ENYIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R06-0AR-2009-0202; FRL- ]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans and Designation ofAreas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Arkansas; Redesignation ofthe Crittenden County, Arkansas Portion ofthe

Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2009, the State ofArkansas, through the Arkansas Department

ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ), submitted a request to redesignate the Arkansas portion of

the bi-state Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas (Memphis TN-AR) 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment

area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and

to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the

Arkansas portion ofthe bi-state Memphis TN-AR Area. The bi-state Memphis TN-AR 1997 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area is composed ofMemphis, Shelby County, Tennessee (Shelby

County) and Crittenden County, Arkansas. In this action, EPA proposes to approve the 19978-

hour ozone redesignation request for Crittenden County, Arkansas. Additionally, EPA proposes

to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Crittenden County, including the state

motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs)for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) for the years 2006 and 2021. This proposed approval ofArkansas'

redesignation request is based on EPA's determination that Arkansas has demonstrated that

Crittenden County has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air
Act (CAA), including the determination that the entire Memphis TN-AR ozone nonattainment

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days after date of publication

in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-0AR-2009-

0202, by one ofthe following methods:

I. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

2. E-mail: donaldson.guy@epa.gov.

3. Fax: (214) 665-7263.

4. Mail: EPA-R06-0AR-2009-0202 Air Planning Section, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section, Air

Planning Branch, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of

operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,

8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-0AR-2009-0202. EPA's policy

is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be

2
made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CEl)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CEl or otherwise protected.

The www.regulations.gov web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If

you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe comment that is placed

in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,

EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider

your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form of

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public

docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CEl or other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted

material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the Air Planning Section, Air Branch, Multimedia Planning and Permitting

3
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The

Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding

federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section

(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-8542; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?

II. What is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?

III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation?

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These Actions?

V. What is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?

VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the Request?

VII. What is EPA's Analysis of Arkansas' Proposed State NOx and VOC MVEBs for

Crittenden County, Arkansas?

VIII. What is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Proposed State NOx

and VOC MVEBs for the years 2006 and 2021 for Crittenden County, Arkansas?

4
IX.. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revision

Including Proposed Approval ofthe 2006 and 2021 State NOx and VOC MVEBs for

Crittenden County, Arkansas.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Proposed Actions is EPA Taking?

EPA proposes several related actions, which are summarized below and described in

greater detail throughout this notice ofrulemaking:

(1) To redesignate Crittenden County, Arkansas to attaimnent for the 1997 S-hour ozone

NAAQS. EPA proposes to determine that the bi-state Memphis, TN-AR Area has attained the

1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that the Crittenden County, Arkansas portion has met the

requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA. The bi-state Memphis,

TN-AR 1997 8-hour ozone area comprises Shelby County in Teunessee and Crittenden County

in Arkansas. Today's proposal addresses only the Arkansas portion ofthe bi-state Memphis,

TN-AR 1997 8-hour ozone area. EPA is now proposing to approve a request to change the legal

designation ofCrittenden County, Arkansas from nonattaimnent to attaimnent for the 1997 8-

hour ozone NAAQS.

(2) To approve Arkansas' 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan into the Arkansas SIP,

including the 2006 and 2021 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB's) that are part ofthe

maintenance plan. EPA has already made a finding of adequacy for the MVEBs (74 FR 21356).

These MVEBs apply only to Crittenden County, Arkansas. MVEB's contained in the Tennessee

submittal for Shelby County will be addressed in a separate action. EPA proposes to approve

5
Arkansas' 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Crittenden County (such approval being one

ofthe CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to

help keep the Memphis TN-AR area (of which Crittenden County is a part) in attainment ofthe

1997 8-hour ozone NMQS through 2021.

II. What is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions ofNOx and

VOC react in the presence ofsunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOx and VOC are precursors

of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. EPA

establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants as the maximum level of air pollution allowed to

protect public health and welfare.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per

million (ppm). This standard is more stringent than the previous l-hour ozone standard. Under

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year

average ofthe annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone

concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered).

(See, 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information.) Ambient air quality monitoring

data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambientair quality

monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid

ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent

data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR

part 50, Appendix I, "Comparisons with the Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards" states:

6
"The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient

air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum

8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number ofsignificant

figures in the level ofthe standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed

3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with

the level ofthe standard. The third decimal place ofthe computed value is rounded, with values

equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration

of0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm. "

The CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data.

The CAA contains two sets of provisions - subpart I and subpart 2 - that address plarming and

control requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart

I (which EPA refers to as "basic" nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive,

requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant - including ozone - governed by a

NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as "classified" nonattainment) provides more specific

requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment

areas are subject only to the provisions ofsubpart I. Other 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment

areas are also subject to the provisions ofsubpart 2. Under EPA's Phase I 1997 8-hour ozone

implementation rule (69 FR 23857) (Phase I Rule), signed on April 15, 2004, and published

April 30, 2004, an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 1997 8-hour ozone design

value (i.e., the 3-year average ofthe armual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone

concentrations), ifit had a l-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest l-hour design

7
value in Table I ofsubpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-

hour ambient air quality design value.

Shelby County, Tennessee was originally designated as a marginal nonattainment area for

the l-hour ozone standard on November 6,1991 (56 FR 56694). Crittenden County, Arkansas

was not part ofthe nonattainment area during the 1991 l-hour designations. On February 16,

1995 (60 FR 3352) Shelby County was redesignated as attainment for the l-hour ozone standard

and is considered to be a l-hour maintenance area subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance

plan for the l-hour standard.

On April 30; 2004, EPA designated the Memphis, TN-AR Area (which then included

Crittenden County, Arkansas) as a "moderate" 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (see, 69

FR 23857, April 30, 2004). On July 15,2004, pursuant to section 181(a)(4) ofthe CAA, the

States of Tennessee and Arkansas submitted a petition to EPA Regions 4 and 6, requesting a

downward reclassification ofthe Memphis TN-AR nonattainment area from "moderate" to

"marginal" for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The petition was based on the area's "moderate"

design value of .092 ppm being within five percent ofthe maximum "marginal" design value of

0.091 ppm. Pursuant to Section 181(a)(4), areas with design values within five percent ofthe

standard may request a reclassification under specific circumstances. Factors for EPA to

consider as part ofsuch a request are described in Section 181(a)(4) ofthe CAA. The petition

for reclassification to "marginal" was approved by EPA, and became effective on November 22,

2004 (see, 69 FR 56697, September 22, 2004). As a result ofthe downward classification, the

new attainment date for the Memphis TN-AR "marginal" nonattainment area was set at June 15,

2007, consistent with the CAA, with an attainment determination to be based on 2004-2006 air

quality data.

8
Air quality data monitored for the Memphis TN-AR nonattainment area subsequently

showed that the area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15,2007,

deadline. Section 181(b)(2)(A) ofthe CAA provides that, when EPA finds that an area failed to

attain by the applicable date, the area is reclassified by operation oflaw to the higher of: the next

higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time of

the required notice under Section 181(b)(2)(B). The next higher classification for the Memphis

TN-AR Nonattainment Area was "moderate." On March 28, 2008, the Memphis TN-AR

nonattainment area was reclassified as "moderate" (73 FR 16547). EPA set a deadline of March

1,2009 for the State to submit the moderate area SIP provisions required under the area's new

classification (73 FR 16550).

In 2008, the ambient ozone data for the Memphis TN-AR Area showed attainment ofthe

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, using data from the 3-year period of2006 - 2008. On February 24,

2009, Arkansas requested redesignation ofCrittenden County, Arkansas to attainment for the

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation request included three years of complete,

quality-assured ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons (March l" thru November 30th) of

2006 - 2008, indicating that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved for the entire

Memphis TN-AR Area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment

ifsufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to determine that

the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements

in section 107(d)(3)(E).

III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation?

9
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attaimnent.

Specifically, section I 07(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) the

Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator

has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section IIO(k); (3) the

Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and

enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe applicable SIP and

applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable

reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting

the requirements ofsection 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all

requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D ofthe CAA.

EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation

of Title I ofthe CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on

processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

I. "Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations;" Memorandum from Bill

Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18,1990;

2. "Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

Nonattaimnent Areas," Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

10
3. "Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,"

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,

June I, 1992;

4. "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,"

Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,

September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the "Calcagni Memorandum");

5. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act

(ACT) Deadlines," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality

Management Division, October 28, 1992;

6. "Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas," Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;

7. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for

Redesignation to Attainment ofthe Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,"

Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, September 17, 1993;

11
8. "Use ofActual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO

Nonattainment Areas," Memorandum from D. KentBerry, Acting Director, Air

Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;

9. "Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting

Redesignation to Attainment," Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and

10. "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard," Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning

and Standards, May 10, 1995.

IV. Why is EPA Proposing These Actions?

On February 24, 2009, Arkansas requested redesignation ofthe Arkansas portion

(Crittenden County) ofthe bi-state Memphis TN-AR 1997 S-hour ozone nonattainment area to

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's evaluation indicates that the bi-state

Memphis Area has attained the standard and that Crittenden County has met the requirements for

redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) , including the maintenance plan requirements

under section l75A ofthe CAA. EPA is also announcing the status ofits adequacy

determination and proposing approval ofthe 2006 and 2021 NOxand VOC MVEBs which are

relevant to the requested redesignation.

12
V. What is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?

Approval of Arkansas' redesignation request would change the legal designation of

Crittenden County for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. Approval of

Arkansas' request would also incorporate into the Arkansas SIP, a plan for Crittenden County for

maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 2021. This maintenance plan

includes contingency measures to remedy future violations ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The maintenance plan also establishes state NOxand VOC MVEBs for Crittenden County.

Table I identifies the state NOxand VOC MVEBs for the year 2006 and 2021 for Crittenden

County.

Table 1. Crittenden County NOxand VOC MVEBs

(Summer season tons per day)

2006 2021

NOx 6.27 1.84

VOC 2.95 1.39

Approval of Arkansas' maintenance plan would also result in approval ofthe NOxand

VOC state MVEBs. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public ofthe status ofits adequacy

determination for the 2006 and 2021 NOxand VOC state MVEBs pursuant to 40

CFR 93.118(f)(I).

VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the Request?

EPA proposes to determine that the Crittenden County portion ofthe Memphis TN-AR

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that all

other redesignation criteria have been met for that portion ofthe Memphis TN-AR area. The

basis for EPA's determination for the area is discussed in greater detail below.

13
Criteria (1) - Crittenden County, Arkansas has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

EPA proposes to determine that the Crittenden County portion ofthe Memphis TN-AR

area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS ifthe air quality in the nonattainment area meets the

standard, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on

three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To

attain this standard, the 3-year average ofthe fourth-highest daily maximum 1997 8-hour average

ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed

0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the

standard is attained ifthe design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and

quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System

(AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of

the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring stations in the

Memphis TN-AR area for the ozone season from 2006-2008. This data has been quality assured

and is recorded in AQS. The fourth high averages for 2006, 2007 and 2008, and the 3-year

average ofthese values (i.e., design values), are summarized in Table 2:

Table 2. Annual 4th Max High and Design Value Concentration for 1997 8-Hour Ozone

for the Memphis, TN-AR Area (in parts per million)

14
COUNTY Shelby County, Tennessee Crittenden County, Arkansas

Memphis- Edmond Marion

MONITOR Frayser Orgill Park (#05-035-0005)

Boulevard (AQS In) (#47-157- (#47-157-

0021) 1004)

2006 0.083 0.084 0.089

2007 0.081 0.080 0.084

2008 0.084 0.077 0.074

Design Value 0.082 0.080 0.082

As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest design value recorded at

any monitor in the area. Therefore, the design value for the Memphis TN-AR Area is 0.082

ppm, which meets the standard as described above. Preliminary data from 2009 also indicate the

area continues to attain the standard. The data from 2009 is considered preliminary because it

has not yet completed full data certification. As discussed in more detail below, Arkansas has

committed to continue monitoring in this area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The data

submitted by Arkansas provides an adequate demonstration that Crittenden County (as part of

the Memphis TN-AR area) has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Criteria (2) - Arkansas has afully approved SIP under section 11O(k) for Crittenden County

and Criteria (5) - Arkansas has met all Applicable Requirements under Section 110 andpart

D ofthe CAA.

Below is a summary of how these two criteria were met.

15
EPA has determined that Arkansas has met all applicable SIP requirements for

Crittenden County under section 110 ofthe CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA has also

determined that the Arkansas SIP satisfies the criterion that it meet applicable SIP requirements

under part D oftitle I ofthe CAA (including requirements specific to subpart 2 marginal 1997 8-

hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA

has determined that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for

purposes ofredesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these

determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the area and that if

applicable, they are fully approved under section IIO(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with

respect to applicable requirements.

a. Crittenden County, Arkansas has met all Applicable Requirements under section 110 and

part Do/the CAA

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum (see "Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air

Quality Management Division, September 4,1992) describes EPA's interpretation ofsection

107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting

redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior

to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. See also, Michael Shapiro Memorandum,

("SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS On or After November 15, 1992," September 17, 1993),

and 60 FR 12459,12465-66 (March 7,1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan).

16
Applicable requirements ofthe CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a

complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not

required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See, section 175A(c) ofthe CAA; Sierra Club, 375

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); see also, 68 FR 25424,25427 (May 12,2003) (redesignation of St.

Louis, Missouri).

General SIP requirements. Section 11O(a)(2) oftitle I ofthe CAA delineates the general

requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control

measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate

devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.

General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) oftitle I, part A ofthe

CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: submittal of a SIP that

has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for

establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;

implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation ofpart C

requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the

implementation of part D requirements (NSR permit programs); provisions for air pollution

modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in plarming and emission

control rule development.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a

state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this

provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the transport of air

pollutants (NOx SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). The section 110(a)(2)(D)

17
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and

classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular

nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in

reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable,

continue to apply to a state regardless ofthe designation of anyone particular area in the state.

Thus, we do not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to

be applicable requirements for purposes ofredesignation.

In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with

nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not

applicable requirements for purposes ofredesignation. The area will still be subject to these

requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements that are

linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to

evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing

policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels

requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See, Reading,

Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR

24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7,1995). See also, the

discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,2000), and

in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,2001).

EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are

not applicable for purposes ofredesignation. Therefore, as discussed above, for purposes of

redesignation, they are not considered applicable requirements. We have reviewed the Arkansas

18
SIP and have concluded it meets the general requirements ofsection 110, to the extent that these

are applicable for redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions in the Arkansas SIP

addressing section 110 elements under the I-hour ozone NAAQS (See, 40 CFR § 52.172).

In a letter to EPA dated March 28, 2008, the State set forth its belief that the existing SIP

is also sufficient to meet the CAA 110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

EPA has not yet approved this submission, but such approval is not necessary for purposes of

redesignation.

Part D requirements. EPA has also determined that the Arkansas SIP meets applicable

SIP requirements under part D ofthe CAA. Sections 172-176 ofthe CAA, found in subpart 1 of

part D,set forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.

Section 182 ofthe CAA, found in subpart 2 ofpart D, establishes additional specific

requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification and applies to the Memphis

TN-AR area. As discussed in Section II, Crittenden County was classified as marginal, and then

reclassified to moderate. In the reclassification, EPA required that the necessary SIP revisions

for the new moderate area requirements be submitted by both Tennessee and Arkansas as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than March 1, 2009. The request for redesignation was

submitted by Arkansas on February 24, 2009, prior to the date that the moderate area

requirements came due. Thus, for purposes of redesignation, only the marginal area

requirements under Part D, subpart 2 are applicable to Crittenden County.

A SIP revision submitted to EPA by the State of Arkansas on November 19, 2007

satisfied the marginal area requirements set forth in section 182(a)(1). This submittal consisted

19
of an emissions inventory for the year 2002 containing NOx, VOC and carbon monoxide (CO)

emissions as precursors to ozone formation, as well as a revision to State Regulation 19, Chapter

7 (Sampling, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements), to require emissions statements. EPA

approved this SIP revision on January 15,2009 (74 FR 2383). Requirements set forth in sections

182(a)(2)(A) (Reasonably Available Control Technology Corrections) and I82(a)(2)(B) (Savings

Clause for Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance) are not applicable to Crittenden County due to

its status of attainment ofthe I-hour ozone standard. Requirements set forth in section

I 82(a)(2)(C) (Permit Programs) are discussed in the NSR Requirements section ofthis notice.

In addition to the fact that only the marginal classification part D requirements became

due prior to submission ofthe redesignation request and therefore are applicable for purposes of

redesignation, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not

requiring approval prior to redesignation.

Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section I76(c) oftheCAA requires states to

establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects conform to

the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity

applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title

23 ofthe United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as

well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity

revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to consultation,

enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not

applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section I 07(d) because state

conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where

20
state rules have not been approved. See, Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 438-40 (6th Cir. 2001)

(upholding this interpretation). See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).

Although Crittenden County does not currently have fully approved conformity rules, a

Memorandum ofAgreement outlining interagency consultation procedures is in place for

transportation conformity purposes.

NSR Requirements. Arkansas' permitting requirements for major sources in or impacting

upon nonattainment areas are set forth in "Regulation No. 31 - Nonattainment New Source

Review Requirements." On July 3, 2006, Arkansas submitted Regulation No. 31 to address the

marginal Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting requirements in Crittenden

County, and EPA approved the submittal on April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18394). This regulation

applies to the construction and modification of any major stationary source of air pollution in a

nonattainment area, as required by part D of Title I ofthe Act. Regulation No. 31 also includes

provisions that implement EPA's designation ofCrittenden County as an Economic

Development Zone (EDZ) subject to the requirements of Section I73(a)(1)(B) ofthe Act. These

provisions establish VOC and NOx emissions caps and provide for the Director ofADEQ to

grant growth allowances to affected sources in lieu ofmeeting the NNSR offset requirement.

Arkansas has maintained that sources locating to the Memphis area will continue to undergo new

source review requirements and existing source control will continue under the NNSRlEDZ

program until Crittenden County is redesignated to attainment.

Upon redesignation, however, the identification ofCrittenden County as a section 173

EDZ expires under federal law. The rules that apply for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard after

redesignation would be those contained in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP

21
program. The State must reapply for EDZ status should Crittenden County be designated

nonattainment under a revised 8-hour primary ozone standard. In any event, EPA notes that

fully approved NSR is not required for redesignation to attainment as long as PSD applies after

redesignation, and the area has shown it can attain and maintain without nonattainment NSR.

EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the

requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that

the area demonstrates maintenance ofthe standard without a part D NSR program in effect since

PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a

memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October

14, 1994, entitled "Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting

Redesignation to Attainment."

Arkansas in its submittal for Crittenden County showed that sources locating to the

Crittenden area will be subject to PSD requirements and has demonstrated that Crittenden

County will be able to maintain the standard without a part D nonattainment NSR program in

effect. Therefore, Arkansas need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to

approval ofthe redesignation request. Arkansas's PSD program will become effective in

Crittenden County upon redesignation to attainment. See, rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60

FR 12467-12468, March 7,1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR 20458,20469-70,

May 7,1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23,2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan

(61 FR 31834-31837, June 21,1996): Thus, EPA believes that Crittenden County, Arkansas has

satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes ofredesignation under section 110 and part D

ofthe CAA.

22
b. Crittenden County, Arkansas has afully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) of

the CAA.

EPA has fully approved the applicable Arkansas SIP for Crittenden County, under

section 110(k) ofthe CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes ofredesignation. EPA

. may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see Calcagni

Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984,

989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426, at 438) plus any additional measures it may approve

in conjunctionwith a redesignation action. See, 68 FR 25426 (May 12,2003) and citations

therein.

As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with

nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not

applicable requirements for purposes ofredesignation. EPA also believes that since the

moderate area part 0 requirements applicable for purposes ofredesignation did not become due

prior to submission ofthe redesignation request, they also are not applicable requirements for

purposes ofredesignation. As set forth above, the area has met all other applicable requirements

for purposes ofredesignation under its prior marginal classification.

Criteria (3) - The air quality improvement in the Memphis TN-AR 1997 8-hour Ozone Area is

due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resultingfrom implementation of

the SIP and applicable federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and

enforceable reductions.

23
EPA believes that Arkansas has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement

in the Memphis-Crittenden County Nonattainment Area is due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from implementation ofthe SIP, federal measures, and other

state adopted measures. Additionally, new emissions control programs for fuels and motor

vehicles will help ensure a continued decrease in emissions throughout the region.

Because Crittenden County is Itself largely rural in nature, measured reductions in ozone

concentrations in and around Crittenden County are largely attributable to permanent and

enforceable reductions from emission sources of VOCs and NOx in the Memphis area. There

were reductions in Crittenen County. Table 3 summarizes several ofthe measures adopted that

resulted in emissions reductions in Crittenden County.

Table 3. Crittenden County Emission Reductions Programs

. Mobile Sources

o Tier 2 Fuel and Vehicle Emission Standards

o Federal Motor Vehicle Controll'rc)gr:alll

o Duty Diesel Rule (2007)-lighway Rule)

State and Local Measures

o I. "-..-'" Keco1very

o Proform LLC air voided

o ClBA Corporation reclassified to minor source, MACT standard

modifications

o Diesel Emissions Reduction Act - received State Clean Diesel

Grant in October 2008

o Retrofit of city and county (21 on-road, 12non-road trucks) w/diesel

oxidation CHtHlvsr

o Retrofit of 50 school buses w/dicsel oxidation C~i:~i~;~f••••••••••••••••••

o Retrofit of 12 refuse trucks w/diesel oxidationc

o 196 California Air Resources Board certified gas cans exchanged in

Crittenden County

o Truck stop electrification (equipped 65 parking spaces in Crittenden

24
Emission reductions in Shelby County as a result offederal motor vehicle controls from

2002 to 2006 are estimated to be 7 tons per day ofVOCs and 28 tons per day ofNOx.

Additionally, continuing new emissions control programs will help to ensure a further decrease

in emissions throughout the area in the future. Crittenden County is expected to receive upwind

benefits in emission reductions.

Regarding point source emissions, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Allen Steam

Plant located in Shelby County operates three coal-fired boilers. As a result ofEPA's "Finding

of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport

Assessment Group Region for Purposes ofReducing Region Transport of Ozone" (NOx SIP

Call), TVA began operation oftwo selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control units during the

2002 ozone control season, May l" through September 30th• The third SCR began operating in

2003. Ozone season daily NOx reductions in the area as a result ofthese controls equal

approximately 45 tons per day.

These are substantial reductions when compared to the remaining total NOx inventory

from all sources in Shelby and Crittenden counties in 2006 of I 16.81 tons per day (99.09 tons

per day in Shelby county and 17.72 tons per day in Crittenden county) and a VOC inventory of

128.67 tons per day (99.11 tons per day in Shelby county and 29.56 tons per day in Crittenden

county).

Because ofthe uncertainty introduced by the recent court actions affecting the CAIR

Rule and NOx SIP Call, EPA undertook an analysis ofthe changes in NOx expected across a

broader region. In particular, EPA reviewed available projections ofNOx emissions from

nearby states from 2002 to 2018. These values are presented in Tables 4 and 5:

25
Table 4. 2002 Base Annual Emission Inventory Summary for NOx *

States EGU Non-EGU Non- Area Mobile Fires Total

Point Point Road

AR 24,722 47,698 62,472 21,700 141,894 5,492 303,978

KY 201,928 38,434 104,571 39,507 156,417 534 541,391

LA 111,703 199,218 114,711 93,Q69 180,664 6,942 706,307

MS 40,433 61,533 88,787 4,200 111,914 308 307175

MO 145,438 36,144 99,306 32,435 189,852 2,442 505,617

TN 152,137 64,344 96,827 17,844 238,577 217 569,946

Total 676,361 447,371 566,674 208,755 1,019,318 15,935 2,934,414

*From Tennessee Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D, page D.3-5 and support table for Technical

Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional

Haze State Implementation Plans, page 2-40, figure 2-4

Table 5. 2018 Base Annual Emission Inventory Summary for NOx*

States EGU Non-EGU Non- Area Mobile Fires Total

Point Point Road

AR 34,938 36,169 34,305 25,672 33,640 5,600 170,324

KY 64,378 41,034 79,392 44,346 52,263 714 282,127

LA 44,485 225,748 106,685 114,374 44,806 6,969 543,067

MS 21,535 61,252 68,252 4,483 30,619 1,073 187,214

MO 83,181 51,489 59,625 35,213 50,861 2,442 282,811

TN 31,715- 62,519 70,226 19,597 69,385 405 253,847

Total 280,232 478,211 418,485 243,685 281,574 17,203 1,708,390

26
*From Tennessee Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D, page D.3-5 and support table for Technical

Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional

Haze State Implementation Plans, page 2-40, figure 2-4

From 2002 to 2018 NOx emissions are projected to decrease in the region by 1,215,024

tons/year or 41.4 percent in all. EGU NOx anticipated decreases due to CAIR and the NOx SIP

call were projected to be 198,150 tons per year. However, the largest source in this region

remains the motor vehicle sector, which is projected to decrease 737,744 tons per year. Hence

even without EGU controls on NOx emissions, total NOx emissions are projected to continually

decrease throughout the maintenance period. As is noted in the following paragraph, the NOx

SIP Call will remain in effect.

The NOx SIP Call requires states to make significant, specific emissions reductions. It

also provided a mechanism, the NOx Budget Trading Program, which states could use to achieve

those reductions. When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued (starting in 2009) the NOx

Budget Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but created another mechanism -the CAIR ozone

season trading program - which states could use to meet their SIP Call obligations, 70 FR

25289-90. EPA notes that a number ofstates, when submitting SIP revisions to require sources

to participate in the CAIR ozone season trading program, removed the SIP provisions that

required sources to participate in the NOx Budget Trading Program. In addition, because the

provisions ofCAIR including the ozone season NOx trading program remain in place during the

remand (North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008», EPA is not currently

administering the NOx Budget Trading Program. Nonetheless, all states regardless ofthe current

status oftheir regulations that previously required participation in the NOx Budget Trading

Program, will remain subject to all ofthe requirements in the NOx SIP Call even ifthe existing

27
CAIR ozone season trading program is withdrawn or altered. In addition, the anti-backsliding

provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) specifically provide that the provisions ofthe NOx SIP Call,

including the statewide NOx emission budgets, continue to apply after revocation of the I-hr

standard.

All NOx SIP Call states have SIPs that currently satisfy their obligations under the SIP

Call, the SIP Call reduction requirements are being met, and EPA will continue to enforce the

requirements ofthe NOx SIP Call even after any response to the CAIR remand. For these

reasons, EPA believes that regardless ofthe status ofthe CAIR program, the NOx SIP call

requirements can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance. Thus, the NOx SIP call adds to

assurances that the area will remain in attainment.

These regional projections of emissions data have been prepared only through 2018.

However, since motor vehicle and off road emissions continue to decrease long after a rule is

adopted as the engine population is gradually replaced by newer engines, it is reasonable to

assume that this projected decrease in regional NOx emissions from mobile and non road sources

should continue through 2020 and assure that ozone in the Memphis region will continue to

decline throughout the 10 year maintenance period. Hence we believe the projected regional

NOx reductions are adequate to assure that the Memphis region will continue demonstrating

maintenance throughout the 10 year maintenance period.

Criteria (4) - The area has afully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A ofthe

CM.

In conjunction with its request to redesignate Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part ofthe

Memphis TN-AR 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area) to attainment, Arkansas submitted a

28
SIP revision to provide for the maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10

years after the effective date ofredesignation to attainment.

a. What is required in a maintenance plan?

Section l75A ofthe CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking !

redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section l75A, the plan must demonstrate

continued attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator

approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State ofArkansas

must submit a revised maintenance plan, which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be

maintained for the 10 years following the initial 1O-year period. To address the possibility of

future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a

schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future

8-hour ozone violations. Section l75A ofthe CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan

for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni Memorandum

provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The Calcagni Memorandum

explains that an ozone maintenance plan should address five requirements: the attainment

emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued

attainment, and a contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, Arkansas' maintenance

plan includes all the necessary components and is approvable as part ofthe redesignation

request.

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory

29
In coordination with Shelby County, Tennessee, Arkansas selected 2006 "the attainment

year" for the purposes of demonstrating attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This

attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area, which is sufficient to attain the

1997 8-hour ozone standard. Arkansas began development ofthis attainment inventory by first

developing a baseline emissions inventory for the Memphis area. The year 2006 was chosen as

the base year for developing a comprehensive ozone precursor emissions inventory for which

projected emissions could be developed for 2009, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2021. The

projected inventory estimates emissions forward to 2021, which is beyond the 10-year interval

required in Section 175(A) ofthe CAA. Non-road mobile emissions estimates were based on

the EPA's NONROAD2005 model. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using

EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission factors model. The 2006 VOC and NOx emissions, as well as the

emissions for other years, for Crittenden County were developed consistent with EPA guidance,

and are summarized in Tables 6 and 7 in the following subsection.

c. Maintenance Demonstration

The February 24, 2009 final submittal includes a maintenance plan for Crittenden

County. This demonstration:

(i) Shows compliance and maintenance ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard by providing

information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions ofVOC and

NOx remain at or below attainment year 2006 emissions levels. The year 2006 was

chosen as the attainment year because it is one ofthe most recent three years (i.e., 2006,

2007, and 2008) for which Crittenden County has clean air quality data for the 19978-

hour ozone standard.

30
(ii) Uses 2006 as the attainment year and includes future emission inventory projections

for 2009, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2021.

(iii) Identifies an "out year," at least 10 years (and beyond) after the time necessary for

EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, state NOx and VOC

MVEBs were established for the last year (2021) ofthe maintenance plan. Additionally,

Arkansas chose, through interagency consultation, to establish MVEBs for the year 2006 for

NOx and VOC. EPA has already notified the public ofits adequacy determination for these 2006

and 2021 MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) (74 FR 21356).

(iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions inventories, in tons per day

(tpd) for Crittenden County, Arkansas. See, Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6. Crittenden County VOC Emissions

(Summer season tons er day)

Source Category 2006 2009 2012 2015 2017 2018 2021

Point 2.13 2.17 2.27 2.36 2.43 2.47 2.62

Area 21.32 21.30 21.49 21.68 21.80 21.89 22.14

On-road" 3.12 2.63 2.30 1.97 1.75 1.68 1.50

Non-road** 2.99 2.85 2.60 2.36 2.19 2.14 1.97

. Total 29.56 28.94 28.65 28.36 28.17 28.18 28.23

*Calculated using MOBILE 6.2

**Calculated using NONROAD2005c

Table 7. Crittenden County Area NOx Emissions

(summer season tons per day)

I Source 2006 2009 2012 2015 2017 2018 2021

Cateaorv

Point 1.09 1.15 1.22 1.29 1.34 1.37 1.45

Area 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.93

31
On-road* 6.27 5.13 4.12 3.12 2.45 2.30 1.84

Non-road** 9.46 9.38 9.10 8.82 8.63 8.39 7.66

Total 17.72 16.56 15.35 14.14 13.34 12.97 11.88

*Calculated usmg MOBILE 6.2

**Calculated using NONROAD2005c

Although the Arkansas SIP submission provided NOx and VOC emissions for the

attainment and future years for Crittenden County, EPA has considered emissions for the entire

Memphis TN-AR area for demonstration ofmaintenance. Maintenance is demonstrated ifthe

future year NOx and VOC emission for the entire area remains at or below the level ofthe

attainment year emissions. Both Tennessee and Arkansas chose 2006 for their "attainment year"

for this area. It is important to note that this area is composed oftwo counties (Shelby County,

Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas) for which emissions should be considered. The

area and point sources for both counties indicate a steady NOx and VOC emission increase.

However, large projected reductions in mobile source emissions more than compensate for this

relatively small increase. Moreover, EPA's review ofthe entire area's total inventory for NOx

and VOCs indicate that future total area emissions are below the level ofthe total area attainment

year emissions. Therefore, EPA believes that the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will be maintained

in the future for the Memphis TN-AR area.

d Monitoring Network

There are currently three monitors measuring ozone in the Memphis TN-AR Area (two in

Shelby County, Tennessee and one in Crittenden County, Arkansas). ADEQ has committed, in

32
the maintenance plan, to continue operation ofthe monitor in Crittenden County in compliance

with 40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring.

e. Verification ofContinued Attainment

Arkansas has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements ofthe ozone

maintenance plan. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any subsequent

emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone

attainment problems.

Arkansas will track the progress ofthe maintenance plan by performing future reviews of

triennial emissions inventory for Crittenden County using the latest emissions factors, models

and methodologies. For these periodic inventories, Crittenden County will review the

assumptions made for the purpose ofthe maintenance demonstration concerning projected

growth of activity levels. Ifany ofthese assumptions appear to have changed substantially,

Arkansas will re-project emissions.

f Contingency Plan.

The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation ofthe

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section l75A ofthe CAA requires that a maintenance

plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will

promptly correct a violation ofthe NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance

plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for

adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also

33
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be

implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all

measures with respect to control ofthe pollutant that were contained in the SIP before

redesignation ofthe area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).

In the February 24, 2009, submittal, Arkansas affirms that all programs instituted by the

State and EPA will remain enforceable, and that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions

controls following the redesignation ofthe area. The contingency plan included in the submittal

provides a two-phase approach to tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when

contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and adopting appropriate control

measures.

Phase I - Potential increases in local emissions specifically, when the certified triennial

emissions inventoryfor VOCs or NOx exceed the 2006 base year attainment inventory by ten

percent or more and at least one documentation ofan exceedance ofthe 1997 ozone NAAQS at

any nonattainment monitor in the area based on certified data during the most recent monitoring

season.

In the event this occurs, ADEQ will conduct an investigation into the cause to determine

ifthe data are due to reporting errors or a non-recurring variance in the local emission profile.

The investigation will be coordinated with the Memphis/Shelby County Health Department and

the State ofTennessee as appropriate. Ifthe investigation reveals the data are valid, ADEQ will

expand voluntary programs and develop regulations to address the concerns. All regulatory

programs will be implemented within 24 months and include a selection ofmeasures shown in

Table 8.

34
Phase II- Addresses a monitored violation ofthe 1997 ozone'NAAQS in the nonattainment area

according to certified data during the most recent monitoring season.

In the event this occurs, ADEQ will conduct an investigation to determine ifthe cause of

. the violation can be attributed to errors or clearly identifiable exceptional events outside oflocal

control. ADEQ will solicit the involvement of all State agencies having jurisdiction in the

surrounding area. Ifthe investigation reveals the data are valid, provisions will be adopted and

implemented within 24 months ofthe monitored violation and include a selection ofmeasures

shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Crittenden County Contingency Measure Options

• Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOx sources

• Anti-idling ordinances

• Open burning restrictions during peak ozone season (May - September)

• Diesel retrofit/replacement initiatives

• Programs or incentives to decrease motor vehicle use

• Trip reduction ordinances

• Implementation of a program to require additional emissions reductions from stationary sources

• Implementation of a program to enhance inspection ofstationary sources to ensure emissions

control equipment is functioning pronerlv

• Implementation offuel programs, including incentives for alternative fuels

• Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives

• Programs to limitor restrict vehicleuse in downtown areas, or other areas of high emissions

concentration, particularly during periods of peak use

• Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths for use by pedestrians or by nonmotorized vehicles when economically feasible and in the public interest

• Other currently unspecified control measures that might prove to be advantageous

EPA believes that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components

of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network,

verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP revision

submitted by Arkansas meets the requirements ofsection l75A ofthe CM and is approvable.

35
VII. What is EPA's Analysis of Arkansas' Proposed State NO, and VOC MVEBs for

Crittenden County, Arkansas?

Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs aod

maintenaoce plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs (reasonable further progress aod

attainment demonstration) and maintenaoce plaos create MVEBs for criteria pollutaots aod/or

their precursors to address pollution from cars aod trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, ao MVEB is

established for the last year ofthe maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years

as well. The MVEB is the portion ofthe total allowable emissions in the maintenaoce

demonstration that is allocated to highway aod transit vehicle use aod emissions. See 40 CFR

93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from ao area's planned traosportation

system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993,

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the

MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB.

After interagency consultation with the traosportation partners for Crittenden County,

Arkaosas has elected to develop state MVEBs for VOC aod NOx. Arkaosas has developed these

MVEBs, as required, for the last year ofthe Crittenden County maintenaoce plao, 2021, and a

base year of 2006. The NOx aod VOC state MVEBs for Crittenden County are defined in Table

9 below.

Table 9. CRITTENDEN COUNTY NOx AND VOC MVEBs

(Summer season tons per day)

2006 2021

NO, 6.27 1.84

VOC 2.95 1.39

36.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to fully approve the 2006 and 2021 MVEBs

for VOC and NO, for Crittenden County into the SIP because EPA has determined that the area

maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone standard with the emissions at the levels ofthe budgets. EPA

has already made a finding of adequacy for these MVEBs (74 FR 21356), and they must be used

for future conformity determinations.

VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Proposed State NO,

and VOC MVEBs for the years 2006 and 2021 for Crittenden County, Arkansas?

Under section 176(c) ofthe CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of

new highways, must "conform" to (i.e., be consistent with) the part ofthe state's air quality plan

that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. "Conformity" to the SIP means that transportation

activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely

attainment ofthe NAAQS. If a transportation plan does not "conform," most new projects that

would expand the capacity ofroadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set

forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity ofsuch

transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only,

requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a

requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were

previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment

with a maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

When reviewing submitted "control strategy" SIPs or maintenance plans containing

37
MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein "adequate" for use in

determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is

adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and Federal

agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects "conform" to the SIP as

required by section I76(c) ofthe CAA.

EPA's substantive criteria for determining "adequacy" of an MVEB are set out in 40

CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining "adequacy" consists ofthree basic steps: public

notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This

process for determining the adequacy ofsubmitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's

May 14, 1999, guidance, "Conformity Guidance on Implementation ofMarch 2, 1999,

Conformity Court Decision." This guidance was finalized in the Transportation Conformity

Rule Amendments for the "New 8.Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; transportation conformity rule

amendments- Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change," on July I, 2004 (69 FR

40004). Additional information on the adequacy process for MVEBs is available in the proposed

rule entitled, "Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and

Additional Rule Changes," 68 FR 38974,38984 (June 30, 2003).

As discussed earlier, Arkansas' maintenance plan submission includes VOC and NOx

state MVEBs for Crittenden County for the years 2006 and 2021. EPA reviewed both the VOCs

and NOx state MVEBs through the adequacy process. The Arkansas SIP submission, including

the Crittenden County VOC and NOx MVEBs was open for public comment on EPA's adequacy

Web site on March 11,2009, found at:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/siateresources/transcontlcurrsips.htm. The EPA public comment

38
period on adequacy ofthe 2006 and 2021 VOC and NOx state MVEBs for Crittenden County,

Arkansas closed on April 10, 2009. EPA did not receive any comments on the adequacy ofthe

MVEBs, nor did EPA receive any requests for the SIP submittal. On May 7,2009, EPA made a

finding of adequacy for the MVEBs included in this 8-honr ozone maintenance plan. EPA

provided a separate adequacy posting for the MVEBs in association with Shelby County,

Tennessee. The status ofthe adequacy process for the Shelby County MVEBs is discussed in

EPA's separate action related to Shelby County (74 FR 58277).

The new MVEBs for VOC and NOx must be used for futnre transportation conformity

determinations. For required regional emissions analysis years that involve the years 2006

through 2020, the applicable budgets for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity

will be the new 2006 MVEBs; for required regional emissions analysis years that involve 2021

or beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 2021 MVEBs. The 2006 and 2021 MVEBs

are defined in section VII ofthis proposed rulemaking.

IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revision

Including Proposed Approval of the 2006 and 2021 State NOx and VOC MVEBs for

Crittenden County, Arkansas.

EPA is proposing to make the determination that Crittenden County, Arkansas has met

the criteria for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-honr ozone

NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to approve Arkansas' February 24, 2009, SIP submittal

including the redesignation request for Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part ofthe Memphis

TN-AR 1997 8-honr ozone area). EPA's action with respect to the redesignation request for the

39
Shelby County portion ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone area was proposed in a separate rulemaking (74

FR 59943). EPA believes that the redesignation request and complete quality-assured

monitoring data demonstrate that the Memphis TN-AR area has attained, and will continue to

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that the Crittenden County portion ofthe area has

met the other requirementsfor redesignation to attainment under CAA sections I07(d)(3)(E) and

175A.

EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for Crittenden County included .

as part ofthe February 24, 2009, SIP revision, including state NOx and VOC MVEBs for 2006

and 2021. EPA has already made a finding of adequacy for the MVEBs included in this 8-hour

ozone maintenance plan (74 FR 21356). EPA believes that the redesignation request and

maintenance plan meet the requirements of CAA sections I 07{d)(3)(E) and 175A.

x. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), this proposed action is

not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order

13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,

or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22,2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state

law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those

imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) ofthe

CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that

affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on

40
sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing

requirem~nts under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that

required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104-4).

This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between

the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not

have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government

and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of

government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This

action merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on

sources, or allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements and does not alter

the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This

proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); because it is not

economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule

concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.

41
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they

meet the criteria ofthe CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for

the State to use voluntary consensus standards (YCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP

submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,

when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise

satisfies the provisions ofthe CAA. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a

geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements

ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U,S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden

under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),

42
Al Armendariz

List of Subjects:

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

Regional Administrator,

Region 6

43