Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation of the Shelby County, TN Portion of the Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 59943-59956 [E9-27815]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
[REG–112756–09]
RIN 1545–BI60
Amendments to the Regulations
Regarding Questions and Answers
Relating to Church Tax Inquiries and
Examinations; Hearing
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on
proposed rulemaking.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY: This document provides
notice of public hearing on a notice of
proposed rulemaking amending the
questions and answers relating to
church tax inquiries and examinations.
These proposed regulations replace
references to positions that were
abolished by the Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998 with references that are consistent
both with the statute and the IRS’s
current organizational structure.
DATES: The public hearing is being held
on January 20, 2010, at 10 a.m. The IRS
must receive outlines of the topics to be
discussed at the hearing by December 9,
2009.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being
held in room 2615, Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. Send
submissions to: CC: PA: LPD: PR (REG–
112756–09), room 5203, Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
to CC: PA: LPD: PR (REG–112756–09),
Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively,
taxpayers may submit electronic
outlines of oral comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning these proposed regulations,
Benjamin Akins, (202) 622–1124 or
Monice Rosenbaum, (202) 622–6070;
concerning submissions of comments,
the hearing, and/or to be placed on the
building access list to attend the
hearing, Richard A. Hurst at
Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov or
(202) 622–7180 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
subject of the public hearing is the
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
112756–09) that was published in the
Federal Register on Wednesday, August
5, 2009 (74 FR 39003).
Persons, who wish to present oral
comments at the hearing that submitted
written comments, must submit an
outline of the topics to be discussed and
the amount of time to be devoted to
each topic (signed original and eight (8)
copies) by December 9, 2009.
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to
each person for presenting oral
comments. After the deadline for
receiving outlines has passed, the IRS
will prepare an agenda containing the
schedule of speakers. Copies of the
agenda will be made available, free of
charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom
of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR)
(Room 1621) which is located at the
11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS
will not admit visitors beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, (Procedure and Administration)
[FR Doc. E9–27773 Filed 11–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0164; FRL–8982–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation
of the Shelby County, TN Portion of the
Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas 1997
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On February 26, 2009, the
State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution
Control Division, submitted a request to
redesignate the Tennessee portion of the
bi-State Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas
8-hour ozone nonattainment area (the
‘‘bi-State Memphis Area’’) to attainment
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59943
for the 1997 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS); and to approve the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan for the
Tennessee portion of the bi-State
Memphis Area. The bi-State Memphis
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area is composed of
Shelby County, Tennessee and
Crittenden County, Arkansas. In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve the
February 26, 2009 redesignation request
for Shelby County, Tennessee as part of
the Memphis Area. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for
Shelby County, including the emissions
inventory and the State motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) for the years 2006,
2009, 2017, and 2021. This proposed
approval of Tennessee’s redesignation
request is based on EPA’s determination
that Tennessee has demonstrated that
Shelby County has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in
the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the
determination that the entire bi-State
Memphis ozone nonattainment area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The State of Arkansas has
submitted a similar redesignation
request and maintenance plan for the
Arkansas portion of this 8-hour ozone
area. EPA is taking action on Arkansas’
redesignation request and maintenance
plan through a separate rulemaking
action. In this action, EPA is also
describing the status and proposing
approval of its transportation
conformity adequacy determination for
the new 2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021
MVEBs that are contained in the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan
for Shelby County, Tennessee. MVEBs
for Crittenden County, Arkansas are
included in the Arkansas submittal, and
will be addressed through EPA’s
separate action for that submittal.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2009–0164, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
• Fax: (404) 562–9019.
• Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0164,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59944
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms.
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 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–R04–OAR–2009–
0164. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://
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 https://
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 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: Ms.
Jane Spann or Ms. Twunjala Bradley of
the Regulatory Development Section, in
the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Jane
Spann may be reached by phone at (404)
562–9029, or via electronic mail at
spann.jane@epa.gov. The telephone
number for Ms. Bradley is (404) 562–
9352, and the electronic mail is
bradley.twunjala@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 Tennessee’s
Proposed State NOX and VOC MVEBs for
Shelby County, Tennessee?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy
Determination for the Proposed State
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Years
2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021 for Shelby
County, Tennessee?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Proposed Approval
of the 2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021 State
NOX and VOC MVEBs for Shelby
County, Tennessee
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA
Taking?
EPA is proposing several related
actions, which are summarized below
and described in greater detail
throughout this notice of rulemaking: (1)
To redesignate Shelby County,
Tennessee to attainment for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve
under section 182(a)(1) the emissions
inventory submitted with the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintenance plan; and (3) to approve
under section 175A Tennessee’s 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan
into the Tennessee SIP, including the
associated MVEBs. In addition, and
related to today’s actions, EPA is also
notifying the public of the status of
EPA’s adequacy determination for the
Shelby County MVEBs.
First, EPA is proposing to determine
that the bi-State Memphis Area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA further proposes to
determine that, if EPA’s proposed
approval of the emissions inventory for
the Shelby County, Tennessee portion of
this area is finalized, the area has met
the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
The bi-State Memphis 1997 8-hour
ozone area is composed of Shelby
County in Tennessee and Crittenden
County in Arkansas. Today’s proposal
addresses only the Tennessee portion of
the bi-State Memphis Area. In a separate
action, EPA will address the
redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the Crittenden County,
Arkansas portion of the bi-State
Memphis Area. In this action, EPA is
now proposing to approve a request to
change the legal designation of Shelby
County, Tennessee from nonattainment
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve
under section 182(a)(1) Tennessee’s
2006 inventory for Shelby County,
Tennessee. In coordination with
Arkansas, Tennessee selected 2006 as
‘‘the attainment year’’ for the bi-State
Memphis Area for the purpose of
demonstrating attainment of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. This attainment
inventory identifies the level of
emissions in the Area, which is
sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.
Third, EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee’s 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
maintenance plan for Shelby County
(such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plan is
designed to help keep the bi-State
Memphis Area (of which Shelby County
is a part) in attainment of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS through 2021.
Consistent with the CAA, the
maintenance plan that EPA is proposing
to approve today also includes 2006,
2009, 2017 and 2021 NOX and VOC
MVEBs. EPA is proposing to approve
(into the Tennessee SIP) the 2006, 2009,
2017 and 2021 State MVEBs that are
included as part of Tennessee’s
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. These MVEBs apply
only to Shelby County, Tennessee.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
MVEBs contained in the Arkansas
submittal for Crittenden County will be
addressed in a separate action.
EPA is also notifying the public of the
status of EPA’s adequacy process for the
newly-established 2006, 2009, 2017, and
2021 NOX and VOC State MVEBs for
Shelby County, Tennessee. The MVEBs
for the Arkansas portion of this 8-hour
ozone area will be addressed in a
separate action. The Adequacy comment
period for the Shelby County, Tennessee
2006, 2009, 2017, and 2021 State
MVEBs began on March 12, 2009, with
EPA’s posting of the availability of this
submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site.
(https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm).
The adequacy comment period for these
MVEBs closed on April 13, 2009. No
adverse comments were received during
the adequacy public comment period.
Please see section VIII of this proposed
rulemaking for further explanation of
this process, and for more details on the
MVEBs determination.
Today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking is in response to
Tennessee’s February 26, 2009, SIP
submittal requesting the redesignation
of Shelby County, Tennessee as part of
the bi-State Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone
area, and includes a SIP revision
addressing the specific issues
summarized above and the necessary
elements for redesignation described in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
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 referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA
establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
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 1hour ozone standard. Under EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the 3year average of the annual fourthhighest 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 3year 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 required 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 bi-State
Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was initially
designated nonattainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard using 2001–2003
ambient air quality data. The Federal
Register document making these
designations was signed on April 15,
2004, and published on April 30, 2004
(69 FR 23857).
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 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 8hour 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 were covered under subpart 1,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59945
based upon their 8-hour ambient air
quality design values.
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 designated attainment at that time.
On February 16, 1995 (60 FR 3352)
Shelby County, Tennessee was
redesignated as attainment for the 1hour ozone standard, and was
considered to be a maintenance area
subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard.
On April 30, 2004, EPA designated
the bi-State Memphis Area (which then
included Crittenden County, Arkansas)
under subpart 2 as a ‘‘moderate’’ 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment
area (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, requesting that the
classification of the bi-State Memphis
Area be adjusted downward from
‘‘moderate’’ to ‘‘marginal’’ for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. The petition was
based on the fact that the area’s
‘‘moderate’’ design value of 0.092 ppm
was 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. EPA
approved the petition for
reclassification, which became effective
on November 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697,
September 22, 2004). As a result of the
downward classification, the new
attainment date for the bi-State
Memphis ‘‘marginal’’ nonattainment
area was set at June 15, 2007, consistent
with the CAA, with attainment to be
determined based on 2004–2006 air
quality data.
However, from 2004–2006, the biState Memphis Area measured 8-hour
average ozone concentrations that
precluded the bi-State Memphis Area
from attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, the
deadline for marginal areas. Section
181(b)(2) 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). On March 28, 2008, EPA
issued a notice that the bi-State
Memphis Area was reclassified by
operation of law to ‘‘moderate,’’ for
failing to attain the standard by the
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59946
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
marginal area applicable attainment
date (73 FR 16547). EPA set a deadline
of March 1, 2009, for Tennessee and
Arkansas to submit the moderate area
SIP provisions required under the area’s
new classification (73 FR 16550).
As part of the 2004 designations, EPA
also promulgated an implementation
rule—the Phase 1 Rule. Various aspects
of EPA’s Phase 1 Rule were challenged
in court. On December 22, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court)
vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Rule (69 FR
23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On
June 8, 2007, in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit
Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was
vacated only with regard to those parts
of the Rule that had been successfully
challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart
2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment
areas, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
attainment dates and the timing for
emissions reductions needed for
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS remain effective. The June 8th
decision left intact the Court’s rejection
of EPA’s reasons for implementing the
1997 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in
lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the
vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s
revocation of the 1-hour standard and
those anti-backsliding provisions of the
Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8th
decision reaffirmed the December 22,
2006, decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain measures required for 1hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme
nonattainment areas; and (3) measures
to be implemented pursuant to section
172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the
contingency of an area not making
reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for
failure to attain that NAAQS. The June
8th decision clarified that the Court’s
reference to conformity requirements for
anti-backsliding purposes was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour
motor vehicle emissions budgets until
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS budgets
were available for 8-hour ozone
conformity determinations, which is
already required under EPA’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
conformity regulations. The Court thus
clarified that 1-hour ozone conformity
determinations are not required for antibacksliding purposes.
This section sets forth EPA’s views on
the potential effect of the Court’s rulings
on this proposed redesignation action.
For the reasons set forth below, EPA
does not believe that the Court’s rulings
alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, nor does EPA believe the
Court’s ruling prevents EPA from
proposing or ultimately finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8,
2007, decisions impose no impediment
to moving forward with redesignation of
the Shelby County, Tennessee portion of
the bi-State Memphis Area to
attainment, because (1) this area is
already classified as a subpart 2 area
and is obligated to meet subpart 2
requirements; and (2) redesignation is
appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the CAA
and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.
At the time the redesignation request
was submitted, the bi-State Memphis
Area was classified as subpart 2
moderate, but the requirements under
its moderate area classification had not
yet become due. Under EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for
redesignation, States requesting
redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that
came due prior to the submittal of a
complete redesignation request.
September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum (‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division). See also
Michael Shapiro Memorandum,
September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459,
12465–66 (March 7, 1995)
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding this
interpretation); 68 FR 25418, 25424,
25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of
St. Louis, Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to
retroactively apply any new SIP
requirements that were not applicable at
the time the request was submitted. The
D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the
inequity in such retroactive rulemaking
(see Sierra Club v. Whitman 285 F. 3d
63 (D.C. Cir. 2002)), in which the Court
upheld a district court’s ruling refusing
to make retroactive an EPA
determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a
determination would have resulted in
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the imposition of additional
requirements on the area. The Court
stated, ‘‘[a]lthough EPA failed to make
the nonattainment determination within
the statutory frame, Sierra Club’s
proposed solution only makes the
situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States,
which would face fines and suits for not
implementing air pollution prevention
plans in 1997, even though they were
not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68.
Similarly here, it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for
purpose of redesignation, additional SIP
requirements under subpart 2 that were
not in effect or yet due at the time it
submitted its redesignation request, or
the time that the Area attained the
standard.
With respect to the requirements
under the 1-hour ozone standard,
Shelby County had been redesignated
attainment subject to a maintenance
plan under section 175A. The D.C.
Circuit Court’s decisions do not impact
redesignation requests for these types of
areas, except to the extent that the
Court, in its June 8th decision, clarified
that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs
in their maintenance plans, antibacksliding requires that those 1-hour
budgets must be used for 8-hour
conformity determinations until they
are replaced by 1997 8-hour budgets. To
meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA’s conformity
regulations at 40 CFR part 93.
First, there are no conformity
requirements relevant for evaluating the
bi-State Memphis Area redesignation
request, such as a transportation
conformity SIP.1 It is EPA’s
longstanding policy that it is reasonable
to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a 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 40
CFR 51.390; see also Wall v. EPA, 265
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding
EPA’s interpretation); 60 FR 62748 (Dec.
7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa,
Florida). Tennessee currently has a fully
approved 1-hour ozone transportation
1 CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) requires States to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
Federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emission budgets that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
conformity SIP, which was approved on
May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492).
Second, with regard to the three other
anti-backsliding provisions for the 1hour standard that the D.C. Circuit
Court found were not properly retained,
Shelby County, Tennessee is an
attainment area subject to a
maintenance plan for the 1-hour
standard, and the NSR requirement no
longer applies to this area because it
was redesignated to attainment of the 1hour standard. (Because Shelby County
was a marginal 1-hour nonattainment
area, the contingency measure (pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee
provision requirements never applied to
it). As a result, the decisions in
SCAQMD should not alter any
requirements that would preclude EPA
from finalizing the redesignation of the
bi-State Memphis Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
As was noted earlier, in 2008, the
ambient ozone data for the bi-State
Memphis Area indicated no further
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, using data from the 3-year
period of 2006–2008 to demonstrate
attainment. As a result, on February 26,
2009, Tennessee requested
redesignation of Shelby County,
Tennessee to attainment for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation
request included three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality data for the ozone seasons
(March 1st through October 31st) of
2006–2008, indicating that the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved
for the entire bi-State Memphis 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).
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 for purposes of redesignation
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 (CAA) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSDs) 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59947
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 26, 2009, Tennessee
requested redesignation of the
Tennessee portion (Shelby County) of
the bi-State Memphis 1997 8-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 Shelby 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
proposing to approve the 2006 baseline
emission inventory under section
182(a)(1). EPA is also announcing the
status of its adequacy determination and
proposing approval of the 2006, 2017,
2009 and 2021 NOX and VOC MVEBs
which are relevant to the requested
redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA’s Proposed
Actions?
EPA’s proposed actions establish the
basis upon which EPA may take final
action on the issues being proposed for
approval today. Approval of
Tennessee’s redesignation request
would change the legal designation of
Shelby County for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81
from nonattainment to attainment.
Approval of Tennessee’s request would
also incorporate into the Tennessee SIP,
a plan for Shelby 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 NOX
and VOC State MVEBs for Shelby
County. Table 1 identifies the State NOX
and VOC MVEBs for the years 2006,
2009, 2017 and 2021 for Shelby County.
Final action would also approve the
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
59948
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Area’s emissions inventory under
section 182(a)(1).
TABLE 1—SHELBY COUNTY NOX AND VOC MVEBS
[Summer season tons per day]
2006
NOX ..................................................................................................
VOC .................................................................................................
Approval of Tennessee’s 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, 2009, 2017
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 is proposing to make the
determination that the bi-State Memphis
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, and that all other
redesignation criteria have been met for
the Tennessee portion of the bi-State
Memphis Area. The basis for EPA’s
determination for the area is discussed
in greater detail below.
2009
55.878
25.216
2017
55.620
27.240
Criteria (1)—Shelby County, Tennessee
Has Attained the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that
the bi-State Memphis 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 it meets the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of
part 50, based on three complete,
consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To
attain this standard, the 3-year average
of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an
area over each year must not exceed
0.08 ppm. Based on the data handling
55.173
18.323
2021
54.445
13.817
and reporting 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
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 bi-State Memphis Area for the
ozone season from 2006–2008. These
data have been quality-assured and are
recorded in AQS. The fourth-highest 8hour ozone average for 2006, 2007 and
2008, and the 3-year average of these
values (i.e., design values), are
summarized in the following Table:
TABLE 2—ANNUAL 4TH MAX HIGH AND DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATION FOR 8-HOUR OZONE FOR THE MEMPHIS, TNARKANSAS AREA
[Parts per million]
County
Shelby County, Tennessee
MemphisFrayser
Boulevard
(#47–157–0021)
Monitor (AIRS ID)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
2006 .....................................................................................................................
2007 .....................................................................................................................
2008 .....................................................................................................................
Design Value .......................................................................................................
As discussed above, the design value
for an area is the highest 3-year average
of the annual fourth-highest 8-hour
ozone value recorded at any monitor in
the area. Therefore, the most recent 3year design value (2006–2008) for the
bi-State Memphis Area is 0.082 ppm,
which meets the standard as described
above. Currently available data show
that the Area continues to attain the
standard. If the area does not continue
to attain until EPA finalizes the
redesignation, EPA will not go forward
with the redesignation. As discussed in
more detail below, Tennessee has
committed to continue monitoring in
this Area in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. EPA proposes to find that the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
Criteria (2)—Tennessee Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for
Shelby County and Criteria (5)—
Tennessee 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 proposes to find that Tennessee
has met all applicable SIP requirements
for Shelby County under section 110 of
the CAA (general SIP requirements) for
purposes of redesignation. EPA also
proposes to find that the Tennessee SIP
satisfies the criterion that it meet
applicable SIP requirements for
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Edmond Orgill Park
(#47–157–1004)
0.083
0.081
0.084
0.082
bi-State Memphis Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Crittenden County,
Arkansas
0.084
0.080
0.077
0.080
Marion
(#05–035–0005)
0.089
0.084
0.074
0.082
purposes of redesignation under part D
of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to subpart 2 moderate 1997 8hour ozone nonattainment areas) in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
In addition, EPA proposes to determine
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.
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
a. Shelby County, Tennessee Has Met
All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum 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); 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; 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
(New Source Review (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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
States to establish programs to address
the transport of air pollutants (NOX SIP
Call and 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 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, which 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 was discussed above, for purposes of
redesignation, they are not considered
applicable requirements. Nonetheless,
EPA notes it has previously approved
provisions in the Tennessee SIP
addressing section 110 elements under
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (45 FR 53809,
August 13, 1980). The State believes
that the section 110 SIP approved for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are sufficient
to meet the requirements under the 1997
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59949
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State has
submitted a letter dated December 14,
2007, setting forth its belief that the
section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS is also sufficient to meet
the requirements under 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 proposes
that if EPA approves the State’s base
year emissions inventory, which is part
of the maintenance plan submittal, the
Tennessee SIP will meet applicable SIP
requirements under part D of the CAA.
We believe the emission inventory is
approvable because the 2006 VOC and
NOX emissions, as well as the emissions
for other years, for the bi-State Memphis
Area were developed consistent with
EPA guidance for emission inventories
and the choice of the 2006 base year is
appropriate because it represents the
2006–2008 period when the 8 hour
ozone NAAQS was not violated. EPA
also proposes to determine that the
Tennessee SIP meets applicable SIP
requirements under part D of the CAA
since no subpart 2 moderate
requirements became due prior to the
submission of the Area’s redesignation
request, and the area has met all the
requirements under its previous
marginal classification. 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.
Part D, subpart 2 applicable SIP
requirements. For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request,
the applicable part D, subpart 2 SIP
requirements for all moderate
nonattainment areas are contained in
sections 182(b)(1)–(5). A thorough
discussion of the requirements
contained in section 182 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).
No moderate area requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
under part D became due prior to the
submission of the redesignation request,
and therefore none are applicable to the
Area for purposes of redesignation. For
example, the requirements for an
attainment demonstration that meets the
requirements of reasonable further
progress (RFP) (section 182(b)(1),
Reasonably Achievable Control
Technology (RACT) (section 182(b)(2)),
Gasoline Vapor Recovery section
182(b)(3), and Motor Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance section 182(b)(4). If
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59950
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPA finalizes its proposed approval of
the Area’s emissions inventory under
section 182(a)(1), the Area will have met
all the requirements applicable under its
prior marginal classification for
purposes of redesignation.
In addition to the fact that no
moderate area part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation
became due prior to submission of the
redesignation request and therefore are
not applicable, EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret the conformity
and NSR 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
transportation conformity SIP revisions
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and
enforceability that EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
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,
265 F.3d 426 (upholding this
interpretation); See also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
NSR Requirements. EPA has also
determined that areas being
redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a 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.’’
Memphis, Tennessee maintained in
their submittal that sources locating to
the Memphis area will continue to
undergo NSR requirements and existing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
source control will continue. Tennessee
has demonstrated that Shelby County
will be able to maintain the standard
without a part D NSR program in effect,
and therefore, Tennessee need not have
a fully approved part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation
request. Tennessee’s PSD program will
become effective in Shelby 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); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996). Thus, Shelby County, Tennessee
has satisfied all applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation under
section 110 and part D of the CAA.
b. Shelby County, Tennessee Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable
Tennessee SIP for the Shelby County
portion of the Memphis 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, 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, plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.
See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein. Following passage of
the CAA of 1970, Tennessee has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing the various 1hour ozone standard SIP elements
applicable in the bi-State Memphis Area
(45 FR 53809, August 13, 1980).
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 therefore 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Criteria (3)—The Air Quality
Improvement in the Shelby County
Portion of the Memphis, TN–AR 1997
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment
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 Tennessee has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in Shelby County
(as part of the bi-State Memphis 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.
Measured reductions in ozone
concentrations in and around Shelby
County are largely attributable to
reductions from emission sources of
VOC and NOX, which are precursors in
the formation of ozone. Table 3
summarizes several of the measures
adopted that resulted in emission
reductions. The majority of these
reductions have been realized from
Federal measures related to mobile
sources and electrical power generation.
TABLE 3—SHELBY COUNTY EMISSION
REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS
Mobile Sources:
Æ Tier 2 Fuel and Vehicle Emission Standards
Æ Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
(ORVR) for light-duty vehicles
Æ NOX SIP Call
State and Local Measures:
Æ Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
Æ Expressway speed limit Reductions
Æ ‘‘No Burn’’ Days for increase ozone levels
Æ Memphis Area Transit Authority Ozone
Action Day Fare Reduction
Æ Retrofit of refuse trucks with diesel oxidation catalyst
Æ Motor Vehicle Tampering Rule
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 VOC
and 28 tons per day of NOX.
Regarding point source emissions, the
Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s)
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
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Region for Purposes of Reducing Region
Transport of Ozone’’ (NOX SIP Call),
TVA began operation of two selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) systems
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
59951
29.56 tons per day in Crittenden
county).
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.
TABLE 4—2002 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX*
[Tons per year]
States
Non-EGU
point
EGU point
Non-road
Area
Mobile
Fires
Total
AR ................................
KY ................................
LA .................................
MS ................................
MO ...............................
TN ................................
24,722
201,928
111,703
40,433
145,438
152,137
47,698
38,434
199,218
61,533
36,144
64,344
62,472
104,571
114,711
88,787
99,306
96,827
21,700
39,507
93,069
4,200
32,435
17,844
141,894
156,417
180,664
111,914
189,852
238,577
5,492
534
6,942
308
2,442
217
303,978
541,391
706,307
307,175
505,617
569,946
Total ......................
676,361
447,371
566,674
208,755
1,019,318
15,935
2,934,414
TABLE 5—2018 BASE ANNUAL EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NOX*
[tons per year]
States
Non-EGU
point
EGU point
Non-road
Area
Mobile
Fires
Total
AR ................................
KY ................................
LA .................................
MS ................................
MO ...............................
TN ................................
34,938
64,378
44,485
21,535
83,181
31,715
36,169
41,034
225,748
61,252
51,489
62,519
34,305
79,392
106,685
68,252
59,625
70,226
25,672
44,346
114,374
4,483
35,213
19,597
33,640
52,263
44,806
30,619
50,861
69,385
5,600
714
6,969
1,073
2,442
405
170,324
282,127
543,067
187,214
282,811
253,847
Total ......................
280,232
478,211
418,485
243,685
281,574
17,203
1,708,390
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
* 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 tpy or 41.4 percent in all.
Energy Generating Unit (EGU) NOX
anticipated decreases due to CAIR and
the NOX SIP Call are projected to be
198,150 tpy. However the largest source
in this region remains the motor vehicle
sector, which is projected to decrease
737,744 tpy. Hence, even without EGU
controls on NOX emissions, total NOX
emissions are projected to continually
decrease throughout the maintenance
period.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
statewide NOX emission budgets,
continue to apply after revocation of the
1-hour 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. Here, the State has
demonstrated maintenance based in part
on those requirements.
These regional projections of
emissions data have been prepared
through 2018. However, since motor
vehicle and non-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 expect that this
projected decrease in regional NOX
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
59952
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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 Shelby County, Tennessee
(as part of the bi-State Memphis 1997 8hour ozone nonattainment area) to
attainment, Tennessee submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment.
EPA deems necessary to assure prompt
correction of any future 1997 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, Tennessee’s maintenance
plan includes all the necessary
components and is approvable as part of
the redesignation request.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
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
Tennessee 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
In coordination with Arkansas,
Shelby County, Tennessee selected 2006
as ‘‘the attainment year’’ for the
purposes of demonstrating attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
attainment inventory identifies the level
of emissions in the area, which is
sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. Shelby County began
development of the attainment
inventory by first developing a baseline
emissions inventory for the bi-State
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,
2017 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 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
Shelby County were developed
consistent with EPA guidance, and are
summarized in Tables 4 and 5 in the
following subsection.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The February 26, 2009, final submittal
includes a maintenance plan for Shelby
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
Shelby 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, 2017, 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, Tennessee chose, through
interagency consultation, to establish
MVEBs for the years 2006, 2009 and
2017 for NOX and VOC. See section VII
below.
(iv) Provides the following actual and
projected emissions inventories, in tons
per day (tpd) for Shelby County,
Tennessee. See Tables 6 and 7.
TABLE 6—SHELBY COUNTY VOC EMISSIONS
[Summer season tons per day]
Source category
2006
2009
2017
2021
13.665
37.531
25.216
22.698
14.335
36.880
21.019
20.328
16.985
44.185
12.811
19.327
18.391
47.039
11.362
19.734
Total ..........................................................................................................................
99.110
92.562
93.308
96.526
Safety Margin ...................................................................................................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Point .................................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................
Mobile * ............................................................................................................................
Non-road ** .......................................................................................................................
N/A
6.221
5.512
2.455
* Calculated using MOBILE6.2.
** Calculated using NONROAD2005c.
TABLE 7—SHELBY COUNTY AREA NOX EMISSIONS
[Summer season tons per day]
Source category
2006
Point * ...............................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14.458
2.101
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
2009
15.353
2.271
19NOP1
2017
17.254
2.595
2021
18.376
2.695
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
59953
TABLE 7—SHELBY COUNTY AREA NOX EMISSIONS—Continued
[Summer season tons per day]
Source category
2006
2009
2017
2021
Mobile ** ...........................................................................................................................
Non-road *** .....................................................................................................................
55.878
26.657
44.477
25.264
20.925
22.270
16.999
21.607
Total ..........................................................................................................................
99.094
87.365
63.044
59.677
Safety Margin ...................................................................................................................
N/A
11.142
32.247
37.447
* TVA Allen Plant addressed in 2002–2003 by NOX SIP call.
** Calculated using MOBILE6.2.
*** Calculated using NONROAD2005c.
A safety margin is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
Tennessee has decided to allocate a
portion of the available safety margin to
the Area’s VOC and NOX MVEBs for the
years 2006, 2009, 2017, and 2021 for
Shelby County and has calculated the
safety margin in its submittal. See
Tables 6 and 7, above. This allocation
and the resulting available safety margin
for Shelby County are discussed further
in section VII of this proposed
rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
There are currently three monitors
measuring ozone in the bi-State
Memphis Area (two in Shelby County,
Tennessee and one in Crittenden
County, Arkansas). TDEC has
committed, in the maintenance plan, to
continue operation of the two monitors
in Shelby County, Tennessee in
compliance with 40 CFR part 58, and
has addressed the requirement for
monitoring. Arkansas has made a
similar commitment in their
redesignation and maintenance plan
submission to EPA for this area.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of Tennessee and the
Memphis-Shelby County Health
Department (MSCHD) have 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.
Both agencies will track the progress
of the maintenance plan by performing
future reviews of triennial emissions
inventory for Shelby County using the
latest emissions factors, models and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
methodologies. For these periodic
inventories, Shelby 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,
Shelby County 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 26, 2009, submittal,
Shelby County 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 three-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
Designed to respond immediately in
the event MSCHD forecasts ozone levels
above the 2008 NAAQS. An air quality
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
alert will be issued to the local media
and other parties. In the event such an
alert is given, Shelby County will take
the following actions:
• Suspend all open burning permits
until the ozone forecasts exhibits
improvements; during ozone season,
entities with permits are required to
contact MSCHD daily to determine if
burning will be allowed.
• Reduce fares for public
transportation (conducted by the
Memphis Area Transit Authority).
• Beginning in 2009, air quality alerts
will be posted on the Intelligent
Transportation System boards located
on the expressway system in Shelby
County encouraging motorists to take
actions to reduce emissions.
• TVA Allen Steam Plant as agreed to
postpone any scheduled operation of
combustion turbines during an alert of
peak energy generation.
In addition to these contingency
measures, MSCHD will continue to
work with State and local agencies to
encourage adoption of measures to
reduce ozone formation at all times
especially during air quality alerts.
Phase II
Potential increases in local emissions
specifically, when the certified triennial
emissions inventory for VOC 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
from any nonattainment monitor in the
area based on certified data during the
most recent monitoring season.
In the event this occurs, MSCHD will
conduct an investigation into the cause
to determine if they are due to reporting
errors or a non-recurring variance in the
local emission profile. The investigation
will last approximately three months
from the time the inventory data is
certified after which results will be
reported to EPA and the State of
Tennessee. If the investigation reveals
the data are valid, MSCHD will expand
voluntary programs and develop
regulations to address the concerns. All
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
59954
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
regulatory programs will be
implemented within 18–24 months and
include the following measures:
• Programs or incentives to decrease
motor vehicle use;
• Programs to require additional
emissions reduction on stationary
sources;
• Employer-based transportation
incentive plans;
• Restrictions of certain roads or
lanes for, or construction of such roads
or lanes for use by, passenger buses or
high-occupancy vehicles.
Phase III
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, MSCHD 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. MSCHD will solicit the
involvement of all State agencies having
jurisdiction in the surrounding area.
The investigation will last no longer
than three months after which results
will be submitted to EPA and the State
of Tennessee. If the investigation reveals
the data are valid, further action will be
taken. In addition to provisions
described in Phase II, the following
provisions will be adopted and
implemented according to EPA
guidance.
• Expand Basic I/M in Shelby County
that meets requirements of Section
182(a)(2)(B) of the CAA;
• Develop RACT regulation for
remaining major sources of NOX
emissions in Shelby County;
• Adopt all industrial and
commercial VOC controls as provided
in final EPA-approved Control
Technology Guidelines through the date
of the monitored violations.
• Develop regulations for submission
to the Shelby County Commission or
Tennessee State Air Board to adopt
necessary control measures (within six
months after the investigation)
All regulatory programs will be
implemented within 18–24 months by
the appropriate entity within Tennessee.
EPA has concluded 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 the State
of Tennessee for Shelby County meets
the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA and is approvable.
VII. What Is EPA’s Analysis of
Tennessee’s Proposed State NOX and
VOC MVEBs for Shelby County,
Tennessee?
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 Shelby
County, Tennessee has elected to
develop State MVEBs for VOC and NOX.
Shelby County is developing these
MVEBs, as required, for the last year of
its maintenance plan, 2021, an interim
year, 2017 and the first year, 2009 and
a base year of 2006. The MVEBs for
2006 reflect mobile emissions for that
year. The remaining MVEBs reflect the
total on-road emissions for 2009, 2017
and 2021, plus an allocation from the
available NOX and VOC safety margin
for each year. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the
term safety margin is the difference
between the attainment level (from all
sources) and the projected level of
emissions (from all sources) in the
maintenance plan. The safety margin
can be allocated to the transportation
sector; however, the total emissions
must remain below the attainment level.
These MVEBs and allocation from the
safety margin were developed in
consultation with the transportation
partners and were added to account for
uncertainties in population growth,
changes in model VMT and new
emission factor models. The NOX and
VOC State MVEBs for Shelby County are
defined in Table 8 below.
TABLE 8—SHELBY COUNTY VOC AND NOX MVEBS
[Summer season tons per day]
Year
2006
NOX ..................................................................................................................................
VOC .................................................................................................................................
2009 *
55.878
25.216
55.620
27.240
2017 *
55.173
18.323
2021 *
54.445
13.817
* Includes an allocation from the available NOX and VOC safety margins (see Table 7).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
As mentioned above, Shelby County
has chosen to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the 2009,
2017 and 2021 NOX and VOC State
MVEBs. No safety margin was available
to apply to the 2006 MVEBs. The
following table identifies the amount of
the NOX and VOC safety margin that
was allotted to the State MVEBs for
applicable years.
TABLE 9—NOX AND VOC SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION
[Summer season tons per day]
Year
2009
NOX ..........................................................................................................................................................
VOC .........................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
11.142
6.221
19NOP1
2017
32.247
5.512
2021
37.447
2.455
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Ninety-five percent of the safety
margin emissions is allocated to the
MVEBs. Specifically, 6.221 tpd of the
available VOC safety margin and 11.142
tpd of the available NOX safety margin
are allocated to the 2009 MVEB, 5.512
tpd of the available VOC safety margin
and 34.247 tpd of the available NOX
safety margin are allocated to the 2017
MVEB, and, 2.455 tpd of the available
VOC safety margin and 37.447 tpd of the
available NOX safety margin are
allocated to the 2021 MVEB. The
remaining NOX safety margin after
allocation of some of the safety margin
to the MVEBs for Shelby County is
0.586 tpd in 2009, 1.802 tpd in 2017 and
1.971 tpd in 2021. The remaining VOC
safety margin after allocation of some of
the safety margin to the MVEBs for
Shelby County is 0.327 tpd in 2009,
0.290 tpd in 2017 and 0.129 tpd in 2021.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2006, 2009,
2017 and 2021 MVEBs for VOC and
NOX for Shelby County because EPA
has determined that the area maintains
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard with the
emissions at the levels of the budgets.
Once the MVEBs for Shelby County (the
subject of this rulemaking) are approved
or found adequate (whichever is done
first), they must be used for future
conformity determinations.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA’s
Adequacy Determination for the
Proposed State NOX and VOC MVEBs
for the years 2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021
for Shelby County, Tennessee?
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
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, Tennessee’s
maintenance plan submission includes
VOC and NOX State MVEBs for Shelby
County for the years 2006, 2009, 2017
and 2021. EPA reviewed both the VOCs
and NOX State MVEBs through the
adequacy process. The Tennessee SIP
submission, including the Shelby
County VOC and NOX MVEBs was open
for public comment on EPA’s adequacy
Web site on March 12, 2009, found at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
The EPA public comment period on
adequacy of the 2006, 2009, 2017 and
2021 VOC and NOX State MVEBs for
Shelby County, Tennessee closed on
April 13, 2009. EPA did not receive any
comments on the adequacy of the
MVEBs, nor did EPA receive any
requests for the SIP submittal. EPA
provided a separate adequacy posting
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59955
for the MVEBs in association with
Crittenden County, Arkansas. The status
of the adequacy process for the
Crittenden County MVEBs will be
discussed in EPA’s separate action
related to Crittenden County.
EPA intends to make its
determination on the adequacy of the
2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021 MVEBs for
Shelby County for transportation
conformity purposes in the near future
by completing the adequacy process that
was started on March 12, 2009. After
EPA finds the 2006, 2009, 2017 and
2021 MVEBs, adequate or approves
them, 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 2009 through 2016,
the applicable budgets for the purposes
of conducting transportation conformity
will be the new 2009 MVEBs; for years
that involve the years 2017 through
2020, the applicable budget will be the
new 2017 MVEBs for Shelby County.
For required regional emissions analysis
years that involve 2021 or beyond, the
applicable budgets will be the new 2021
MVEBs. The 2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021
MVEBs are defined in section VII of this
proposed rulemaking.
IX. Proposed Action on the
Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan SIP Revision
Including Approval of the 2006, 2009,
2017 and 2021 State NOX and VOC
MVEBs for Shelby County, Tennessee
EPA is proposing to make the
determination that Shelby County,
Tennessee has met the criteria for
redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Further, EPA is proposing to
approve Tennessee’s February 26, 2009,
SIP submittal including the
redesignation request for Shelby
County, Tennessee (as part of the biState Memphis Area). Additionally, EPA
is proposing to approve the emissions
inventory for Shelby County in
association with the bi-State Memphis
Area. EPA will address the
redesignation request, emission
inventory and maintenance plan for
Crittenden County, Arkansas (as a
portion of the bi-State Memphis Area) in
a separate but coordinated action. EPA
believes that the redesignation request
and monitoring data demonstrate that
the bi-State Memphis Area has attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
maintenance plan for Shelby County
included as part of the February 26,
2009, SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA. The maintenance plan includes
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
59956
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 222 / Thursday, November 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules
State NOX and VOC State MVEBs for
2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021. EPA is
proposing to approve the 2006, 2009,
2017 and 2021 NOX and VOC State
MVEBs for Shelby County because the
maintenance plan demonstrates that in
light of expected emissions for all
source categories, the area will continue
to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
Further as part of today’s action, EPA
is describing the status of its adequacy
determination for the 2006, 2009, 2017
and 2021 State NOX and VOC State
MVEBs, in accordance with 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the
effective date of EPA’s adequacy finding
for the MVEBs, or the effective date for
the final rule for this action, whichever
is earlier, the transportation partners
will need to demonstrate conformity to
the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant
to 40 CFR 93.104(e).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
List of Subjects
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
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 proposed 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);
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Nov 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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.
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 6, 2009.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9–27815 Filed 11–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R1–ES–2009–0036; MO 92210 50083
B2]
RIN 1018–AV47
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Endangered
Status for Flying Earwig Hawaiian
Damselfly (Megalagrion nesiotes) and
Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly (M.
pacificum) Throughout Their Ranges
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on our July 8, 2009, proposal to list two
species of Hawaiian damselflies, the
flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly
(Megalagrion nesiotes) and the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly (M. pacificum), as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published July 8, 2009
(74 FR 32490) is reopened. To allow us
adequate time to consider and
incorporate submitted information into
our review, we request that we receive
information on or before December 21,
2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–
ES–2009–0036, Division of Policy and
Directives Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Public Comments section below
for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088,
Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808–
792–9400; facsimile 808–792–9581. If
you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), you may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We reopen the public comment
period on our July 8, 2009, proposal (74
FR 32490) to list two species of
Hawaiian damselflies: the flying earwig
Hawaiian damselfly and the Pacific
Hawaiian damselfly, as endangered
under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Some peer review comments have
already been received during the initial
comment period on the proposal and
may be found at https://
www.regulations.gov. In order to allow
for additional peer review, we are
reopening the comment period for an
additional 30 days. Comments
previously received on this proposal
need not be resubmitted, as they are
already incorporated in the public
record and will be fully considered in
E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM
19NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 222 (Thursday, November 19, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59943-59956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27815]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0164; FRL-8982-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation of
the Shelby County, TN Portion of the Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas 1997
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 26, 2009, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Air
Pollution Control Division, submitted a request to redesignate the
Tennessee portion of the bi-State Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (the ``bi-State Memphis Area'') to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS); and to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the bi-State
Memphis Area. The bi-State Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area is composed of Shelby County, Tennessee and
Crittenden County, Arkansas. In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve the February 26, 2009 redesignation request for Shelby County,
Tennessee as part of the Memphis Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing
to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for Shelby
County, including the emissions inventory and the State motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2006, 2009, 2017, and
2021. This proposed approval of Tennessee's redesignation request is
based on EPA's determination that Tennessee has demonstrated that
Shelby County has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that
the entire bi-State Memphis ozone nonattainment area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. The State of Arkansas has submitted a
similar redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Arkansas
portion of this 8-hour ozone area. EPA is taking action on Arkansas'
redesignation request and maintenance plan through a separate
rulemaking action. In this action, EPA is also describing the status
and proposing approval of its transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new 2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021 MVEBs that are
contained in the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for Shelby
County, Tennessee. MVEBs for Crittenden County, Arkansas are included
in the Arkansas submittal, and will be addressed through EPA's separate
action for that submittal.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0164, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
Fax: (404) 562-9019.
Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0164, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 59944]]
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 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-R04-OAR-
2009-0164. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 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: Ms. Jane Spann or Ms. Twunjala Bradley
of the Regulatory Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Jane Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029, or
via electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. The telephone number for Ms.
Bradley is (404) 562-9352, and the electronic mail is
bradley.twunjala@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 Tennessee's Proposed State
NOX and VOC MVEBs for Shelby County, Tennessee?
VIII. What Is the Status of EPA's Adequacy Determination for the
Proposed State NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Years 2006,
2009, 2017 and 2021 for Shelby County, Tennessee?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2006, 2009,
2017 and 2021 State NOX and VOC MVEBs for Shelby County,
Tennessee
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Proposed Actions Is EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing several related actions, which are summarized
below and described in greater detail throughout this notice of
rulemaking: (1) To redesignate Shelby County, Tennessee to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve under section 182(a)(1)
the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan; and (3) to
approve under section 175A Tennessee's 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
maintenance plan into the Tennessee SIP, including the associated
MVEBs. In addition, and related to today's actions, EPA is also
notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for
the Shelby County MVEBs.
First, EPA is proposing to determine that the bi-State Memphis Area
has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA further proposes to
determine that, if EPA's proposed approval of the emissions inventory
for the Shelby County, Tennessee portion of this area is finalized, the
area has met the requirements for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The bi-State Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone area is
composed of Shelby County in Tennessee and Crittenden County in
Arkansas. Today's proposal addresses only the Tennessee portion of the
bi-State Memphis Area. In a separate action, EPA will address the
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Crittenden County,
Arkansas portion of the bi-State Memphis Area. In this action, EPA is
now proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of
Shelby County, Tennessee from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve under section 182(a)(1)
Tennessee's 2006 inventory for Shelby County, Tennessee. In
coordination with Arkansas, Tennessee selected 2006 as ``the attainment
year'' for the bi-State Memphis Area for the purpose 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.
Third, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS maintenance plan for Shelby County (such approval being one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plan is designed to help keep the bi-State Memphis Area (of
which Shelby County is a part) in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2021. Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that
EPA is proposing to approve today also includes 2006, 2009, 2017 and
2021 NOX and VOC MVEBs. EPA is proposing to approve (into
the Tennessee SIP) the 2006, 2009, 2017 and 2021 State MVEBs that are
included as part of Tennessee's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. These MVEBs apply only to Shelby County, Tennessee.
[[Page 59945]]
MVEBs contained in the Arkansas submittal for Crittenden County will be
addressed in a separate action.
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
process for the newly-established 2006, 2009, 2017, and 2021
NOX and VOC State MVEBs for Shelby County, Tennessee. The
MVEBs for the Arkansas portion of this 8-hour ozone area will be
addressed in a separate action. The Adequacy comment period for the
Shelby County, Tennessee 2006, 2009, 2017, and 2021 State MVEBs began
on March 12, 2009, with EPA's posting of the availability of this
submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site. (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). The adequacy comment period for
these MVEBs closed on April 13, 2009. No adverse comments were received
during the adequacy public comment period. Please see section VIII of
this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process, and
for more details on the MVEBs determination.
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Tennessee's
February 26, 2009, SIP submittal requesting the redesignation of Shelby
County, Tennessee as part of the bi-State Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone
area, and includes a SIP revision addressing the specific issues
summarized above and the necessary elements for redesignation described
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
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 referred to as
precursors of ozone. The CAA establishes a process for air quality
management through the NAAQS.
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 required 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 bi-State Memphis 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area was initially designated nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard using 2001-2003 ambient air quality
data. The Federal Register document making these designations was
signed on April 15, 2004, and published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23857).
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 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 were covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-
hour ambient air quality design values.
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 designated attainment at
that time. On February 16, 1995 (60 FR 3352) Shelby County, Tennessee
was redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, and was
considered to be a maintenance area subject to a CAA section 175A
maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard.
On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the bi-State Memphis Area (which
then included Crittenden County, Arkansas) under subpart 2 as a
``moderate'' 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area (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,
requesting that the classification of the bi-State Memphis Area be
adjusted downward from ``moderate'' to ``marginal'' for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. The petition was based on the fact that the area's
``moderate'' design value of 0.092 ppm was 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. EPA
approved the petition for reclassification, which became effective on
November 22, 2004 (69 FR 56697, September 22, 2004). As a result of the
downward classification, the new attainment date for the bi-State
Memphis ``marginal'' nonattainment area was set at June 15, 2007,
consistent with the CAA, with attainment to be determined based on
2004-2006 air quality data.
However, from 2004-2006, the bi-State Memphis Area measured 8-hour
average ozone concentrations that precluded the bi-State Memphis Area
from attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2007, the
deadline for marginal areas. Section 181(b)(2) 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). On March 28, 2008, EPA issued a notice that the
bi-State Memphis Area was reclassified by operation of law to
``moderate,'' for failing to attain the standard by the
[[Page 59946]]
marginal area applicable attainment date (73 FR 16547). EPA set a
deadline of March 1, 2009, for Tennessee and Arkansas to submit the
moderate area SIP provisions required under the area's new
classification (73 FR 16550).
As part of the 2004 designations, EPA also promulgated an
implementation rule--the Phase 1 Rule. Various aspects of EPA's Phase 1
Rule were challenged in court. On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court)
vacated EPA's Phase 1 Rule (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast
Air Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing,
the D.C. Circuit Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only
with regard to those parts of the Rule that had been successfully
challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to
classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of title
I, part D of the CAA as 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas,
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment dates and the timing for
emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's
rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 1997 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under
the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment
area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to
conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets
until 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS budgets were available for 8-hour ozone
conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's
conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour ozone
conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.
This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation, nor does EPA believe the Court's ruling
prevents EPA from proposing or ultimately finalizing this
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006, and
June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with
redesignation of the Shelby County, Tennessee portion of the bi-State
Memphis Area to attainment, because (1) this area is already classified
as a subpart 2 area and is obligated to meet subpart 2 requirements;
and (2) redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the bi-State
Memphis Area was classified as subpart 2 moderate, but the requirements
under its moderate area classification had not yet become due. Under
EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
to qualify for redesignation, States requesting redesignation to
attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due
prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. September
4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro
Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan); Sierra Club v.
EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding this interpretation); 68
FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis,
Missouri).
Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking (see Sierra Club v. Whitman 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002)), in which the Court upheld a district court's ruling
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The
Court stated, ``[a]lthough EPA failed to make the nonattainment
determination within the statutory frame, Sierra Club's proposed
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly
here, it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for
purpose of redesignation, additional SIP requirements under subpart 2
that were not in effect or yet due at the time it submitted its
redesignation request, or the time that the Area attained the standard.
With respect to the requirements under the 1-hour ozone standard,
Shelby County had been redesignated attainment subject to a maintenance
plan under section 175A. The D.C. Circuit Court's decisions do not
impact redesignation requests for these types of areas, except to the
extent that the Court, in its June 8th decision, clarified that for
those areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their maintenance plans, anti-
backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour
conformity determinations until they are replaced by 1997 8-hour
budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such
areas must comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity
regulations at 40 CFR part 93.
First, there are no conformity requirements relevant for evaluating
the bi-State Memphis Area redesignation request, such as a
transportation conformity SIP.\1\ It is EPA's longstanding policy that
it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not
applying for purposes of evaluating a 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 40 CFR 51.390; see also Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA's interpretation); 60 FR 62748 (Dec.
7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida). Tennessee currently has a
fully approved 1-hour ozone transportation
[[Page 59947]]
conformity SIP, which was approved on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) requires States to submit revisions
to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity
SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emission budgets that are
established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with regard to the three other anti-backsliding provisions
for the 1-hour standard that the D.C. Circuit Court found were not
properly retained, Shelby County, Tennessee is an attainment area
subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hour standard, and the NSR
requirement no longer applies to this area because it was redesignated
to attainment of the 1-hour standard. (Because Shelby County was a
marginal 1-hour nonattainment area, the contingency measure (pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision requirements
never applied to it). As a result, the decisions in SCAQMD should not
alter any requirements that would preclude EPA from finalizing the
redesignation of the bi-State Memphis Area to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard.
As was noted earlier, in 2008, the ambient ozone data for the bi-
State Memphis Area indicated no further violations of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, using data from the 3-year period of 2006-2008 to
demonstrate attainment. As a result, on February 26, 2009, Tennessee
requested redesignation of Shelby County, Tennessee 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 through October 31st) of 2006-2008, indicating
that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved for the entire bi-
State Memphis 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).
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 for purposes of redesignation 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 (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) 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 26, 2009, Tennessee requested redesignation of the
Tennessee portion (Shelby County) of the bi-State Memphis 1997 8-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 Shelby 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 proposing to approve the 2006 baseline emission inventory under
section 182(a)(1). EPA is also announcing the status of its adequacy
determination and proposing approval of the 2006, 2017, 2009 and 2021
NOX and VOC MVEBs which are relevant to the requested
redesignation.
V. What Is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions?
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval
of Tennessee's redesignation request would change the legal designation
of Shelby County for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part
81 from nonattainment to attainment. Approval of Tennessee's request
would also incorporate into the Tennessee SIP, a plan for Shelby 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 NOX and VOC State MVEBs for Shelby County. Table
1 identifies the State NOX and VOC MVEBs for the years 2006,
2009, 2017 and 2021 for Shelby County. Final action would also approve
the
[[Page 59948]]
Area's emissions inventory under section 182(a)(1).
Table 1--Shelby County NOX and VOC MVEBs
[Summer season tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2009 2017 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................... 55.878 55.620 55.173 54.445
VOC..................................... 25.216 27.240 18.323 13.817
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval of Tennessee's 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, 2009, 2017 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 is proposing to make the determination that the bi-State
Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have
been met for the Tennessee portion of the bi-State Memphis Area. The
basis for EPA's determination for the area is discussed in greater
detail below.
Criteria (1)--Shelby County, Tennessee Has Attained the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS
EPA is proposing to determine that the bi-State Memphis 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 it meets the
1997 8-hour ozone 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 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor
within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
data handling and reporting 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 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 bi-State Memphis Area for the ozone season from 2006-
2008. These data have been quality-assured and are recorded in AQS. The
fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average for 2006, 2007 and 2008, and the 3-
year average of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in
the following Table:
Table 2--Annual 4th Max High and Design Value Concentration for 8-Hour Ozone for the Memphis, TN-Arkansas Area
[Parts per million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Shelby County, Tennessee Crittenden County,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas
Memphis- Frayser -----------------------
Monitor (AIRS ID) Boulevard (47- Edmond Orgill Park Marion (05-
157-0021) (47-157-1004) 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 3-
year average of the annual fourth-highest 8-hour ozone value recorded
at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the most recent 3-year design
value (2006-2008) for the bi-State Memphis Area is 0.082 ppm, which
meets the standard as described above. Currently available data show
that the Area continues to attain the standard. If the area does not
continue to attain until EPA finalizes the redesignation, EPA will not
go forward with the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below,
Tennessee has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. EPA proposes to find that the bi-State
Memphis Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Criteria (2)--Tennessee Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
for Shelby County and Criteria (5)--Tennessee 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 proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP
requirements for Shelby County under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. EPA also proposes to
find that the Tennessee SIP satisfies the criterion that it meet
applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D
of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 2 moderate 1997
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA proposes to determine 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.
[[Page 59949]]
a. Shelby County, Tennessee Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum 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); 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; 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 (New Source Review (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 and 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 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, which 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 was discussed above, for purposes of redesignation, they
are not considered applicable requirements. Nonetheless, EPA notes it
has previously approved provisions in the Tennessee SIP addressing
section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (45 FR 53809, August
13, 1980). The State believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS are sufficient to meet the requirements under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State has submitted a letter dated
December 14, 2007, setting forth its belief that the section 110 SIP
approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is also sufficient to meet the
requirements under 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 proposes that if EPA approves the State's
base year emissions inventory, which is part of the maintenance plan
submittal, the Tennessee SIP will meet applicable SIP requirements
under part D of the CAA. We believe the emission inventory is
approvable because the 2006 VOC and NOX emissions, as well
as the emissions for other years, for the bi-State Memphis Area were
developed consistent with EPA guidance for emission inventories and the
choice of the 2006 base year is appropriate because it represents the
2006-2008 period when the 8 hour ozone NAAQS was not violated. EPA also
proposes to determine that the Tennessee SIP meets applicable SIP
requirements under part D of the CAA since no subpart 2 moderate
requirements became due prior to the submission of the Area's
redesignation request, and the area has met all the requirements under
its previous marginal classification. 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.
Part D, subpart 2 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 2
SIP requirements for all moderate nonattainment areas are contained in
sections 182(b)(1)-(5). A thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 182 can be found in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). No moderate area requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior
to the submission of the redesignation request, and therefore none are
applicable to the Area for purposes of redesignation. For example, the
requirements for an attainment demonstration that meets the
requirements of reasonable further progress (RFP) (section 182(b)(1),
Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) (section 182(b)(2)),
Gasoline Vapor Recovery section 182(b)(3), and Motor Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance section 182(b)(4). If
[[Page 59950]]
EPA finalizes its proposed approval of the Area's emissions inventory
under section 182(a)(1), the Area will have met all the requirements
applicable under its prior marginal classification for purposes of
redesignation.
In addition to the fact that no moderate area part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request and therefore are not applicable, EPA
believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity and NSR
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 transportation conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and enforceability that EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
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, 265
F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation); See also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida).
NSR Requirements. EPA has also determined that areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a 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.'' Memphis, Tennessee maintained
in their submittal that sources locating to the Memphis area will
continue to undergo NSR requirements and existing source control will
continue. Tennessee has demonstrated that Shelby County will be able to
maintain the standard without a part D NSR program in effect, and
therefore, Tennessee need not have a fully approved part D NSR program
prior to approval of the redesignation request. Tennessee's PSD program
will become effective in Shelby 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); and
Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, Shelby
County, Tennessee has satisfied all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
b. Shelby County, Tennessee Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP for the Shelby
County portion of the Memphis 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, 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, plus any additional measures it may approve
in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12,
2003) and citations therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970,
Tennessee has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at
various times, provisions addressing the various 1-hour ozone standard
SIP elements applicable in the bi-State Memphis Area (45 FR 53809,
August 13, 1980).
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 therefore 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 Shelby County Portion
of the Memphis, TN-AR 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment 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 Tennessee has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in Shelby County (as part of the bi-State Memphis
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.
Measured reductions in ozone concentrations in and around Shelby
County are largely attributable to reductions from emission sources of
VOC and NOX, which are precursors in the formation of ozone.
Table 3 summarizes several of the measures adopted that resulted in
emission reductions. The majority of these reductions have been
realized from Federal measures related to mobile sources and electrical
power generation.
Table 3--Shelby County Emission Reductions Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Sources:
[cir] Tier 2 Fuel and Vehicle Emission Standards
[cir] Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) for light-duty vehicles
[cir] NOX SIP Call
State and Local Measures:
[cir] Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
[cir] Expressway speed limit Reductions
[cir] ``No Burn'' Days for increase ozone levels
[cir] Memphis Area Transit Authority Ozone Action Day Fare Reduction
[cir] Retrofit of refuse trucks with diesel oxidation catalyst
[cir] Motor Vehicle Tampering Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 VOC and 28 tons per day of NOX.
Regarding point source emissions, the Tennessee Valley Authority's
(TVA's) 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
[[Page 59951]]
Region for Purposes of Reducing Region Transport of Ozone''
(NOX SIP Call), TVA began operation of two selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) systems 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).
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.
Table 4--2002 Base Annual Emission Inventory Summary for NOX*
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--2018 Base Annual Emission Inventory Summary for NOX*
[tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 tpy or 41.4 percent in all. Energy
Generating Unit (EGU) NOX anticipated decreases due to CAIR
and the NOX SIP Call are projected to be 198,150 tpy.
However the largest source in this region remains the motor vehicle
sector, which is projected to decrease 737,744 tpy. Hence, even without
EGU controls on NOX emissions, total NOX
emissions are projected to continually decrease throughout the
maintenance period.
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-hour 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. Here, the State has
demonstrated maintenance based in part on those requirements.
These regional projections of emissions data have been prepared
through 2018. However, since motor vehicle and non-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
expect that this projected decrease in regional NOX
[[Page 59952]]
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 Shelby County,
Tennessee (as part of the bi-State Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area) to attainment, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision
to provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after the 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