41416 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Quality (DEQ) transitioned from the 

North Dakota Department of Public 

Health, their Conflict of Interest 

requirements changed. This revision 

updates section 2.15 of the SIP to match 

the current DEQ requirements. 

III. Proposed Action 

For the reasons described in section II 

of this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to approve North Dakota’s 

August 3, 2020, submittal revisions to 

NDAC, Article 33.1–15 (Air Pollution 

Control) except for revisions to 33.1–15– 

25 (Regional Haze Requirements) which 

were addressed in a separate 

rulemaking. The EPA is also proposing 

to approve North Dakota’s revisions to 

section 2.15 (Respecting Boards) located 

in North Dakota’s EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures. Our action is 

based on an evaluation of North 

Dakota’s revisions against the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(c) and regulatory requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.160–164 and 40 CFR 

51.166. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

proposing to include regulatory text in 

an EPA final rule that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the revisions 

described in section II. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 8 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 22, 2021. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16093 Filed 7–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0242; FRL–8725–01– 

R9] 

Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Las Vegas 

Valley; Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Nevada 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP). On September 27, 2010, the 

EPA redesignated the Las Vegas Valley 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the carbon monoxide (CO) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or 

‘‘standard’’) and approved the State’s 

CO maintenance plan ensuring the area 

would maintain the NAAQS for ten 

years through 2020. On June 18, 2019, 

NDEP submitted to the EPA a second 

10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP) 

for the Las Vegas Valley area for the CO 

NAAQS. The LMP addresses 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a 

second 10-year period ending in 2030. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2021–0166 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 41417 

1 76 FR 54294 (August 31, 2011). 

2 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971). 

3 50 FR 37484 (September 13, 1985). 

4 59 FR 38906 (August 1, 1994). 

5 75 FR 54194 (August 31, 2011). 

6 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). 

7 62 FR 51604 (October 2, 1997). 

8Memorandum dated November 16, 1994, from 

Sally L Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies & 

Standards Divisions (MD–15) to Air Branch 

Directors, Regions I–X, ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas.’’ 

9A design value is a statistic that describes the 

air quality status of a certain pollutant for a given 

location relative to its NAAQS. 

10Memorandum dated October 6, 1995, from 

Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Air Quality 

Management Division (MD–15) to Air Branch 

Chiefs, Regions I–X, ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ (‘‘Paisie Memo’’). 

11 Id. at 3–5. 12Memorandum dated September 4, 1992, from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division (MD–15), Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment.’’ 

13 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010). 

14Letter of submittal dated June 13, 2019, from 

Greg Lovato, Administrator, Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection, to Elizabeth Adams, Air 

Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX (submitted electronically June 18, 

2019). 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Szeto, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4278, szeto.jonathan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Nevada’s SIP Submittal 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s SIP 

Submittal 

A. Procedural Requirements 

B. LMP Requirements 

IV. Transportation Conformity 

V. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, 

odorless gas that is generally emitted 

from the incomplete combustion of 

carbon-containing fuels. The largest 

sources of CO in ambient environments 

are cars, trucks, and other vehicles and 

machineries that burn fossil fuels. 

Inhalation of CO can impair oxygen 

delivery to vital organs and tissues. 

Those with pre-existing heart disease or 

other conditions that make one unable 

to compensate for tissue hypoxia are 

particularly vulnerable to the 

cardiovascular effects of ambient CO, 

especially during exercise or when 

under increased stress. At high levels, 

CO exposure can also lead to dizziness, 

confusion, and unconsciousness.1

In 1971 the EPA established primary 

and secondary NAAQS for CO at 9 parts 

per million (ppm), averaged over an 8- 

hour period, and at 35 ppm, averaged 

over a 1-hour period.2 On September 13, 

1985, the EPA retained the primary 

standards without revision and revoked 

the secondary standards.3 The EPA 

retained the primary standards without 

revision again in both 1994 4 and 2011.5

The EPA retained the primary standards 

based on scientific evidence 

demonstrating that the existing 

standards are requisite to protect public 

health with an adequate margin of 

safety. The EPA also found that analysis 

of both the non-climate and climate 

welfare effects of CO are insufficient to 

provide support for a secondary 

standard. 

Following the enactment of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) Amendments of 

1990, the EPA designated the Las Vegas 

Valley area as a ‘‘Moderate’’ 

nonattainment area.6 The area was 

reclassified as a ‘‘Serious’’ 

nonattainment area on October 2, 1997, 

when the EPA determined the area had 

not attained the standard after receiving 

a one-year extension of the 1995 

attainment date.7 Under the CAA, states 

are required to adopt and submit SIPs to 

attain the NAAQS in nonattainment 

areas within their state. 

Under CAA section 175A, one of the 

criteria for an area to be redesignated 

from nonattainment to attainment is the 

approval of a maintenance plan. The 

maintenance plan must, among other 

requirements, ensure control measures 

are in place such that the area will 

continue to maintain the standard for 

the period extending 10 years after 

redesignation, and include contingency 

provisions to assure that violations of 

the NAAQS will be promptly remedied. 

In 1994, the EPA set forth new 

guidelines establishing a streamlined 

process for certain nonattainment areas 

to meet CAA section 175A maintenance 

plan requirements.8 This process 

provides for maintenance by 

demonstrating that future violations of 

the standard are unlikely to occur 

because the area’s design values 9 are 

well below the NAAQS, and based on 

the historical stability of the area’s air 

quality. A design value is considered 

well below the NAAQS when it is less 

than or equal to 85 percent of the 

standard. For CO specifically, this 

would be 85 percent of the 9 ppm 8- 

hour CO standard, or 7.65 ppm. The 

EPA refers to this streamlined 

demonstration as a limited maintenance 

plan (LMP). Although the LMP 

guidelines originally addressed the 

ozone NAAQS, the EPA extended the 

provisions to apply to other pollutants 

and issued guidance specific for CO 

nonattainment areas.10 The LMP must 

be submitted as a SIP revision and 

should include an attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

provisions for the continued operation 

of the ambient air quality monitoring 

network for verification of continued 

attainment, a contingency plan in the 

event of a future violation of the 

NAAQS, and conformity determination 

provisions.11 12

In September 2010, the EPA approved 

the ‘‘Carbon Monoxide Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan, Las 

Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark 

County, Nevada (September 2008)’’ for 

the Las Vegas Valley area and 

redesignated the area to attainment.13

Under CAA section 175A, at the end of 

the eighth year after the effective date of 

redesignation, the state must submit a 

second maintenance plan to ensure 

ongoing maintenance of the standard for 

an additional ten years. On June 18, 

2019, the State of Nevada submitted the 

‘‘Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan: Las Vegas 

Valley Maintenance Area, Clark County, 

Nevada (May 2019)’’ (‘‘2019 LMP’’) for 

the Las Vegas Valley area to fulfill the 

second maintenance plan requirement 

in CAA section 175A.14 The 2019 LMP 

includes a demonstration that the area 

is expected to remain in attainment of 

the CO NAAQS through the last year of 

the second 10-year maintenance period, 

that is, through the remainder of the 

area’s full 20-year maintenance period. 

II. Nevada’s SIP Submittal 

On June 18, 2019, NDEP submitted 

the 2019 LMP to the EPA as a revision 

to the Nevada SIP. The submittal 

includes the LMP and appendices. 

Appendices to the plan include air 

quality data, emissions inventory 

information, air quality monitoring 

information, and documentation of the 

public review process. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nevada’s 

SIP Submittal 

A. Procedural Requirements 

Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the 

CAA require that a reasonable notice 

and public hearing occur before 

revisions to a SIP can be adopted by the 

state. Specifically, under 40 CFR part 

51, subpart F, the EPA requires that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
41418 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

15Formerly Clark County Department of Air 

Quality. 

16Paisie Memo, 3. 

17CCDES used reporting data for the CO season 

months January, February, and December 2017 to 

develop emissions for those months and convert to 

daily emissions. See 2019 LMP, 18. 18Paisie Memo, 3. 19PSD applies to new major sources or major 

modifications at existing sources for pollutants 

where the area of the source’s location is designated 

by the EPA as attainment or unclassifiable with the 

NAAQS. Its requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: Installation of best 

available control technology, an air quality analysis, 

an additional impact analysis, and public 

involvement. 

there must be a publication of a notice 

by prominent advertisement in the 

relevant geographic area of the proposed 

SIP revision, a public comment period 

of at least 30 days, and an opportunity 

for a public hearing. 

The Clark County Department of 

Environment and Sustainability 

(CCDES) 15 published a notice of a 30- 

day comment period and notice of a 

public hearing for the 2019 LMP on the 

Clark County website, and the 

department’s website, Twitter, and 

Facebook pages. An email notice was 

distributed to officials in relevant cities 

as well as in state and local-level 

departments, districts, authorities, 

commissions, and associations. The 

CCDES held a public comment period 

from February 15, 2019 to March 18, 

2019. No formal comments were 

submitted. On May 7, 2019, the Clark 

County Board of County Commissioners 

held a public hearing on the 2019 LMP. 

No formal comments were submitted 

during this hearing. The CCDES then 

forwarded the 2019 LMP to the State of 

Nevada and the State submitted the plan 

to the EPA as a revision to the Nevada 

SIP. The process followed by the CCDES 

adheres with procedural requirements 

for SIP revisions outlined under CAA 

section 110 and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations. 

B. LMP Requirements 

The EPA reviewed the 2019 LMP that 

addresses maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS within the Las Vegas Valley 

area through the end of the 20-year 

period following the area’s 

redesignation, as required under CAA 

section 175A(b). 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

For maintenance plans, a state should 

develop a comprehensive, accurate 

inventory of actual emissions for an 

attainment year to identify the level of 

emissions sufficient to maintain the 

NAAQS. For CO, the inventory should 

represent the typical winter day 

emissions of CO for the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment.16 The 2019 LMP 

includes a CO attainment inventory for 

the Las Vegas Valley area that reflects 

typical winter weekday emissions in 

2017. Table 1 presents a summary of the 

inventory for the year contained in the 

maintenance plan. Under an LMP, states 

are not required to project emissions 

over the maintenance period. 

TABLE 1—2017 AVERAGE WINTER

WEEKDAY CO EMISSIONS FOR THE

LAS VEGAS VALLEY AREA

[Tons per day] 

Point .................................................. 0.93 

Nonpoint ........................................... 43.48 

Aviation ............................................. 12.53 

Onroad Mobile .................................. 217.18 

Nonroad Mobile ................................ 114.35 

Total ........................................... 448.96 

CCDES derived point source 

emissions using semiannual compliance 

reports submitted to the agency by 

stationary sources located in the Las 

Vegas Valley area. These reports are 

required by CCDES’ federally-approved 

CAA title V operating permits program 

and include monthly reporting data for 

the facility.17 CCDES derived the 

nonpoint source emissions from the 

EPA’s 2016 modeling platform (alpha 

version) and used 2016 as a surrogate 

for 2017 because the 2017 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) for nonpoint 

sources was not available at the time 

CCDES developed the 2019 LMP. 

CCDES determined that the differences 

between 2016 and 2017 would be 

insignificant. Aviation operation data 

for 2014 and 2017 were obtained from 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

air traffic activity system and terminal 

area forecast databases and used in 

conjunction with the 2014 NEI to 

estimate aviation CO emissions for 

2017. Onroad and nonroad mobile 

source data were generated using the 

latest release of the EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES) model 

version MOVES2014b. 

Based on our review of the methods, 

models, and assumptions used by 

CCDES to develop the CO estimates, we 

find that the 2019 LMP for the Las Vegas 

Valley CO maintenance area includes a 

comprehensive, accurate inventory of 

CO emissions in the year 2017, and 

conclude that the plan’s inventories are 

acceptable for the purposes of a 

subsequent maintenance plan under 

CAA section 175A(b). 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Consistent with prior EPA guidance, 

if a maintenance area demonstrates a 

maximum 8-hour CO design value of 

less than or equal to 85 percent of the 

CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm, for eight 

consecutive quarters, then the EPA 

considers the area to have met the 

maintenance plan demonstration 

requirement and that the area will 

maintain the NAAQS for the second 10- 

year maintenance period.18 Such a 

demonstration also assumes continued 

applicability of prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) requirements,19

continued implementation of any 

existing control measures in the SIP, 

and that federal measures will remain in 

place through the end of the second 10- 

year maintenance period. The EPA does 

not require areas using the LMP option 

to project emissions over the 

maintenance period. 

Table 2 presents the design values for 

the Las Vegas Valley area over the 2012– 

2020 period. As shown in Table 2, 

historically, the area has consistently 

been well below 85 percent of the 

NAAQS. Because the CO design values 

in the Las Vegas Valley area are below 

the LMP threshold over the most recent 

eight quarters, the EPA finds that the 

State has adequately demonstrated that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

CO NAAQS over the second 10-year 

maintenance period and in the future. 

TABLE 2—CURRENT AND HISTORICAL CO DESIGN VALUES (DV) FOR THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY AREA

Year 

Highest second maximum 8-hour CO value 

(ppm) 

DV 

(ppm) 

Is DV less 

than 7.65 

Jerome Mack ppm? 

(320030540) 

J.D. Smith 

(320032002) 

Rancho & 

Teddy 

(320031501) 

Sunrise Acres 

(320030540) 

2012 ........................................................................ 2.8 2.1 ........................ 3.1 3.1 Yes. 

2013 ........................................................................ 2.8 2.4 ........................ 3.1 3.1 Yes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 41419 

20 40 CFR 58 Appendix A, section 2.5. 

21Letter dated August 23, 2018 from Elizabeth J. 

Adams, Acting Director, Air Division Region IX, to 

Marci Henson, Director, Clark County Department 

of Air Quality with attached ‘‘Technical Systems 

Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program: 

Clark County Department of Air Quality October 

23–25, 2017 and January 16–18, 2018.’’ 

22For further details, see CCDES’s 2020 Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP), the EPA’s 

approval letter for the 2020, 2019 and 2018 AMNP, 

as well as the EPA’s Clark County 2018 TSA report, 

in the docket for this action. 

23See 2019 LMP, Section 3.3, ‘‘Monitoring 

Network/Verification of Continued Attainment,’’ 

21. 24 75 FR 59090. 25See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124. 

TABLE 2—CURRENT AND HISTORICAL CO DESIGN VALUES (DV) FOR THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY AREA—Continued 

Year 

Highest second maximum 8-hour CO value 

(ppm) 

DV 

(ppm) 

Is DV less 

than 7.65 

Jerome Mack ppm? 

(320030540) 

J.D. Smith 

(320032002) 

Rancho & 

Teddy 

(320031501) 

Sunrise Acres 

(320030540) 

2014 ........................................................................ 2.7 2.4 ........................ 2.9 2.9 Yes. 

2015 ........................................................................ 2.7 2.2 ........................ 2.8 2.8 Yes. 

2016 ........................................................................ 2.3 2 ........................ 2.6 2.6 Yes. 

2017 ........................................................................ 2.35 2 c 1.5 2.8 2.8 Yes. 

2018 ........................................................................ 2.5 b 1.9 1.5 2.8 2.8 Yes. 

2019 ........................................................................ 2.3 ........................ 1.4 2.8 2.8 Yes. 

2020 a ...................................................................... 2.1 ........................ 1.4 2.4 2.4 Yes. 

Source: EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value Report, March 16, 2021. 

a CO design values have no annual completeness requirement. 

bThe J.D. Smith station was permanently shut down with the EPA’s approval on December 31, 2017, due to measurement challenges posed 

by siting obstructions. cThe Rancho & Teddy station opened in 2015 and began monitoring CO in January 2017. 

3. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

The EPA periodically reviews the CO 

monitoring network operated and 

maintained by CCDES in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58. This network is 

consistent with the Clark County 

ambient air monitoring network plan 

(AMNP) submitted annually to the EPA 

after a public notification and comment 

process. The EPA has reviewed and 

approved the AMNP every year for the 

past three years from 2018–2020. The 

EPA is also required to conduct 

technical systems audits (TSA) every 

three years to ensure quality assurance 

of monitoring organizations.20 The most 

recent TSA for CCDES was in 2018, and 

the EPA found that CCDES’s air 

monitoring program meets EPA’s 

requirements.21

To verify the attainment status of the 

area over the maintenance period, the 

maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for continued operations of 

an EPA-approved monitoring network 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The 

CCDES’s network in the Las Vegas 

Valley area has been approved by the 

EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58.22 Furthermore, the CCDES has 

committed to continue to operate an air 

quality monitoring network in the Las 

Vegas Valley area in accordance with 

the EPA requirements to verify 

continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS.23 For the reasons stated in this 

section of the notice, we find Clark 

County’s monitoring network adequate 

to verify continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS in the Las Vegas Valley area. 

4. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions. The purpose of 

these provisions is to prevent future 

violations of the NAAQS or promptly 

remediate any NAAQS violations that 

might occur during the maintenance 

period. These contingency provisions 

need not be fully adopted regulations at 

the time of the redesignation. However, 

the contingency plan is an enforceable 

part of the SIP and should ensure that 

contingency measures are adopted 

quickly once the contingency plan is 

triggered. The contingency plan should 

also identify the measures to be 

expeditiously adopted and provide a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation. The state is also 

required to identify triggers that will be 

used to determine when contingency 

measures will need to be implemented. 

In the 2019 LMP, the CCDES retains 

the reduced Reid vapor pressure (RVP) 

gasoline program contingency measure 

from its first CO maintenance plan as a 

contingency measure. The RVP gasoline 

program relaxed the RVP from 

wintertime fuels sold in Clark County 

from 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi) to 

13.5 psi, thereby increasing fuel 

volatility and therefore fuel-related 

emissions. The EPA approved this 

measure, finding that relaxation of RVP 

would not interfere with maintenance of 

the CO standard in the area.24 The RVP 

gasoline program contingency measure 

would reinstate the prior, lower RVP 

level. That is, if future CO levels trigger 

contingency measures, the CCDES will 

seek reinstatement and tightening of the 

RVP standard back to 9.0 psi. This 

contingency measure would be triggered 

by a verified second exceedance over 9 

ppm during the winter season (October 

1 through March 31) within a 

consecutive two-year period. 

The EPA proposes to find that the 

contingency provisions in the 2019 LMP 

satisfy the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA section 175A for 

the second 10-year maintenance plan 

period. 

IV. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. The 

EPA’s conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 

requires that transportation plans, 

programs, and projects conform to SIPs 

and establishes the criteria and 

procedures for determining conformity. 

The conformity rule generally requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

regional transportation plan (RTP) and 

the transportation improvement plan 

(TIP) are consistent with the motor 

vehicle emissions budget (MVEB or 

‘‘budget’’) contained in the control 

strategy SIP revision or maintenance 

plan.25 A budget is defined as the level 

of mobile source emissions of a 

pollutant relied upon in the attainment 

or maintenance demonstration to attain 

or maintain compliance with the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
41420 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

26Further information concerning the EPA’s 

interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in 

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

transportation conformity rule. See 58 FR 62193– 

62196, November 24, 1993. 

27Paisie Memo, 3–4. 

28 40 CFR 93.108. 

29 40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112. 

30 40 CFR 93.113. 

31 40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115. 

32 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123. 

33 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, 

respectively. See 40 CFR 93.109(b), Table 1. 

34https://www.epa.gov/state-and-localtransportation/adequacy-review-stateimplementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity. 

35 40 CFR part 93 Subpart B. 

36Paisie Memo, 4–5. 

NAAQS in the nonattainment or 

maintenance area.26

Under the conformity rule, areas 

submitting an LMP for the second 10- 

year maintenance plan may demonstrate 

conformity without a regional emissions 

analysis as outlined in 40 CFR 

93.109(e). When the EPA approves an 

LMP, the EPA is concluding that a 

budget may be treated as essentially not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period. Areas that qualify 

for an LMP may demonstrate conformity 

without a regional emissions analysis 

because it is unreasonable to expect that 

such an area will experience so much 

growth in the 10-year period of the LMP 

that a violation of the CO NAAQS 

would result.27 All actions that would 

require transportation conformity 

determinations for the Las Vegas Valley 

area under the transportation 

conformity rule provisions would be 

considered to have already satisfied the 

regional emissions analysis and ‘‘budget 

test’’ requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as 

a result of our final approval of the 2019 

LMP. 

However, because LMP areas are still 

maintenance areas, approval of the 2019 

LMP would not relieve transportation 

agencies of certain determinations still 

required for transportation plans, 

programs, and projects. Specifically, 

RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects 

must still demonstrate that they are 

fiscally constrained,28 meet the criteria 

for consultation,29 and provide for 

timely implementation of transportation 

control measures from the applicable 

implementation plan.30 Conformity 

determinations for RTPs and TIPs must 

also be determined no less frequently 

than every four years, and conformity of 

plan and TIP amendments and 

transportation projects demonstrated in 

accordance with the timing 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 

93.104. For projects to be approved they 

must be listed in a currently conforming 

RTP and TIP.31 In addition, projects in 

LMP areas are required to meet the 

applicable criteria for CO hot spot 

analyses to satisfy ‘‘project level’’ 

conformity determinations,32 which 

must also incorporate the latest 

planning assumptions and models 

available.33

If the area should monitor CO 

concentrations at or above the limited 

maintenance eligibility criteria, or 7.65 

ppm, then that maintenance area would 

no longer qualify for a LMP and would 

revert to a full maintenance plan. In this 

event, the LMP would remain 

applicable for conformity purposes only 

until the full maintenance plan is 

submitted and the EPA has either found 

its motor vehicle emissions budget 

adequate for conformity purposes or 

approves the full maintenance plan SIP 

revision. At that time regional emissions 

analyses would resume as a 

transportation conformity criterion. 

The EPA posted Las Vegas Valley’s 

2019 LMP for CO on its adequacy 

review website on June 23, 2021.34 The 

EPA will accept comments from the 

public for up to 30 days after the LMP 

has been posted on the website. The 

EPA will consider the comments and 

then may elect to proceed with finding 

the 2019 LMP adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes 

either as part of the SIP’s final approval 

or in a separate notice of adequacy. The 

EPA’s adequacy review process is 

described in 40 CFR part 93.118(f). 

If finalized, our approval of the 2019 

LMP would effectively affirm our 

adequacy finding such that no regional 

emissions analysis for future 

transportation CO conformity 

determinations are required for the 2019 

LMP period and beyond. The other 

transportation conformity requirements 

listed above would continue to apply. 

In addition to transportation 

conformity, approval of the 2019 LMP 

would have implications for general 

conformity.35 Federal actions subject to 

general conformity would be presumed 

to conform under a limited maintenance 

plan as actions in this area will 

automatically satisfy the budget test of 

40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), as described 

in in an EPA memorandum entitled 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ on limited maintenance plans 

for CO nonattainment areas.36

V. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 

the EPA is proposing to approve the 

2019 LMP as a revision to the Nevada 

SIP because we find that it satisfies the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

The 2019 LMP adequately 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

CONAAQS well below the standard 

through documentation of monitoring 

data showing the historical CO design 

values of the area. It also satisfies the 

other core provisions of an LMP: It has 

an accurate and comprehensive 

emissions inventory representing 

attainment, a contingency plan, and a 

commitment to continue operation of an 

acceptable ambient monitoring network 

to verify continued attainment over the 

second 10-year period. We find the 2019 

LMP to be sufficient to provide for 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 

Las Vegas Valley area over the second 

10-year maintenance period (through 

2030) and thereby satisfy the 

requirements for such a plan under CAA 

section 175A(b). 

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this notice. We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal for the 

next 30 days and will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 41421 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the 2019 LMP is not 

proposed to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. The Las Vegas Tribe of 

Paiute Indians has areas of Indian 

country located in the Las Vegas Valley 

CO maintenance area. In those areas of 

Indian country, the 2019 LMP does not 

apply, and therefore, this proposed 

action does not have tribal implications 

and would not, if approved, impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Carbon Monoxide, Pollution. 

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

Dated: July 22, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16453 Filed 7–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0217; FRL–8690–01– 

R3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Plans; Pennsylvania; 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Determinations for 

Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 

and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

multiple state implementation plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These 

revisions were submitted by the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) to 

establish and require reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

fourteen major sources of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and/or 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 

conditionally approved RACT 

regulations. In this rulemaking action, 

EPA is proposing to approve sourcespecific (also referred to as ‘‘case-bycase’’) RACT determinations for sources 

at fourteen major sources submitted by 

PADEP. These RACT evaluations were 

submitted to meet RACT requirements 

for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 1, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2021–0217 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

opila.marycate@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Gwendolyn Supplee, Permits Branch 

(3AD10), Air and Radiation Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The 

telephone number is (215) 814–2763. 

Ms. Supplee can also be reached via 

electronic mail at supplee.gwendolyn@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 7, 

2020, PADEP submitted a revision to its 

SIP to address case-by-case NOX and/or 

VOC RACT for sources at fourteen major 

facilities. This SIP revision is intended 

to address the NOX and/or VOC RACT 

requirements under sections 182 and 

184 of the CAA for the 1997 and 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Table 1 of this 

document lists the SIP submittal date 

and the facilities included in PADEP’s 

submittal. Although submitted in one 

SIP revision by PADEP, EPA views each 

facility as a separable SIP revision and 

may take separate final action on one or 

more facilities. 

For additional background 

information on Pennsylvania’s 

‘‘presumptive’’ RACT II SIP see 84 FR 

20274 (May 9, 2019) and on 

Pennsylvania’s source-specific or ‘‘caseby-case’’ RACT determinations see the 

appropriate technical support document 

(TSD) which is available online at 

https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0217. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS