
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13235-13243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04771]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0399; FRL-9958-11-Region 9]


Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Lake Tahoe; Second 10-Year Carbon 
Monoxide Limited 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 (``State''). On April 3, 2012, the 
State of Nevada submitted to the EPA a second 10-year limited 
maintenance plan (LMP) for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area (``Area'') for 
the carbon monoxide (CO) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 
or ``standards''). This LMP addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a 
second 10-year period beyond the original 10-year maintenance period. 
On August 26, 2016, the State amended the 2012 submittal with a 
supplemental SIP submittal (``2016 supplement'' or ``supplement''). The 
EPA is also approving the 2011 emissions inventory, the 2024 projected 
emissions inventory and the revised alternative monitoring strategy 
included with the 2016 supplement. We are taking these actions under 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'').

DATES: This rule is effective on May 9, 2017 without further notice, 
unless the EPA receives adverse comments by April 10, 2017. 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-
OAR-2015-0399 at http://www.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. For 
additional submission methods, 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, Planning Office (Air-2), 
Air Division, Region IX, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (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. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area's CO Limited Maintenance Plan
    B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy
    C. Adjacent Maintenance Areas in California
    D. Transportation Conformity
II. The EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's Submittal
    A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
    B. Alternative Monitoring Strategy
    C. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    D. Maintenance Demonstration
    E. Transportation Conformity
    F. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network
    G. Verification of Continued Attainment
    H. Contingency Plan
III. Public Comment and Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Lake Tahoe Nevada Area's CO Limited Maintenance Plan

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area was 
designated as nonattainment and classified as a ``not classified'' CO 
area. This was because the Area had been designated as nonattainment 
before November 15, 1990, the date of enactment, but had not violated 
the CO NAAQS in 1988 and 1989, prior to enactment. See 56 FR 56694 
(November 6, 1991). On October 27, 2003, the State of Nevada submitted 
a request to the EPA to redesignate the Area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along with this request, the State 
submitted a CAA section 175A(a) LMP that demonstrated that the Area 
would maintain the CO NAAQS for 10 years following our approval of the 
redesignation request. A LMP is an option whereby an area's maintenance 
demonstration is considered to be satisfied for ``not classified'' 
areas if the monitoring data show the design value is at or below 7.65 
parts per million (ppm), or 85 percent of the level of the 8-hour CO 
NAAQS.\1\ We approved the

[[Page 13236]]

State's redesignation request and 10-year LMP on December 15, 2003, 
effective February 13, 2004. See 68 FR 69611 (December 15, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the EPA guidance memorandum, ``Limited Maintenance Plan 
Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,'' from Joseph 
Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), to Air Branch Chiefs, 
October 6, 1995 (``CO LMP guidance''). Also note that the EPA uses 
the terms ``nonclassifiable'' and ``not classified'' interchangeably 
with respect to CO nonattainment areas. See e.g., 57 FR 13498, 13535 
(April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eight years after the EPA redesignates an area to attainment, CAA 
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit to the EPA a subsequent 
maintenance plan covering a second 10-year period.\2\ This second 
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS 
during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of the 
CAA, the State submitted to the EPA on April 3, 2012, the second 10-
year update of the Area's CO maintenance plan titled ``2012 Revision to 
the Nevada State Implementation Plan: Updated Limited Maintenance Plan 
for the Nevada Side of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Including Douglas, Carson 
City and Washoe Counties'' (hereinafter, ``2012 plan'' or ``plan''). On 
August 26, 2016, the State amended the plan with a supplemental 
submittal. With this action, we are approving the 2012 plan, as amended 
by the 2016 supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended 
through 2014. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9.0 ppm is attained when such value is not 
exceeded more than once a year. See 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Lake Tahoe 
Nevada Area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1979 to the present. 
According to the CO LMP guidance, areas that have design values (2nd 
highest maximum CO concentration) at or below 7.65 ppm (that is, at or 
below 85 percent of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight consecutive quarters 
qualify to use the LMP option. The Area qualified for and used the 
EPA's CO LMP option for the first 10-year maintenance period. See 68 FR 
69611. For the 2012 plan, the State again used the LMP option to 
demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Area. We have 
determined that the Area continues to qualify for the LMP option 
because the design value at the time the State adopted the plan was 3.1 
ppm, based on eight consecutive quarters of certified data from 2010 
and 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Table 2. Additionally, according to the CO LMP guidance, 
an area using the LMP option must continue to have a design value 
``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the 
redesignation.'' See CO LMP guidance, page 2. Although this action 
is not a redesignation but merely approval of a second 10-year 
maintenance plan, we note that the Area would meet this requirement 
if it applied, even with the higher design value (i.e., 5.4 ppm for 
2011-2012) measured after the State submitted the 2012 plan to the 
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alternative CO Monitoring Strategy

    The State's 2012 plan included notification to the EPA that the 
State intended to discontinue monitoring for CO at the Stateline, 
Nevada location and that the State would submit a separate request to 
discontinue CO monitoring. The 2012 plan included the State's 
alternative monitoring strategy for monitoring continued attainment of 
the CO NAAQS in the Area. The State submitted the alternative 
monitoring strategy to enable it to conserve resources by discontinuing 
the only remaining gaseous CO ambient monitor in the Lake Tahoe basin 
(``basin''). The State's alternative monitoring strategy relies on 
vehicle counts collected from automatic traffic recorders in the Area. 
Gaseous CO ambient monitoring is triggered when a specified level of 
higher vehicle counts is exceeded.
    Shortly after its submittal of the 2012 plan, the State submitted a 
request to discontinue the CO monitor located at Harvey's Resort and 
Hotel in Stateline, Nevada (hereinafter, the ``Harvey's monitor'').\4\ 
This action does not address the State's request to discontinue the 
Harvey's monitor. The EPA intends to respond to the State's request in 
a future action. In 2016, the State submitted the supplement to 
include, among other things, a revised alternative CO monitoring 
strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The State's request to discontinue CO monitoring for the 
Lake Tahoe Nevada Area was submitted to the EPA on April 25, 2012. 
See letter from Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 
Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and 
Natural Resources, State of Nevada, to Matthew Lakin, Chief, Air 
Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, subject 
``Discontinuation of the SLAMS CO Monitor at Harvey's Resort and 
Hotel, Stateline, Nevada (AQS ID #32-005-0009-4201-1).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Adjacent Maintenance Areas in California

    In addition to the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, there are two adjacent 
CO maintenance areas to the west just over the Nevada-California state 
line. These two areas occupy the remainder of the basin on the 
California side. The Lake Tahoe North Shore area and the Lake Tahoe 
South Shore area are both California maintenance areas for CO. In 1998, 
the EPA redesignated both areas to attainment and approved maintenance 
plans for each as revisions to the California SIP. See 63 FR 15305 
(March 31, 1998). At the conclusion of their initial 10-year 
maintenance period, the EPA approved second 10-year maintenance plans 
for each area as a revision to the California SIP, effective January 
30, 2006. See 70 FR 71776 (November 30, 2005). The second 10-year 
maintenance plans for each of the two California areas demonstrated 
maintenance through 2018.

D. 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 (i.e., 40 CFR part 93 subpart A) 
sets forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring 
conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects that 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 for transportation-related criteria pollutants. 
See 40 CFR 93.102(b). As prescribed by the transportation conformity 
rule, once an area has an applicable SIP with motor vehicle emissions 
budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets''), 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 following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Attainment 
inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification 
of continued attainment, contingency plan, and conformity 
determinations.\5\ The 2012 plan contains the following sections to 
address these elements: (1) An introductory section containing a 
general discussion of plan approvals for the Area and its redesignation 
to attainment; (2) a maintenance plan section including subsections on 
monitoring data for the Area, air quality trends and background on the 
State's intention to discontinue monitoring CO at the Harvey's site; 
(3) a section titled ``Verification of Continued Attainment'' that 
addresses population change, traffic volumes, meteorology and the 
State's

[[Page 13237]]

surrogate monitoring method; (4) contingency measures for the Area; and 
(5) transportation conformity requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CO LMP guidance, pp. 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 supplement revises several sections of the 2012 plan and 
contains an emissions inventory. Below, we describe our evaluation of 
the 2012 plan and 2016 supplement as they pertain to each of the 
required LMP elements.
    The EPA evaluation sections that follow appear generally in the 
order of appearance of each section in the State's 2012 plan. 
Exceptions include the monitoring data, which the EPA includes first to 
provide background and context for the State's submittal, and the 
emissions inventory. The inventory is the first element listed in the 
CO LMP guidance. It wasn't submitted as part of the 2012 plan but was 
included in the 2016 supplement.

A. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

    As noted previously, 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 2012 plan includes a summary of 8-hour CO design values for the 
years 1975 to 2011, the year prior to the State's submittal of the 
plan. See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5-6. Table 1 shows the complete, 
quality assured and certified ambient air monitoring design values for 
CO for the years 1998 to 2012.\6\ The first maintenance plan for the 
Area covered the years 2004 to 2014. The 2012 plan covers the years 
2014 to 2024. The year 2012 is the last year for which we have 
complete, quality assured and certified design values for CO in the 
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Design values were derived from EPA's Air Quality System. 
For 1-hour CO design values, see the Lake Tahoe Nevada 1-Hour CO 
1975-2013 Maximum Values Report, dated September 26, 2016. For 8-
hour CO design values, see the Lake Tahoe Nevada 8-Hour CO 1975-2013 
Maximum Values Report, dated September 21, 2016. Design values for 
each two-year period were derived from the annual values shown in 
these reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1984, no Lake Tahoe Nevada Area CO monitor has registered an 
8-hour design value greater than 6.6 ppm,\7\ which is 73 percent of the 
9 ppm NAAQS, and since 2005, no monitor has registered a design value 
greater than 5.4 ppm, 60 percent of the NAAQS.\8\ The EPA also notes 
that the Area never violated the 1-hour CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5-6.
    \8\ See 2012 plan, Table 2, pp. 5-6. See also Table 1.

Table 1--Carbon Monoxide Design Values for Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, 1998-
                                  2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Design value
                                                              (ppm)
                         Years                         -----------------
                                                         1-hour   8-hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998-99...............................................      9.5      4.3
1999-00...............................................     12.1      4.3
2000-01...............................................     12.1      4.2
2001-02...............................................     13.2      6.1
2002-03...............................................     13.2      6.5
2003-04...............................................     11.2      6.5
2004-05...............................................      9.4      4.4
2005-06...............................................      7.8      3.6
2006-07...............................................      7.5      3.7
2007-08...............................................      7.5      3.7
2008-09...............................................      7.6      2.6
2009-10...............................................      7.6      3.1
2010-11...............................................      6.8      3.1
2011-12...............................................      9.2      5.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alternative Monitoring Strategy

    Citing the consistently low CO monitor values described above, and 
expressing a desire to conserve monitoring resources, the State 
requested in an April 25, 2012 letter that the EPA allow 
discontinuation of ambient air CO monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Nevada 
Area and instead use a surrogate monitoring method for monitoring 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS (``surrogate method'' or ``surrogate'').\9\ 
This surrogate method was initially set forth in the 2012 plan. In its 
2016 supplement, the State replaced the section on its surrogate 
monitoring method described in the 2012 plan. See 2012 plan, section 
3.2.4 on page 14 titled ``Surrogate Monitoring Method,'' and 2016 
supplement, section I, titled ``Revision to Section 3.2.4 of the 2012 
CO LMP,'' on page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the EPA's monitoring regulations, a State and Local Air 
Monitoring Station may be discontinued if the monitor in question has 
not measured violations of the applicable NAAQS in the previous five 
years, and the approved SIP provides for a specific, reproducible 
approach to representing the air quality of the affected county in the 
absence of actual monitoring data. See 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3). Accordingly, 
the EPA has evaluated whether the surrogate method constitutes a 
specific, reproducible approach to representing the air quality of the 
Lake Tahoe Nevada Area.\10\ As noted previously, the State's surrogate 
method relies on vehicle counts in the Area. The State reasons that 
motor vehicles are the major contributor to CO pollution in the Area 
and that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an indicator of growth and can 
therefore be used as a surrogate for monitoring of CO.\11\ In 
particular, the State points to the long-term downward trend in both CO 
design values and annual average daily traffic (AADT) over the 2001-
2010 period.\12\ Citing in the supplement the potential for high 
ambient air CO concentrations during winter months, the State presents 
a surrogate approach that uses monthly average daily traffic counts 
(MADT) during the CO ``season'' months (i.e., October 1 to March 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA will evaluate whether the Harvey's monitor has 
measured violations of the applicable NAAQS in the previous five 
years when we take a separate action to approve or disapprove the 
State's request to discontinue the Harvey's monitor under 40 CFR 
58.14(c).
    \11\ The 2001 emissions inventory prepared by NDEP for the 
original redesignation request and maintenance plan estimated actual 
emissions during the peak CO season (specifically, the month of 
January) from mobile sources, including on-road and non-road 
vehicles. Stationary and area sources were not included in the 
inventory but are considered de minimis considering the lack of 
industrial activity in the area and the small residential 
population. Therefore, the vehicle count is a reasonable surrogate 
for overall CO emissions in the area.
    \12\ See 2012 Lake Tahoe plan, pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although both VMT and AADT are measures of traffic volume, AADT has 
the advantage in representing air quality in that it is measured in the 
Area on a daily basis and at two locations. While the State chose, in 
the 2012 plan, to use annual AADT as the measure of traffic volume, in 
the 2016 supplement the State chose to use the more narrowly focused 
MADT, calculated from traffic counts during the CO season. The State 
will perform an annual review utilizing MADT counts collected in the 
Area by the Nevada Department of Transportation's permanent automatic 
traffic recorders in Incline Village, NV to the north, and Stateline, 
NV to the south.
    In the supplement, the State lists seasonal MADT levels measured at 
these two traffic monitors from 2008 to 2015. See Table 2. Baseline 
MADT levels for each site are calculated using the average of 2008-
2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasonal MADT levels. These baseline 
levels are 24,201 for Stateline and 10,260 for Incline Village. Each 
spring, the State will compare the latest rolling 3-year average MADT 
levels to those baselines and report the results to the EPA in the 
Area's annual monitoring network plan.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) 
submitted AADT reports in a supplement to their ANPs for the initial 
maintenance years 2012, 2013 and 2014 in a letter. See letter, 
Phillip W. Shoopman, P.E., Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 
NDEP, to Meredith Kurpius, Chief, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air 
Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated July 22, 2015. Henceforth the 
NDEP commits to submit annual AADT reports as part of their ANP for 
the Area. The July 2015 ANP supplement shows that three-year average 
AADT levels for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013 and 2012-2014 were 
all below the 2008-2010 baseline level at both AADT station 
(Stateline and Incline Village). Therefore ambient air monitoring 
was not triggered.

[[Page 13238]]



   Table 2--Seasonal MADT Counts for Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, 2008-2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Incline
                                           Stateline, NV    Village, NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008-2009 Season........................          24,791          10,276
2009-2010 Season........................          24,212          10,109
2010-2011 Season........................          23,600          10,396
2011-2012 Season........................          23,122          10,125
2012-2013 Season........................          22,848          10,154
2013-2014 Season........................          23,333          10,348
2014-2015 Season........................          24,319          10,618
Baseline (average of 2008-11)...........          24,201          10,260
Initial Trigger (baseline plus 25                 30,251          12,825
 percent)...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, if the State's annual MADT report shows an 
average at either site that is 25 percent or more above the baseline at 
that site (that is, equal to or greater than 30,251 for Stateline and 
12,825 for Incline Village), the State will conduct, concurrent with 
continued MADT counting, ambient CO monitoring at the Harvey's monitor 
during the following CO season. The State commits to retain the 
Harvey's monitor site intact so that ambient monitoring can be resumed 
soon after being triggered. See 2016 supplement, page 2. These levels 
(i.e., 30,251 for Stateline and 12,825 for Incline Village) represent 
the initial ``trigger'' for ambient air quality monitoring. Once 
triggered, the State will determine whether to continue ambient air 
monitoring. The State has developed a matrix for this purpose. See 
Table 3.
    After the initial trigger and upon discontinuation of the first 
instance of ambient air monitoring that it triggered, the State 
identifies subsequent, incrementally larger triggers for future ambient 
air monitoring that would then apply. These subsequent triggers would 
apply at incremental 5 percent MADT average levels above the first 
trigger. That is, after the initial trigger where MADT exceeds 25 
percent of the baseline, ambient monitoring would be triggered a second 
time if the Area measured more than 30 percent above the MADT baseline, 
and then again at 35 percent, etc.
    It is important to note that the trigger levels to initiate ambient 
air monitoring are independent of the matrix table for continued air 
monitoring, and that the triggering MADT level will be followed by a 
new rolling average MADT by the time monitoring of the subsequent CO 
season is complete. To illustrate, the initial MADT trigger in CO 
season 1 requires air monitoring in CO season 2. MADT monitoring 
continues during CO season 2 (and throughout the maintenance period). 
The State then has two possible triggers for ambient air monitoring in 
season 3. First, if the MADT level in season 2 is higher than baseline 
plus 25 percent, plus 5 percent, the State will monitor ambient air in 
season 3. Independent of that, however, the criteria in Table 3 could 
indicate continued air monitoring. To emphasize this point, we note 
that even a MADT level 20 percent above baseline can trigger continued 
ambient air monitoring in season 3 (or in any maintenance period CO 
season, where ambient air monitoring was performed in the prior 
season), if season 2 air monitoring yielded concentrations in excess of 
75 percent of the CO NAAQS.
    The decision matrix in Table 3 provides conditions for 
discontinuing ambient air monitoring, once such monitoring is 
triggered, in order to return to a surrogate-only approach. The matrix 
is structured such that, if the MADT rises above the baseline and the 
2nd-high CO concentration also rises to approach the level of the 
standard, ambient air monitoring is continued during the next CO 
season. Conversely, as MADT and CO concentrations decline, the State 
would rely on the MADT surrogate method alone. This approach minimizes 
the amount of ambient air monitoring needed and State resources used in 
such monitoring when CO concentrations are low with respect to the 
standard, while ensuring that ambient air quality is directly monitored 
when conditions indicate that concentrations may be trending to 
elevated levels closer to the standard.

                    Table 3--Decision Matrix To Determine Whether To Continue CO Monitoring *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2nd-high 8-hour average CO concentration as percent of NAAQS
    Percent change in 3-year rolling average     ---------------------------------------------------------------
         seasonal MADT from the baseline               <=50        >50 but <=65    >65 but <=65         >75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=20............................................               S               S               S               M
>20 but <=25....................................               S               S               M               M
>25 but <=30....................................               S               M               M               M
>30.............................................               S               M               M               M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: see 2016 supplement, Table 6, page 3.
Key: S = surrogate method only; M = monitoring of ambient air continues in following CO season (in addition to
  ongoing MADT surrogate method).
* Assumes ambient air monitoring has been triggered. This matrix is used to determine whether the State will
  continue ambient air monitoring, once triggered.

    If the MADT review or the decision matrix indicates that ambient 
air quality monitoring must be performed, the monitoring data will be 
submitted to the EPA's Air Quality System. See Supplement, page 2. The 
State will

[[Page 13239]]

include in its Annual Network Plan (ANP) a report on MADT, as 
previously stated. After the initial CO season air monitoring is 
completed, the State will summarize the results of such monitoring in 
the next ANP.
    Also, in each instance where ambient air monitoring has been 
triggered by MADT levels, once the ambient air monitoring has been 
performed during the next CO season, the State will also include in its 
ANP the results of its assessment of which conditions in the matrix 
apply so as to determine whether to continue ambient air monitoring. If 
such monitoring is indicated, the State would conduct the air 
monitoring and then again report in the following ANP the results of 
its assessment with regard to the air monitoring performed and which 
conditions of the matrix apply.
    We note that the Area benefits from the adjacent Lake Tahoe North 
Shore and the Lake Tahoe South Shore maintenance areas on the CA side 
of the basin. In both of these areas, the State of California's ongoing 
motor vehicle program continues to be implemented, including the 
State's low-emission vehicles and clean fuels programs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 2012 Lake Tahoe plan, p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA finds that the Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection's (NDEP) surrogate monitoring method constitutes a specific, 
reproducible approach to representing the air quality of the Area. 
Specific traffic volume targets are listed by the State, and comparison 
of future traffic volumes to the trigger volumes are reproducible in 
that the State is using data from permanent traffic counters and 
comparing that data to specific percent-above-baseline MADT trigger 
levels. If air monitoring is triggered, the matrix provides a specific 
set of conditions for the State to determine whether to continue air 
monitoring.
    Given the long history of low CO concentrations in the Area, the 
relationship between CO levels and MADT and the triggers for both re-
starting ambient air monitoring and, once re-started, to discontinue 
that monitoring, the EPA considers NDEP's surrogate to be adequate to 
represent CO concentrations in the Area. We also note that the EPA has 
previously approved similar traffic volume-based monitoring 
alternatives for CO in other LMPs.\15\ Accordingly, the EPA is 
approving the surrogate monitoring method into the Nevada SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., final approval of LMP and alternative monitoring 
strategy for Billings, Montana CO maintenance area, 80 FR 16571 
(March 30, 2015); final approval of LMP and alternative monitoring 
strategy for Great Falls, Montana CO maintenance area, 80 FR 17331 
(April 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 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 that are sufficient to maintain the 
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with the EPA's 
most recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For CO, the 
inventory should reflect typical wintertime conditions. Further, the 
EPA's CO LMP guidance recommends that an LMP include an attainment 
emissions inventory that represents emissions during the time period 
associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.\16\ The NDEP 
submitted such an inventory for 2001 as part of the original Lake Tahoe 
Nevada Area redesignation request and maintenance plan that the EPA 
approved in 2003.\17\ The NDEP did not include an attainment emissions 
inventory in the 2012 plan. They reasoned it wasn't needed because they 
provide CO point source emissions data to the EPA as part of the 
National Emission Inventory (NEI) process each year and submits 
emissions model inputs that enable EPA to develop a comprehensive 
emissions inventory every third year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See CO LMP guidance, page 3.
    \17\ See 68 FR 69611, 69614 (December 15, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently however, in its 2016 supplement, the NDEP provided the 
EPA with a 2011 emissions inventory for the Area. The Area continued to 
maintain the NAAQS in 2011, immediately prior to submittal of the 2012 
plan (see Table 1) and, as such, 2011 is an appropriate year for which 
to provide the EPA with an emissions inventory in support of the second 
maintenance plan.
    The supplement also provided a projected emissions inventory for 
2024, with a least conservative and most conservative projection. As 
noted in the supplement, mobile sources account for the vast majority 
of CO emissions in the Area. The State's initial 10-year maintenance 
plan included an emissions inventory for onroad and nonroad mobile 
sources.\18\ Therefore, the supplement provides a similar inventory for 
the second 10-year maintenance plan.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 68 FR 69611, 69615 (December 15, 2003).
    \19\ The State included an attachment to its 2016 supplement 
titled ``Mobile Source Emissions Inventory and Future Year 
Projections for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin Carbon Monoxide Limited 
Maintenance Plan,'' and requested that the EPA append the attachment 
to its 2012 plan. See 2016 Supplement, page 4 and Attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Starting with the NEI CO emissions in 2011 for Carson City, Douglas 
and Washoe counties, each of which accounts for a portion of the basin, 
the State developed a 2011 inventory for the Area. The NEI provides 
countywide annual emissions for both onroad and nonroad source 
categories. The State adjusted NEI annual emissions from the three 
counties to represent the Area's emissions by applying ratios of either 
county-to-area VMT (for onroad) or county-to-area population (for 
nonroad), and then adjusted the resulting Area annual emissions to 
seasonal emissions. In order to provide a sense of trending emissions 
over time, the State used the same methodology to provide emissions 
inventories for the Area for 2002, 2005 and 2008, and also presented 
the emissions for 2001 from the Area's first 10-year maintenance plan.
    The State also prepared a future year inventory for 2024, the last 
year of the second 10-year maintenance plan. The State developed the 
projected inventory with input and data from the Tahoe Regional 
Planning Agency (TRPA). TRPA used a travel demand model to estimate 
both 2010 and 2020 AADT under five development scenarios. The State 
used the difference between the AADT for 2010 and 2020 to develop 
onroad emissions inventories from 2011 to 2024 for the five TRPA 
development scenarios, resulting in a ``least-conservative'' and a 
``most-conservative'' projection of emissions in 2024.
    Table 4 is the summary of mobile source emissions inventories 
between 2001 and 2024, contained in the 2016 supplement. See 2016 
supplement, Appendix A, page A-6. As shown in Table 4, the State 
estimates both that emissions in 2011 were 23 percent lower than in 
2001, and that emissions in 2024 are projected to be between 13 percent 
and 25 percent lower than in 2001. These declining emissions levels are 
consistent with the traffic-based methodology the State chose for its 
surrogate method to monitor air quality in the Area.

[[Page 13240]]



                                          Table 4--Lake Tahoe Nevada Area CO Season Mobile Emissions Inventory
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         2001            2002            2005            2008            2011           2024LC          2024MC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad Emissions........................           5,832           5,832           5,766           3,496           4,529           4,396           5,089
Nonroad Emissions.......................             375             375             323             252             207             178             190
Total Emissions.........................           6,207           6,207           6,089           3,748           4,736           4,574           5,279
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: LC = least conservative; MC = most conservative.
Source: 2016 supplement, page A-6.

    The EPA finds that the attainment emissions inventory in the 2012 
plan, as amended by the 2016 supplement, is adequate.

D. Maintenance Demonstration

    We consider the maintenance demonstration requirement to be 
satisfied for areas that qualify for and use the LMP option.\20\ As 
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option 
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive 
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS). EPA 
maintains that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design 
value no greater than 7.65 ppm, the combination of prevention of 
significant deterioration permit requirements, the control measures 
already in the SIP, and federal measures should provide adequate 
assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period. 
Therefore, the EPA does not require areas using the LMP option to 
project emissions over the maintenance period. Because CO design values 
in the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area are consistently well below the LMP 
threshold (see Table 1), the EPA finds that the State has adequately 
demonstrated that the Area will continue to maintain the CO NAAQS in 
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See CO LMP guidance, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. 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 
establish 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 (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program 
(TIP) are consistent with the MVEB contained in the 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 
attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or 
maintenance area.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Further 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, under the CO LMP guidance and the EPA's conformity rule, 
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of 
the maintenance period. While the guidance does not exempt an area from 
the need to determine conformity, it explains that the area may 
demonstrate conformity without submitting a MVEB because it is 
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth 
in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\22\ 
Therefore, for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area, all actions that require 
conformity determinations for CO under our conformity rule provisions 
are considered to have already satisfied the regional emissions 
analysis and budget test requirements in 40 CFR 93.118.\23\ However, 
since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of 
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for 
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such 
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects must still demonstrate that 
they are fiscally constrained (see 40 CFR 93.108) and that they meet 
the criteria for consultation and Transportation Control Measure 
implementation (see 40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In 
addition, projects in LMP areas are required to meet the applicable 
criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy project level conformity 
determinations (see 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must also 
incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available (see 
40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See CO LMP guidance, p. 4. See also 69 FR 40004, page 40063 
(July 1, 2004), explaining revisions to make the conformity rule 
consistent with the EPA's existing limited maintenance plan 
policies.
    \23\ See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
    \24\ See 40 CFR 93.109(b), Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our approval of the 2012 plan, as amended by the 2016 supplement, 
effectively affirms our adequacy finding \25\ such that no regional 
emissions analyses for future transportation CO conformity 
determinations are required for the CO LMP period and beyond. The other 
transportation conformity requirements listed above continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 68 FR 69611 (December 15, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network

    As noted previously, the EPA is approving the State's surrogate 
monitoring method for the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area as part of this 
action. We conclude that this method is adequate to verify continued 
attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Lake Tahoe Nevada Area. Accordingly, 
we find that the 2012 plan contains adequate monitoring provisions.
    Prior to making their submittal of the 2012 plan, the State ran a 
CO monitoring network that consisted of the Harvey's monitor. The State 
provided ANPs to the EPA according to requirements in 40 CFR part 
58.\26\ The EPA approved these ANPs.\27\ The EPA also performed 
Technical System

[[Page 13241]]

Audits (TSAs) on a periodic basis. The last TSA the EPA performed for 
NDEP that included CO was in 2011 (``2011 TSA Report'').\28\ In the 
2011 TSA Report, the EPA made no findings specific to CO.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ There are four ANPs relevant to this action, covering each 
of the three years prior to submittal of the 2012 plan, as well as 
the year 2012, the last year that the State monitored CO in the 
Area. See NDEP's ANPs for years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
    \27\ The EPA sent NDEP approval letters pertaining to 2009, 
2010, 2011 and 2012 ANPs. See letters from Joseph Lapka, Acting 
Chief, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, 
to Leo Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, dated October 30, 2009; from 
Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air 
Division, to Greg Remer, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 
NDEP, dated November 1, 2010; from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality 
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Rob Bamford, 
Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, NDEP, dated November 1, 2011; 
and from Matthew Lakin, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 
9 Air Division, to Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality 
Planning, NDEP, dated February 28, 2013, respectively.
    \28\ The EPA's final TSA prior to CO monitor discontinuation was 
performed in 2011. See letter and 2011 TSA Report enclosure from 
Deborah Jordan, Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Division, to Colleen 
Cripps, Administrator, NDEP, dated August 1, 2013.
    \29\ Ibid, p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The CO LMP guidance indicates that an LMP should contain provisions 
for continued operation of ``an appropriate, EPA-approved air quality 
monitoring network'' in the maintenance area, in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58 (the EPA's air quality monitoring regulations). The guidance 
explains that verifying continued maintenance is especially important 
for an LMP since the area will not have a cap on emissions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See CO LMP guidance, p. 4, section c, ``Monitoring Network/
Verification of Continued Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Lake Tahoe Nevada Area has discontinued air quality monitoring 
for CO. In today's action, the EPA is approving, in accordance with 
part 58, a surrogate CO monitoring method that relies on traffic 
counts. Since 2012, when air quality monitoring was discontinued, 
reports for traffic counts in the Area have shown no significant (25 
percent or greater) increase. The State commits to maintaining 
readiness of the Harvey's monitoring site during the maintenance 
period, in case air monitoring is triggered by traffic counts. The 
State further has provided a decision matrix for continued operation of 
the monitor, in the event that either CO concentrations or traffic 
counts are elevated, in order to ensure both that any violation of the 
CO NAAQS is monitored directly, as well as to ensure that contingency 
measures are implemented at the level approved in the first 10-year 
maintenance plan, at 85 percent of the NAAQS. The State has already 
commenced, and commits to continue during the maintenance period, 
reporting annually to the EPA the traffic counts in north and south 
portions of the Area. The EPA therefore determines that the LMP 
satisfies this element of the CO LMP guidance.

H. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation 
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. Under 175A(d), 
contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of 
redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an 
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency 
measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a 
specific event. The EPA's CO LMP guidance recommends that, to meet the 
contingency plan requirement, a state should identify appropriate 
contingency measures along with a schedule for the development and 
implementation of such measures.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See CO LMP guidance, p. 4, section d, ``Contingency Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's contingency plan for the Area was approved in the first 
10-year LMP. Section 4 of the 2012 plan addresses a contingency plan 
for the Area for the second 10-year maintenance period. However, the 
2016 supplement requests that the EPA replace section 4 of the 2012 
plan with a paragraph in section II of the 2016 supplement. Section II, 
``Revision to Section 4 of the 2012 CO LMP,'' indicates that the 
contingency plan in the first 10-year maintenance plan will apply for 
the second 10-year maintenance period.
    The contingency plan in the first 10-year maintenance plan contains 
a detailed, multi-step process for addressing any potential CO NAAQS 
violations. First, the plan provides a triggering mechanism through 
which NDEP will determine when a pre-violation action level is reached. 
Second, the plan spells out the procedures that will be followed if the 
pre-violation action level is reached, including activation of a multi-
agency Conformity Task Force, analysis of monitoring data and 
development of recommendations for action. Finally, the plan provides 
for these recommendations to be implemented by NDEP and/or the 
appropriate local jurisdictions in the Area, all of which have 
committed to implementing expeditiously any and all measures necessary 
to achieve emissions reductions needed to maintain the CO NAAQS.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ As we noted in our approval of the first 10-year 
maintenance plan, the following local jurisdictions have passed 
resolutions promising to adhere to the provisions of the contingency 
plan in the 2003 Lake Tahoe Nevada Limited Maintenance Plan: The 
Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Washoe County District 
Health Department and the State of Nevada Department of 
Transportation, which is a participant in the Interagency 
Consultation Procedures established by the Tahoe Metropolitan 
Planning Organization. See 68 FR 69611, 69615, footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that the contingency plan the EPA approved in the first 10-
year LMP, which the State indicates in the 2016 supplement will 
continue to apply during the second 10-year maintenance period, is 
sufficient to meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA and 
the CO LMP guidance.

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 maintenance plan for the 
Area, titled ``2012 Revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan: 
Updated Limited Maintenance Plan for the Nevada Side of the Lake Tahoe 
Basin, Including Douglas, Carson City and Washoe Counties,'' submitted 
to the EPA on April 3, 2012, and as amended by a submittal on August 
26, 2016, titled ``2016 Supplement to Nevada's 2nd 10-Year Maintenance 
Plan at Lake Tahoe.''
    Consistent with the State's request in the 2016 supplement, we are 
approving two sections of the 2016 supplement as revisions to the 2012 
plan and therefore take no action on the original, 2012 versions of 
those sections. First, we are not acting on section 3.2.4 of the 2012 
plan, containing the State's alternative CO monitoring strategy and 
contingency plan, because we are instead approving into the SIP the 
revised section 3.2.4 included in the 2016 supplement, still titled 
``3.2.4 Surrogate Method for Tracking CO Concentrations.'' Second, we 
are not acting on section 4 of the 2012 plan, titled ``4. Contingency 
Measures,'' because we are instead approving into the SIP the revised 
section 4 included in the 2016 supplement, titled ``II. Revision to 
Section 4 of the 2012 CO LMP.''
    Other parts of the 2016 supplement that we are approving are the 
2011 emissions inventory and 2024 projected emissions inventory (i.e., 
Attachment A, titled ``Mobile Source Emissions Inventory and Future 
Year Projections for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin Carbon Monoxide Limited 
Maintenance Plan''), evidence of public participation (i.e., Attachment 
B, titled ``Evidence of Public Participation'') and revised table of 
contents for the 2012 submittal (i.e., Attachment F, titled 
``Replacement for 2012 CO LMP Contents Page'').
    Also consistent with the State's request in the 2016 supplement, 
our approval takes no action on the 2016 supplement's Attachments C, D 
and E, titled respectively ``Statistical Support for Criteria Used to 
Determine Whether to Continue CO Monitoring,'' ``Surrogate Method 
Report for Tracking Carbon Monoxide at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, 2011-2015,'' 
and ``Inventory Preparation Plan for the Mobile Source Emissions 
Inventory and Future Year Projections for the 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin 
Carbon

[[Page 13242]]

Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan.'' These three attachments each have 
header text that includes the statement ``Not for inclusion in Nevada's 
SIP.''
    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 plans. If we receive adverse 
comments by April 10, 2017, 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 May 9, 2017.
    This action incorporates the 2012 plan, as amended by the 2016 
supplement, and specific portions of the 2016 supplement itself, into 
the federally enforceable SIP. Together, these two submittals meet the 
applicable CAA requirements, and the EPA has determined they are 
sufficient to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course 
of the second 10-year maintenance period through 2024.

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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 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 
(see 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (see 76 FR 3821, January 
21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (see 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 (see 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 (see Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (see 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (see 62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (see 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 (see 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 (see 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. See 65 FR 67249 (November 9, 
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act (see 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 May 9, 2017. 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 CAA 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: December 22, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. In Sec.  52.1470, paragraph (e) is amended by adding, under the 
table heading ``Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of 
Nevada,'' two entries ``2012 Revision to the Nevada State 
Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, April 2012'' and ``2016 
Supplement to Nevada's 2nd 10-Year CO Limited Maintenance Plan at Lake 
Tahoe, August 26, 2016'' after the entry ``Addendum to the October 27, 
2003 letter of transmittal of the redesignation request and maintenance 
plan,'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 13243]]



                   EPA-Approved Nevada Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or         State       EPA approval date        Explanation
                                 nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Nevada \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
2012 Revision to the Nevada      Nevada portion of         4/3/2012  [Insert Federal     Adopted on 4/3/2012.
 State Implementation Plan for    Lake Tahoe Basin--                  Register            Approval excludes
 Carbon Monoxide, April 2012.     portions of                         citation] 3/10/     sections 3.2.4 and 4.
                                  Carson City,                        2017).              With 2016 supplement,
                                  Douglas and                                             fulfills requirement
                                  Washoe counties.                                        for second ten-year
                                                                                          maintenance plan.
2016 Supplement to Nevada's 2nd  Nevada portion of        8/26/2016  [Insert Federal     Adopted on 8/26/2016.
 10-Year CO Limited Maintenance   Lake Tahoe Basin--                  Register            Approval includes
 Plan at Lake Tahoe, August 26,   portions of                         citation] (3/10/    revised sections 3.2.4
 2016.                            Carson City,                        2017).              and 4 (alternative CO
                                  Douglas and                                             monitoring strategy
                                  Washoe counties.                                        and contingency plan),
                                                                                          2011 emissions
                                                                                          inventory and 2024
                                                                                          projected emissions
                                                                                          inventory (Attachment
                                                                                          A), evidence of public
                                                                                          participation
                                                                                          (Attachment B) and
                                                                                          revised table of
                                                                                          contents for 2012
                                                                                          submittal (Attachment
                                                                                          F). Excludes
                                                                                          Attachments C, D and
                                                                                          E.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * * *
\1\ The 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. 2017-04771 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


