP currently under review. 

In addition to reviewing the District’s 

ANPs, the EPA performs Technical 

Systems Audits (TSAs) of ambient air 

monitoring programs in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, 

section 2.5, which requires that the EPA 

conduct a TSA of each primary quality 

assurance organization (PQAO) every 

three years. A PQAO is an organization 

that is responsible for a set of stations 

that monitor the same pollutant and for 

which data quality assessments can be 

pooled. The District is the PQAO for CO 

monitoring in Washoe County, which 

includes the Truckee Meadows area. See 

40 CFR 58.1. 

The most recent TSA for the District 

was conducted by the EPA in 2016, but 

the report for that TSA has not yet been 

finalized. The most recent TSA for 

which the final report is available was 

conducted in 2013. The EPA found that 

the District’s air monitoring program 

was robust and met the EPA’s 

requirements. There were no findings 

that were cause for data invalidation.19

In the 2014 Maintenance Plan, the 

District commits to continued operation 

of its CO monitoring network, in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to 

verify the attainment status of the 

Truckee Meadows area. See 2014 

Maintenance Plan, page 8. In addition, 

the District will continue to review the 

Washoe County CO monitoring network 

pursuant to 40 CFR 58.10 to ensure the 

network meets the monitoring objectives 

defined in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D. 

Funding for the monitoring network to 

meet its objectives has been derived in 

the past primarily from CAA section 105 

grants and the State’s Department of 

Motor Vehicles. The District commits to 

maintaining these funding sources. See 

2014 Maintenance Plan, page 8. 

The District commits to the 

continuation of collecting and qualityassuring ambient CO monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and to 

providing the data to the EPA’s AQS. 

The data will therefore be available for 

public review. See 2014 Maintenance 

Plan, page 9. 

Table 6 lists the active Washoe 

County CO monitoring sites identified 

in the Plan. See 2014 Maintenance Plan, 

page 9, Table 2–7. As noted in the 

footnotes to the table, two of the 

monitoring sites have since 

discontinued CO monitoring (i.e., South 

Reno and Galletti), and the District has 

indicated that it intends to submit to the 

EPA a request to shut down two more 

sites (i.e., Toll and Lemmon Valley). 

The EPA notes that the Lemmon Valley 

monitoring site is within Washoe 

County but is not located in the Truckee 

Meadows area. 

TABLE 6—ACTIVE WASHOE COUNTY CO MONITORING SITES

Site ID Site name Site address City 

32–031–0016 Reno3 ................................................................................. 301A State Street ............................................................... Reno. 

32–031–0020 South Reno * ...................................................................... 4110 DeLucchi Lane .......................................................... Reno. 

32–031–0022 Galletti * .............................................................................. 305 Galletti Way ................................................................. Reno. 

32–031–0025 Toll ** .................................................................................. 684A State Route 341 ........................................................ Reno. 

32–031–1005 Sparks ................................................................................ 750 4th Street ..................................................................... Sparks. 

32–031–2009 Lemmon Valley ** ............................................................... 325 W. Patrician Drive ....................................................... Reno. 

* The District discontinued CO monitoring at the South Reno and Galletti monitoring sites in 2014. Details of these network modifications, as 

well as copies of the EPA’s approval letters, can be found in the District’s 2015 ANP (Appendices A and B). 

** In its 2016 ANP, the District indicates it will seek EPA approval to discontinue CO monitoring at the Toll and Lemmon Valley monitoring 

sites, but will not discontinue monitoring at these locations without such approval. See the District’s 2016 ANP. 

The District is required to maintain a 

CO monitor at the Reno3 site. See 40 

CFR part 58, appendix D, section 3. 

Other CO monitoring sites are not 

required for Washoe County by the 

EPA’s minimum monitoring 

requirements. See 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix D, section 4.2. 

Based on the information in the 2014 

Maintenance Plan, as well as recent 

ANPs and the 2013 TSA report, the EPA 

has determined that the area’s air 

quality monitoring network meets the 

requirements of the CAA and 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 

part 58. 

F. Verification of Continued Attainment 

To support the District’s continued 

operation and maintenance of the 

Washoe County ambient CO monitoring 

network, the District also commits to 

tracking actual CO emissions, in order 

to identify potential increases in 

ambient CO concentration. The District 

has three existing mechanisms to track 

CO emissions. 

1. Periodic Emissions Inventories. The 

District commits to continuing to 

prepare and submit to the EPA a 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

20EPA’s September 4, 1992 memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ at page 12, 

available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_

memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_

redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf. 

comprehensive periodic CO emissions 

inventory on a triennial schedule. Prior 

to submittal of the 2014 Maintenance 

Plan, the last periodic emissions 

inventory prepared was for the year 

2011. See 2014 Maintenance Plan, page 

9. In addition, the District has prepared 

and submitted to the EPA a periodic 

emissions inventory for the area for 

2014. 

2. Consolidated Emissions Reporting 

Rule (CERR) and Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR). The EPA’s 

AERR (40 CFR part 51 subpart A), 

which incorporates the former CERR, 

requires regular updates of point and 

area emissions sources within Washoe 

County. The District commits to 

continued compliance with the CERR 

and AERR. See 2014 Maintenance Plan, 

page 10. 

3. Residential Wood Use Survey. RWC 

is a significant source of CO emissions 

during the winter in Truckee Meadows. 

Between 1993 and 2013, the District 

completed nine residential wood use 

surveys. These surveys estimated the 

device (i.e., fireplace, woodstove and 

pellet stove) population, the amount of 

wood burned, and CO emissions from 

RWC in Washoe County. As part of the 

2014 Maintenance Plan, the District 

renews the commitment it made in the 

2005 Maintenance Plan to conduct a 

residential wood use survey at least 

once every three years. See 2014 

Maintenance Plan, page 10. 

The EPA agrees with the District that 

continued ambient air monitoring and 

emissions tracking will ensure 

verification of continued attainment and 

maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS 

within the Truckee Meadows area. 

G. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include contingency 

provisions, as necessary, to promptly 

correct any violation of a NAAQS that 

occurs after the redesignation to 

attainment of an area for that NAAQS. 

As a maintenance area for CO, this 

requirement applies to Truckee 

Meadows. According to the EPA’s 

guidance,20 the contingency plan for a 

maintenance area should clearly 

identify the following: 

• Specific indicators or triggers that will 

be used to determine when 

contingency measures need to be 

implemented; 

• contingency measures to be adopted; 

• schedule and procedures for adoption 

and implementation; and 

• specific time limit for action. 

The following is the EPA’s analysis of 

the 2014 CO Maintenance Plan’s 

contingency plan regarding the above 

four criteria: 

The 2014 Maintenance Plan identifies 

significant sources that contribute to the 

highest CO concentrations during the 

winter CO season months, November 

through January. The 2014 Maintenance 

Plan includes a two-tiered contingency 

plan based on ambient air monitoring 

data. 

As part of the EPA’s approval into the 

SIP of the 2005 Maintenance Plan, we 

approved a contingency plan for the 

area. Part of the contingency plan (‘‘Tier 

1’’), as discussed in greater detail below, 

relies entirely on the area’s emergency 

episode plan. Such plans are required 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). We 

approved the District’s emergency 

episode plan on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 

33397). 

1. Contingency Plan Tier 1 

a. Specific Indicators or Triggers Which 

Will Be Used To Determine When 

Contingency Measures Need To Be 

Implemented 

The Tier 1 trigger mechanism is a 

single exceedance of the 8-hour CO 

standard, that is, a monitored 

concentration greater than or equal to 9 

ppm (9.5 ppm to adjust for rounding), 

at any State and Local Air Monitoring 

Station (SLAMS), Special Purpose 

Monitoring (SPM) or national Core 

Multi-Pollutant Monitoring Station 

(NCore) site operated within Washoe 

County. The EPA notes that this trigger 

is protective of the 8-hour CO NAAQS 

in three respects. 

First, it takes two non-overlapping CO 

exceedances to violate the standard. The 

CAA requires that, at a minimum, 

contingency measures be triggered when 

the standard is violated. In the 2014 

Maintenance Plan, the District is 

committing to triggering this Tier 1 

portion of its contingency plan with a 

single exceedance. This entails 

implementation of a contingency 

measure upon an exceedance of the CO 

NAAQS, before the NAAQS is violated. 

Second, the trigger for Tier 1 can 

occur at any monitor in the County. 

This is more protective of the CO 

NAAQS than would otherwise be 

required by the Act in that the District 

is required to trigger Tier 1 using an 

exceedance of any monitor in Washoe 

County, rather than relying only on the 

monitors within the Truckee Meadows 

maintenance area within the County. 

Third, implementation of Tier 1 

would occur in the entire jurisdiction of 

the District, that is, County-wide. 

Controls related to the Stage 1 Alert 

episode would be implemented in the 

entire County, which could benefit the 

Truckee Meadows area within the 

County. 

b. The Contingency Measures To Be 

Adopted 

As we noted above, the EPA has 

already approved the District’s 

emergency episode plan into the SIP. 

This emergency plan currently is 

triggered, independent of any 

contingency plan, during any monitored 

or predicted concentration at a level of 

9.4 ppm or above. Once the emergency 

plan is triggered, the duration of its 

implementation depends on the 

circumstances of the episode, regarding 

monitored and predicted levels of CO. 

In the Tier 1 contingency measure, the 

District will initiate a rulemaking to 

permanently lower the County-wide 

Stage 1 Alert activation level from 9.4 

ppm down to 9.0 ppm. The District will 

initiate this rulemaking if a monitored 

CO concentration is above 9.4 ppm (i.e., 

9.5 ppm or above). Monitors that can 

activate Tier 1 include any monitor in 

the entire County, that is, not just 

within the Truckee Meadows area. For 

informational purposes, Table 7 lists the 

actions the District takes once a Stage 1 

Alert level is either recorded or 

predicted for the County. See 2014 

Maintenance Plan, page 11. When Tier 

1 is triggered, the District will initiate a 

specific rulemaking change for adoption 

by the District’s Board of Health 

(WCDBOH). In the event Tier 1 is 

triggered, the District would initiate 

revision of WCDBOH Regulation 

050.001, Emergency Episode Plan 

(adopted March 23, 2006). The rule 

revision would revise the Stage 1 Alert 

level from the current level of 9.4 ppm 

down to the lower level of 9.0 ppm. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59497 

TABLE 7—STAGE 1 ALERT EPISODE ACTIONS

Stage 1 alert episode action description WCDBOH regulation No. 

Terminate open burning ................................................................................................................................................ 040.035 and 050.001. 

Terminate use of incinerators subject to District operating permits .............................................................................. 050.001. 

Curtailment of unnecessary motor vehicle use through the District’s public outreach program .................................. 050.001. 

Prohibition of the burning of solid fuel in any commercial or residential stoves and/or fireplaces with the Truckee 

Meadows area.

040.051 and 050.001. 

Curtailment of all District permitted sources that have the potential to emit 50 tons or more of CO per year with 

the Truckee Meadows area.

050.001. 

c. A Schedule and Procedures for 

Adoption and Implementation 

The implementation schedule the 

District identifies in the 2014 

Maintenance Plan is meant to begin the 

rulemaking process promptly. The rule 

revision must be adopted by the 

WCDBOH and implemented before the 

next CO season (i.e., November, 

December and January). 

The District also commits to notify the 

EPA Region 9 office within 45 days of 

the triggering of tier 1. See 2014 

Maintenance Plan, page 11. 

d. A Specific Time Limit for Action 

The schedule discussed above 

provides a specific time limit for action 

by the Board in that the rule revision is 

to be adopted and implemented before 

the next CO season. 

2. Contingency Plan Tier 2 

a. Specific Indicators or Triggers Which 

Will Be Used To Determine When 

Contingency Measures Need To Be 

Implemented 

The Tier 2 trigger mechanism is a 

second, non-overlapping exceedance of 

the 8-hour CO standard (i.e., greater 

than or equal to 9.5 ppm to adjust for 

rounding) at any SLAMS, SPM or NCore 

site operated within Washoe County. 

The EPA notes that only a second nonoverlapping exceedance at the same 

monitor would constitute a violation of 

the 8-hour CO NAAQS, so this approach 

is more protective of the standard than 

is required by the form of the standard 

itself. Also, the EPA notes that this 

trigger is also more protective of the CO 

NAAQS than is required because it goes 

beyond the boundary of the Truckee 

Meadows area and encompasses the 

entire Washoe County District. 

b. The Contingency Measures To Be 

Adopted 

For Tier 2, the District will maintain 

a list of potential contingency measures 

and provide recommendations to the 

WCDBOH. The District’s 

recommendations to the Board will 

include a timeline for adoption and 

implementation to promptly correct any 

violation of the CO NAAQS. The list of 

Tier 2 potential contingency measures 

are shown in Table 8. See 2014 CO 

Maintenance Plan, Table 2–8. 

TABLE 8—TIER 2 POTENTIAL CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Emission category Potential contingency measure 

Residential Wood Combustion ................................................................. • Increase one-acre lot size exemption. 

• Mandatory curtailment at lower CO concentrations. 

• Change-out program to cleaner-burning devices. 

Mobile Sources ......................................................................................... • Strengthen inspection and maintenance smog check program. 

• Reinstate oxygenated fuels program. 

• Non-road and on-road diesel engine repowers and rebuilds. 

• Truck Stop Electrification systems. 

• Fleet modernization. 

• Strengthen maximum idling time for diesel vehicles. 

c. A Schedule and Procedures for 

Adoption and Implementation 

The implementation schedule the 

District identifies in the 2014 

Maintenance Plan is meant to begin the 

rulemaking process promptly. No later 

than 45 days after Tier 2 is triggered, 

recommendations shall be presented to 

the Board at its next regularly scheduled 

meeting. The District commits to review 

and update as necessary the list of 

potential Tier 2 contingency measures at 

least once every three years. See 2014 

Maintenance Plan, page 12. The District 

also commits to notify the EPA Region 

9 office within 45 days of the triggering 

of Tier 2. See 2014 CO Maintenance 

Plan, page 12. 

d. A Specific Time Limit for Action 

The schedule discussed above for Tier 

2 implementation provides a specific 

time limit for action by the Board. Rule 

revision recommendations are to be 

presented to the Board within a set time 

frame, and the Board will review and 

update the recommendations, as 

necessary, but not less than once every 

three years. Further, the time frame for 

the District to provide recommendations 

to the Board requires the District to 

present at the Board’s next scheduled 

meeting, but no later than 45 days after 

triggering Tier 2. The Board typically 

meets every month. 

Tier 2 also involves a regular review 

of CO control measures by the District 

and the Board. This review occurs at 

least once every three years regardless of 

whether there is an exceedance of the 

CO NAAQS. 

3. Contingency Plan Conclusion 

The EPA agrees with the District that 

prompt action and implementation of 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 contingency measures 

may prevent future exceedances and 

violations of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. 

The EPA believes the District’s twotiered contingency plan will promptly 

address violations if they do occur. 

Triggering contingency measures at 

monitored concentration levels that 

exceed, but do not violate the standard, 

is an important component of this 

approach. 

III. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA is fully approving the 

State of Nevada’s second 10-year 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

59498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

maintenance plan, titled ‘‘Second 10- 

Year Maintenance Plan for the Truckee 

Meadows 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide 

Attainment Area, August 28, 2014.’’ We 

are also approving MVEBs for the years 

2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. 

We do not think anyone will object to 

these approvals, so we are finalizing 

them without proposing them in 

advance. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

we are simultaneously proposing 

approval of the same submitted Plan 

and MVEBs. If we receive adverse 

comments by September 29, 2016, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on October 31, 

2016. This will incorporate this plan 

into the federally enforceable SIP and 

require use of the new MVEBs in all 

future CO conformity analyses. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 31, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

the EPA can withdraw this direct final 

rule and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 15, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470, paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding, under the table 

heading ‘‘Air Quality Implementation 

Plan for the State of Nevada’’ a new 

entry after the entry ‘‘Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan for the 

Truckee Meadows Carbon Monoxide 

Non-Attainment Area (September 2005), 

excluding appendices B, C, and D’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 59499 

EPA-APPROVED NEVADA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada 1

*******

Second 10-Year Maintenance 

Plan for the Truckee Meadows 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Attainment Area, August 28, 2014.

Truckee Meadows, 

Washoe County.

11/7/14 [INSERT Federal Register 

CITATION] (8/30/16).

Fulfills requirement for second ten-year 

maintenance plan. Includes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2015, 

2020, 2025 and 2030. 

*******

1The organization of this table generally follows from the organization of the State of Nevada’s original 1972 SIP, which was divided into 12 

sections. Nonattainment and maintenance plans, among other types of plans, are listed under Section 5 (Control Strategy). Lead SIPs and Small 

Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance SIPs are listed after Section 12 followed by nonregulatory or 

quasi-regulatory statutory provisions approved into the SIP. Regulatory statutory provisions are listed in 40 CFR 52.1470(c). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–20662 Filed 8–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0034; FRL–9947–19] 

Citrus tristeza Virus Expressing 

Spinach Defensin Proteins 2, 7, and 8; 

Temporary Exemption From the 

Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

temporary exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of the Citrus tristeza virus expressing 

spinach defensin proteins 2, 7, and 8 

alone or in various combinations on 

citrus fruit (Citrus spp., Fortunella spp., 

Crop Group 10–10) when applied/used 

as a microbial pesticide in accordance 

with the terms of Experimental Use 

Permit (EUP) No. 88232–EUP–2. 

Southern Gardens Citrus submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting the temporary tolerance 

exemption. This regulation eliminates 

the need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of Citrus 

tristeza virus expressing spinach 

defensin proteins 2, 7, and 8 alone or in 

various combinations. The temporary 

tolerance exemption expires on August 

31, 2020. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 30, 2016. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 31, 2016, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0034, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert McNally, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2016–0034 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before October 31, 2016. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES