Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 2091 

III. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Indiana’s 

Automobile Refinishing Rule? 

Background of Rule and Its Revisions 

EPA issued National VOC Emission 

Standards for Automobile Refinishing 

Coatings at 40 CFR part 59, subpart B, 

on September 11, 1998 (64 FR 48815, as 

amended at 69 FR 18803, April 9, 2004), 

promulgated under the Consumer and 

Commercial Products provisions of 

section 183(e) of the Act. The VOC 

emission limits in this rule apply 

nationwide to manufacturers and 

importers of automobile refinishing 

coatings or coating components that sell 

or distribute these coatings in the 

United States. 

On December 20, 1999, EPA approved 

326 IAC 8–10, in which Indiana adopted 

the requirements in EPA’s national rule, 

but applied its requirements to the sale 

of automobile refinishing coatings and 

the owners and operators of automobile 

refinishing facilities. Indiana’s SIP rule 

also contains additional work practice 

standards that reduce VOC emissions by 

specifying acceptable methods of spray 

gun cleaning, the type of application 

equipment that can be used (which 

reduces the amount of overspray) and 

housekeeping practices (such as storing 

VOC-containing materials in closed 

containers) that reduce VOC emissions. 

The revised rules submitted by 

Indiana expand the applicability of the 

previously approved rules from Clark, 

Floyd, Lake, Porter and Vanderburgh 

Counties to all of Indiana. 

Analysis of Rule and Its Revisions 

The revisions to Indiana’s automobile 

refinishing rule, 326 IAC 8–10, are 

approvable because they are consistent 

with the Act and applicable EPA 

regulations, and should result in 

additional VOC emission reductions. A 

description of the rule revisions follows: 

326 IAC 8–10–1 Applicability—This 

section has been revised so that after 

June 1, 2009, it applies to any person 

who sells automobile refinishing 

coatings or refinishes motor vehicles in 

all Indiana counties. 

326 IAC 8–10–2 Definitions—The 

definitions of ‘‘control device,’’ ‘‘control 

device efficiency’’ and ‘‘control system’’ 

have been deleted from this section 

because those terms are no longer used 

in this rule. A few other minor editorial 

and clarifying revisions have also been 

made. 

326 IAC 8–10–3 Requirements— 

This section expands the applicability 

of the control requirements to all of 

Indiana and eliminates requirements 

that had specifically applied to only 

Vanderburgh County. 

326 IAC 8–10–4 Means to limit VOC 

emissions—This section specifies the 

VOC limits that must be met by the 

owners or operators of a refinishing 

facility. It has been revised to eliminate 

the use of add-on control systems as a 

compliance option. This compliance 

option is not necessary because VOC 

content limits are more appropriate for 

automobile refinishing facilities than 

add-on control devices. 

326 IAC 8–10–5 Work Practice 

Standards and 326 IAC 8–10–6 

Compliance procedures have not been 

substantively revised. 

326 IAC 8–10–7 Test procedures and 

326 IAC 8–10–9 Recordkeeping and 

reporting—These sections have been 

revised primarily by removing the 

testing, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements applicable to control 

devices. A new section, 326 IAC 8–10– 

9(e), has been added which requires the 

owners or operators of refinishing 

facilities subject to this rule to report 

any incidence in which a noncompliant 

coating was used within thirty days. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Act, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Act. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Act; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 30, 2009. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2010–619 Filed 1–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0202; FRL–9103–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Arkansas; Redesignation of 

the Crittenden County, Arkansas 

Portion of the Memphis, TennesseeArkansas 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2009, the 

State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2092 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 of the bistate Memphis TN-AR Area. The bi-state 

Memphis TN-AR 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area is composed of 

Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee 

(Shelby County) and Crittenden County, 

Arkansas. In this action, EPA proposes 

to approve the 1997 8-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 

of Arkansas’ 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 February 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2009–0202, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://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–OAR–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–OAR–2009– 

0202. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the 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. If EPA 

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 of 

special 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section, Air Branch, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

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? 

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 

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 of rulemaking: 

(1) To redesignate Crittenden County, 

Arkansas to attainment for the 1997 8- 

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) 

of the CAA. The bi-state Memphis, TNAR 1997 8-hour ozone area comprises 

Shelby County in Tennessee and 

Crittenden County in Arkansas. Today’s 

proposal addresses only the Arkansas 

portion of the bi-state Memphis, TN-AR 

1997 8-hour ozone area. EPA is now 

proposing to approve a request to 

change the legal designation of 

Crittenden County, Arkansas from 

nonattainment to attainment 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 of the 

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 Arkansas’ 

1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

Crittenden County (such approval being 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 2093 

one of the 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 of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2021. 

II. What Is the Background for EPA’s 

Proposed Actions? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

NOX and VOC react in the presence of 

sunlight 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 

1-hour ozone standard. Under EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

3-year average of the 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 ambient air 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: 

The primary and secondary ozone 

ambient air quality standards are met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration is less than 

or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of 

significant figures in the level of the 

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 of the 

standard. The third decimal place of the 

computed value is rounded, with values 

equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. 

Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone 

concentration of 0.085 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 

1 and subpart 2—that address planning 

and control requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas. (Both are found in 

title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (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 of subpart 1. 

Other 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas are also subject to the provisions 

of subpart 2. Under EPA’s Phase 1 1997 

8-hour ozone implementation rule (69 

FR 23857) (Phase 1 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 of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 

1-hour design value in Table 1 of 

subpart 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 1-hour ozone 

standard on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56694). Crittenden County, Arkansas 

was not part of the nonattainment area 

during the 1991 1-hour designations. On 

February 16, 1995 (60 FR 3352) Shelby 

County was redesignated as attainment 

for the 1-hour ozone standard and is 

considered to be a 1-hour maintenance 

area subject to a CAA section 175A 

maintenance plan for the 1-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) of the 

CAA, the States of Tennessee and 

Arkansas submitted a petition to EPA 

Regions 4 and 6, requesting a downward 

reclassification of the 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 of the 

maximum ‘‘marginal’’ design value of 

0.091 ppm. Pursuant to Section 

181(a)(4), areas with design values 

within five percent of the standard may 

request a reclassification under specific 

circumstances. Factors for EPA to 

consider as part of such a request are 

described in section 181(a)(4) of the 

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 of the 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. 

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) of the CAA 

provides that, when EPA finds that an 

area failed to attain by the applicable 

date, the area is reclassified by 

operation of law 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 TNAR 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 of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, using data from the 3-year 

period of 2006–2008. On February 24, 

2009, Arkansas requested redesignation 

of Crittenden 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 1st 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 if sufficient, 

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). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2094 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

III. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the 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 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the 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 of section 

175A; and, (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D of the CAA. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of title I of the 

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: 

1. ‘‘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 Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

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 of the 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; 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

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 of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. Why Is EPA Proposing These 

Actions? 

On February 24, 2009, Arkansas 

requested redesignation of the Arkansas 

portion (Crittenden County) of the bistate Memphis TN-AR 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

EPA’s evaluation indicates that the bistate 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 175A of the 

CAA. EPA is also announcing the status 

of its adequacy determination and 

proposing approval of the 2006 and 

2021 NOX and VOC MVEBs which are 

relevant to the requested redesignation. 

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 of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The maintenance plan also 

establishes state NOX and VOC MVEBs 

for Crittenden County. Table 1 identifies 

the state NOX and VOC MVEBs for the 

year 2006 and 2021 for Crittenden 

County. 

TABLE 1—CRITTENDEN COUNTY NOX

AND 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 of 

the NOX and VOC state MVEBs. 

Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public of the status of its adequacy 

determination for the 2006 and 2021 

NOX and VOC state MVEBs pursuant to 

40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Crittenden County portion of the 

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 of the Memphis TNAR area. The basis for EPA’s 

determination for the area is discussed 

in greater detail below. 

Criteria (1)—Crittenden County, 

Arkansas has attained the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Crittenden County portion of the 

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 

if the 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 of the 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 if the 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 2095 

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 of these 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] 

County Shelby County, 

Tennessee 

Crittenden County, 

Arkansas 

Monitor (AQS ID) Memphis-Frayser 

Boulevard 

(#47–157–0021) 

Edmond Orgill 

Park 

(#47–157–1004) 

Marion 

(#05–035–0005) 

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 a fully 

approved SIP under section 110(k) for 

Crittenden County and Criteria (5)— 

Arkansas has met all Applicable 

Requirements under Section 110 and 

part D of the CAA. 

Below is a summary of how these two 

criteria were met. 

EPA has determined that Arkansas 

has met all applicable SIP requirements 

for Crittenden County under section 110 

of the CAA (general SIP requirements). 

EPA has also determined that the 

Arkansas SIP satisfies the criterion that 

it meet applicable SIP requirements 

under part D of title I of the 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 of 

redesignation 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 110(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 D of 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 of section 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 of the 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). 

Applicable requirements of the 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) of 

the 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 

110(a)(2) of title I of the 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) of 

title I, part A of the 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 of part 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 planning 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) 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 of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2096 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the designation of any one 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 of redesignation. 

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 of 

redesignation. 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 of redesignation. Therefore, 

as discussed above, for purposes of 

redesignation, they are not considered 

applicable requirements. We have 

reviewed the Arkansas SIP and have 

concluded it meets the general 

requirements of section 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 1-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 of the CAA. Sections 172–176 of the 

CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, set 

forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the 

CAA, found in subpart 2 of part 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 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 182(a)(2)(B) (Savings 

Clause for Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance) are not applicable to 

Crittenden County due to its status of 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. Requirements set forth in 

section 182(a)(2)(C) (Permit Programs) 

are discussed in the NSR Requirements 

section of this notice. 

In addition to the fact that only the 

marginal classification part D 

requirements became due prior to 

submission of the 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 176(c) of the 

CAA 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 of the 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 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where 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 of Agreement 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 of the Act. Regulation No. 

31 also includes provisions that 

implement EPA’s designation of 

Crittenden County as an Economic 

Development Zone (EDZ) subject to the 

requirements of Section 173(a)(1)(B) of 

the Act. These provisions establish VOC 

and NOX emissions caps and provide for 

the Director of ADEQ to grant growth 

allowances to affected sources in lieu of 

meeting 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 NNSR/ 

EDZ program until Crittenden County is 

redesignated to attainment. 

Upon redesignation, however, the 

identification of Crittenden County as a 

section 173 EDZ expires under federal 

law. The rules that apply for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard after 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 2097 

redesignation would be those contained 

in the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) SIP 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 of the 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 of the 

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-AkronLorraine, 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 of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

b. Crittenden County, Arkansas Has a 

Fully 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) of the CAA for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 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 conjunction with 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 of 

redesignation. EPA also believes that 

since the moderate area part D 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation did not become due prior 

to submission of the redesignation 

request, they also are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. As set forth above, the 

area has met all other applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation 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 resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions. 

EPA believes that Arkansas has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the MemphisCrittenden County Nonattainment Area 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the 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 

Crittenden County. Table 3 summarizes 

several of the measures adopted that 

resulted in emissions reductions in 

Crittenden County. 

TABLE 3—CRITTENDEN COUNTY

EMISSION REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS

Mobile Sources 

Æ Tier 2 Fuel and Vehicle Emission Standards. 

Æ Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. 

Æ Heavy Duty Diesel Rule (2007 Highway 

Rule). 

TABLE 3—CRITTENDEN COUNTY EMISSION REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS— 

Continued 

State and Local Measures 

Æ Stage I Vapor Recovery. 

Æ Proform Company, LLC closure, air permit 

voided. 

Æ CIBA Corporation reclassified to minor 

source, MACT standard modifications. 

Additional Voluntary Reductions 

Æ Diesel Emissions Reduction Act—ADEQ 

received State Clean Diesel Grant in October 2008. 

Æ Retrofit of city and county (21 on-road, 12 

non-road trucks) w/diesel oxidation catalyst. 

Æ Retrofit of 50 school buses w/diesel oxidation catalyst. 

Æ Retrofit of 12 refuse trucks w/diesel oxidation catalyst. 

Æ 196 California Air Resources Board certified gas cans exchanged in Crittenden 

County. 

Æ Truck stop electrification (equipped 65 

parking spaces in Crittenden County). 

Emission reductions in Shelby County 

as a result of federal motor vehicle 

controls from 2002 to 2006 are 

estimated to be 7 tons per day of VOCs 

and 28 tons per day of NOX. 

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 of EPA’s ‘‘Finding of 

Significant Contribution and 

Rulemaking for Certain States in the 

Ozone Transport Assessment Group 

Region for Purposes of Reducing Region 

Transport of Ozone’’ (NOX SIP Call), 

TVA began operation of two selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) control units 

during the 2002 ozone control season, 

May 1st through September 30th. The 

third SCR began operating in 2003. 

Ozone season daily NOX reductions in 

the area as a result of these 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 

116.81 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). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2098 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Because of the uncertainty introduced 

by the recent court actions affecting the 

CAIR Rule and NOX SIP Call, EPA 

undertook an analysis of the changes in 

NOX expected across a broader region. 

In particular, EPA reviewed available 

projections of NOX emissions from 

nearby states from 2002 to 2018. These 

values are presented in Tables 4 and 5: 

TABLE 4—2002 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX* 

States EGU 

point 

Non-EGU 

point Non-road area Mobile Fires Total 

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 93,069 180,664 6,942 706,307 

MS ................................................................................ 40,433 61,533 88,787 4,200 111,914 308 307,175 

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 

point 

Non-EGU 

point Non-road Area Mobile Fires Total 

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 

* 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 of states, 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 of CAIR 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 of the current status of their 

regulations that previously required 

participation in the NOX Budget Trading 

Program, will remain subject to all of 

the requirements in the NOX SIP Call 

even if the existing 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 

of the NOX SIP Call, including the 

statewide NOX emission budgets, 

continue to apply after revocation of the 

1-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 of the NOX SIP Call even 

after any response to the CAIR remand. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that 

regardless of the status of the 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 a fully 

approved maintenance plan pursuant to 

section 175A of the CAA. 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate Crittenden County, 

Arkansas (as part of the Memphis TNAR 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area) to attainment, Arkansas submitted 

a SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for at least 10 years after the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 2099 

effective date of redesignation to 

attainment. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State of 

Arkansas must submit a revised 

maintenance plan, which demonstrates 

that attainment will continue to be 

maintained for the 10 years following 

the initial 10-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 175A of the 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 of the redesignation 

request. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

In coordination with Shelby County, 

Tennessee, Arkansas selected 2006 ‘‘the 

attainment year’’ for the purposes of 

demonstrating attainment of the 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 of this 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) of the 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 of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard by providing information to 

support the demonstration that current 

and future emissions of VOC and NOX

remain at or below attainment year 2006 

emissions levels. The year 2006 was 

chosen as the attainment year because it 

is one of the most recent three years 

(i.e., 2006, 2007, and 2008) for which 

Crittenden County has clean air quality 

data for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

(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) 

of the 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 of its 

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 per 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] 

Source category 2006 2009 2012 2015 2017 2018 2021 

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 

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 using MOBILE 6.2. 

** Calculated using NONROAD2005c. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2100 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

of maintenance. Maintenance is 

demonstrated if the future year NOX and 

VOC emission for the entire area 

remains at or below the level of the 

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 of two 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 

of the entire area’s total inventory for 

NOX and VOCs indicate that future total 

area emissions are below the level of the 

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 TNAR Area (two in Shelby County, 

Tennessee and one in Crittenden 

County, Arkansas). ADEQ has 

committed, in the maintenance plan, to 

continue operation of the monitor in 

Crittenden County in compliance with 

40 CFR part 58, and has addressed the 

requirement for monitoring. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Arkansas has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the 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 of the 

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 of the maintenance 

demonstration concerning projected 

growth of activity levels. If any of these 

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 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the 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 

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 of 

the pollutant that were contained in the 

SIP before redesignation of the 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 of 

the 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 inventory 

for VOCs or NOX exceed the 2006 base 

year attainment inventory by ten 

percent or more and at least one 

documentation of an exceedance of the 

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 if the 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 of 

Tennessee as appropriate. If the 

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 of measures shown 

in Table 8. 

Phase II—Addresses a monitored 

violation of the 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 if 

the cause of the violation can be 

attributed to errors or clearly 

identifiable exceptional events outside 

of local control. ADEQ will solicit the 

involvement of all State agencies having 

jurisdiction in the surrounding area. If 

the investigation reveals the data are 

valid, provisions will be adopted and 

implemented within 24 months of the 

monitored violation and include a 

selection of measures shown in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—CRITTENDEN COUNTY CONTINGENCY MEASURE OPTIONS

fi Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX sources. 

fi Anti-idling ordinances. 

fi Open burning restrictions during peak ozone season (May–September). 

fi Diesel retrofit/replacement initiatives. 

fi Programs or incentives to decrease motor vehicle use. 

fi Trip reduction ordinances. 

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

fi Implementation of a program to enhance inspection of stationary sources to ensure emissions control equipment is functioning properly. 

fi Implementation of fuel programs, including incentives for alternative fuels. 

fi Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives. 

fi Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas, or other areas of high emissions concentration, particularly during periods of 

peak use. 

fi Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths for use by pedestrians or by non-motorized vehicles when economically 

feasible and in the public interest. 

fi Other currently unspecified control measures that might prove to be advantageous. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 2101 

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 of section 175A of the 

CAA and is approvable. 

VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of 

Arkansas’ Proposed State NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for Crittenden County, 

Arkansas? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone 

areas. These control strategy SIPs 

(reasonable further progress and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an 

MVEB is established for the last year of 

the maintenance plan. A state may 

adopt MVEBs for other years as well. 

The MVEB is the portion of the total 

allowable emissions in the maintenance 

demonstration that is allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use and 

emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

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 transportation partners for 

Crittenden County, Arkansas has elected 

to develop state MVEBs for VOC and 

NOX. Arkansas has developed these 

MVEBs, as required, for the last year of 

the Crittenden County maintenance 

plan, 2021, and a base year of 2006. The 

NOx and 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 

NOX ................................... 6.27 1.84 

VOC .................................. 2.95 1.39 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to fully approve the 2006 and 

2021 MVEBs for VOC and NOX 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 of the 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 NOX and VOC MVEBs 

for the Years 2006 and 2021 for 

Crittenden County, Arkansas? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the 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 of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

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 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 176(c) of the 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 of three basic steps: Public 

notification of a SIP submission, a 

public comment period, and EPA’s 

adequacy finding. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in 

EPA’s May 14, 1999, guidance, 

‘‘Conformity Guidance on 

Implementation of March 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 1, 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/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy of the 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 of the 

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-hour ozone maintenance plan. 

EPA provided a separate adequacy 

posting for the MVEBs in association 

with Shelby County, Tennessee. The 

status of the 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 future 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 of this proposed 

rulemaking. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
2102 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to 

approve Arkansas’ February 24, 2009, 

SIP submittal including the 

redesignation request for Crittenden 

County, Arkansas (as part of the 

Memphis TN-AR 1997 8-hour ozone 

area). EPA’s action with respect to the 

redesignation request for the Shelby 

County portion of the 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 TNAR area has attained, and will continue 

to maintain, the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and that the Crittenden 

County portion of the area has met the 

other requirements for redesignation to 

attainment under CAA sections 

107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for Crittenden County 

included as part of the 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 107(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) of the 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 

sources. Accordingly, the Administrator 

certifies that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements 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 (Pub. L. 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 of 

power 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 of Children 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. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), 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 of 

the 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 of section 12(d) of the 

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 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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. 

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–586 Filed 1–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2009–0027; 

92220–1113–0000; ABC Code: C3] 

RIN 1018–AW27 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the 

Shovelnose Sturgeon as Threatened 

Due to Similarity of Appearance 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period and notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), 

announce the reopening of the comment 

period for our September 22, 2009, 

proposed rule to treat the shovelnose 

sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus 

platorynchus) as threatened under the 

‘‘Similarity of Appearance’’ provisions of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

location and time of a public hearing to 

receive public comments on the 

proposal. If you have previously 

submitted comments, please do not 

resubmit them because we have already 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1