Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68087 

maintenance plan for the West Virginia 

portion of the Area, submitted on June 

30, 2011, as a revision to the West 

Virginia SIP because it meets the 

requirements of CAA section 175A as 

described previously in this notice. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the 

insignificance determination for on-road 

motor vehicle contribution of PM2.5, 

NOX, and SO2, submitted by West 

Virginia for the West Virginia portion of 

the Area in conjunction with its 

redesignation request. As noted 

previously, the 30 day public comment 

period for the proposed insignificance 

determination started on November 5, 

2012 and will end on December 4, 2012. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the 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 proposing 

approval of West Virginia’s 

redesignation request, maintenance 

plan, and transportation conformity 

insignificance determination for the 

Huntington-Ashland Area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, PM2.5, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness Areas. 

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

Dated: November 7, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27785 Filed 11–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0327; FRL–9751–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; South Carolina; 

Redesignation of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Moderate Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2011, the State of 

South Carolina, through the South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC), 

submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the portion of York County, 

South Carolina that is within the bi-state 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North 

Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area,’’ or 

‘‘Area’’) to attainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS); and to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision containing a maintenance plan 

for the South Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘the York County Area’’). The bistate Charlotte Area consists of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a 

portion of Iredell County (Davidson and 

Coddle Creek Townships) in North 

Carolina; and a portion of York County 

in South Carolina (including the 

Catawba Indian Nation reservation 

lands). EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation request for the York 

County Area, along with the related SIP 

revision, including South Carolina’s 

plan for maintaining attainment of the 

ozone standard in the York County 

Area. EPA is also proposing to approve 

the motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEB) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) for 

the years 2013 and 2022 for the York 

County Area. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing that the 2022 MVEB are 

consistent with maintenance in 2023. 

These actions are being proposed 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) and its implementing regulations. 

EPA will take action on the North 

Carolina submission for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for its portion of the 

bi-state Charlotte Area in a separate 

action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0327, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0327, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. 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–2012– 

0327. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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 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: Jane 

Spann or Sara Waterson 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. Ms. 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029, or via electronic mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. Ms. Waterson may 

be reached by phone at (404) 562–9061, 

or via electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to 

take? 

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 EPA’s analysis of the request? 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of South 

Carolina’s proposed NOX and VOC 

MVEB for the York County area? 

VII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed NOX and 

VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the 

York County area? 

VIII. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan SIP 

Revision Including Proposed Approval 

of the 2013 and 2022 NOX and VOC 

MVEB for the York County Area 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing to take? 

EPA is proposing to take the following 

two separate but related actions, one of 

which involves multiple elements: (1) 

To redesignate the York County Area 

(including the Catawba Indian Nation 

reservation lands) to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and (2) to 

approve into the South Carolina SIP, 

under section 175A of the CAA, South 

Carolina’s 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

maintenance plan, including the 

associated MVEB. EPA is also notifying 

the public of the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the York 

County Area MVEB. These actions are 

summarized below and described in 

greater detail throughout this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

First, EPA proposes to determine that 

the York County Area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve a 

request to change the legal designation 

of the portion of York County (including 

the Catawba Indian Nation reservation 

lands) in the bi-state Charlotte Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

South Carolina’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS maintenance plan for the York 

County Area as meeting the 

requirements of section 175A (such 

approval being one of the CAA criteria 

for redesignation to attainment status). 

The maintenance plan is designed to 

help keep the York County Area in 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2022. As explained in 

Section V, EPA is also proposing to 

approve that attainment can be 

maintained through 2023. Consistent 

with the CAA, the maintenance plan 

that EPA is proposing to approve today 

also includes NOX and VOC MVEB for 

the years 2013 and 2022 for the York 

County Area. EPA is proposing to 

approve (into the South Carolina SIP) 

the 2013 and 2022 MVEB that are 

included as part of South Carolina’s 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. As explained in 

Sections V and VI, EPA is also 

proposing that the MVEB are consistent 

with maintenance through 2023. 

EPA is also notifying the public of the 

status of EPA’s adequacy process for the 

newly-established NOX and VOC MVEB 

for 2013 and 2022 for the York County 

Area. The Adequacy comment period 

for the York County Area 2013 and 2022 

MVEB began on October 28, 2011, with 

EPA’s posting of the availability of this 

submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). 

The Adequacy comment period for 

these MVEB closed on November 28, 

2011. No comments, adverse or 

otherwise, were received during EPA’s 

adequacy process for the MVEB 

associated with South Carolina’s 1997 8- 

hour ozone maintenance plan. Please 

see section VII of this proposed 

rulemaking for further explanation of 

this process and for more details on the 

MVEB. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68089 

1South Carolina withdrew an August 31, 2007, 

attainment demonstration SIP for its portion of the 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone 

area on December 22, 2008. EPA issued a finding 

of failure to submit for the attainment 

demonstration for the Charlotte NC–SC Area on 

May 8, 2009. See 74 FR 21550. On April 29, 2010, 

South Carolina resubmitted the attainment 

demonstration SIP with an updated supplement for 

the South Carolina portion of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area. 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to South 

Carolina’s June 1, 2011, SIP revision. 

That document addresses the specific 

issues summarized above and the 

necessary elements described in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for 

redesignation of the York County Area 

to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) (62 FR 38856, 

July 18, 1997). Under EPA’s regulations 

at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS 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). 69 FR 23857 

(April 30, 2004). 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. 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA 

to designate as nonattainment any area 

that is violating the NAAQS, based on 

the three most recent years of ambient 

air quality data at the conclusion of the 

designation process. The bi-state 

Charlotte Area was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 

(effective June 15, 2004) using 2001– 

2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR 

23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of 

designation the bi-state Charlotte Area 

was classified as a moderate 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, 

Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, 

EPA established ozone nonattainment 

area attainment dates based on Table 1 

of section 181(a) of the CAA. This 

established an attainment date six years 

after the June 15, 2004, effective date for 

areas classified as moderate areas for the 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

designations. Section 181 of the CAA 

explains that the attainment date for 

moderate nonattainment areas shall be 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than six years after designation, or 

June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’s original attainment date 

was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951, 

April 30, 2004. 

On April 29, 2010,1 South Carolina 

submitted an attainment demonstration 

and associated reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), a reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, emissions statement, a 2002 

base year emissions inventory and other 

planning SIP revisions related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the York County Area. 

The bi-state Charlotte Area did not 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment 

date for moderate nonattainment areas); 

however, the Area qualified for an 

extension of the attainment date. Under 

certain circumstances, the CAA allows 

for extensions of the attainment dates 

prescribed at the time of the original 

nonattainment designation. In 

accordance with CAA section 181(a)(5), 

EPA may grant up to 2 one-year 

extensions of the attainment date under 

specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, 

EPA determined that the Area met the 

CAA requirements to obtain a one-year 

extension of the attainment date for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 76 FR 

31245. As a result, EPA extended the bistate Charlotte Area’s attainment date 

from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On June 1, 2011, South Carolina 

requested redesignation of the York 

County Area 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 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for 2008–2010, 

indicating that the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS had been achieved for the bistate Charlotte 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). 

Subsequently, on March 7, 2012 (77 

FR 13493), EPA determined that the bistate Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date. The determination of 

attaining data was based upon complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2008–2010 

period, showing that the Area had 

monitored attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements 

for the Area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIP revisions related to 

attainment of the standard were 

suspended as a result of the 

determination of attainment, so long as 

the Area continues to attain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

52.2125(a). The Area continues to attain 

the standard with 2009–2011 data. 

On January 12, 2012, South Carolina 

withdrew the York County portion of 

the Area’s attainment demonstration 

(except RFP, emissions statements, and 

the emissions inventory) as allowed by 

40 CFR 51.918. EPA approved the 

baseline emissions inventory portion of 

the attainment demonstration SIP 

revision on May 18, 2012 (77 FR 29540). 

Additionally, EPA approved the 

emissions statements portion of the 

attainment demonstration SIP revision 

on June 25, 2012 (77 FR 37812). No 

comments were received on either 

action. EPA is considering action on 

South Carolina’s RFP plan in a separate 

action; however, as mentioned 

previously, the determination of 

attainment suspended South Carolina’s 

obligation to meet this requirement for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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. 

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided 

guidance on redesignation in the 

General Preamble for the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68090 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Implementation of title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (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 June 1, 2011, the State of South 

Carolina, through SC DHEC, requested 

the redesignation of the York County 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA’s evaluation 

indicates that the entire bi-state 

Charlotte Area (including the York 

County Area as part of the bi-State 

Charlotte Area) has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, and that the York 

County Area meets the requirements for 

redesignation set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance 

plan requirements under section 175A 

of the CAA. As a result, EPA is 

proposing to take the two related actions 

summarized in section I of this notice. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

request? 

As stated above, in accordance with 

the CAA, EPA proposes in today’s 

action to: (1) Redesignate the York 

County Area (including the Catawba 

Indian Nation reservation lands) to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; and (2) approve the York 

County Area’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS maintenance plan, including 

the associated MVEB, into the South 

Carolina SIP. These actions are based 

upon EPA’s preliminary determinations 

that the bi-state Charlotte Area 

(including the York County Area as part 

of the bi-State Charlotte Area) continues 

to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

and EPA’s preliminary determination 

that South Carolina has met all other 

redesignation criteria for the York 

County Area. The five redesignation 

criteria provided under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater 

detail for the York County Area in the 

following paragraphs of this section. 

Criteria (1)—The Bi-State Charlotte Area 

(Including the York County Area as Part 

of the Bi-State Charlotte 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 NAAQS, 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 these NAAQS, 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 NAAQS are 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. 

On November 15, 2011, at 76 FR 

70656, EPA determined that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area was attaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. For that action 

EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data 

from monitoring stations in the bi-state 

Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for 2008–2010. These 

data have been quality-assured and are 

recorded in AQS. EPA has reviewed the 

2009–2011 data, which indicate that the 

Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS beyond the submitted 3- 

year attainment period of 2008–2010. 

The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average 

for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the 3-year 

average of these values (i.e., design 

values), are summarized in the 

following Table 1 of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA

Location County Monitor ID 

Annual arithmetic mean concentrations (ppm) 3-Year design values 

(ppm) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2008–2010 2009–2011 

Lincoln County 

Replacing Iron 

Station.

Lincoln ................ 37–109–0004 0.079 0.065 0.072 0.077 0.072 0.071 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68091 

2On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call, 

South Carolina developed rules governing the 

control of NOX emissions from electric generating 

units (EGU), major non-EGU industrial boilers, 

major cement kilns, and internal combustion 

engines. On June 28, 2002, EPA approved South 

Carolina’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP 

Call (67 FR 43546). 

3On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), EPA 

promulgated CAIR, which required 28 upwind 

States and the District of Columbia to revise their 

SIPs to include control measures that would reduce 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. Various aspects of CAIR 

rule were petitioned in court and on December 23, 

2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA (see North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Circuit, 

December 23, 2008)), which left CAIR in place to 

‘‘temporarily preserve the environmental values 

covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaces it with a rule 

consistent with the Court’s ruling. In response to 

the court’s decision, EPA issued a new rule to 

address interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the 

eastern United States (i.e., the Transport Rule, also 

known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). See 

76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In a ruling on August 

21, 2012, the court vacated the Transport Rule and 

reiterated its expectation for EPA to continue to 

administer CAIR until a replacement rule is in 

place. Therefore, CAIR is currently in effect in 

South Carolina. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA—Continued 

Location County Monitor ID 

Annual arithmetic mean concentrations (ppm) 3-Year design values 

(ppm) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2008–2010 2009–2011 

Garinger High 

School.

Mecklenburg ....... 37–119–0041 0.085 0.069 0.082 0.088 0.078 0.079 

Westinghouse 

Blvd.

Mecklenburg ....... 37–119–1005 0.073 0.068 0.078 0.082 0.073 0.076 

29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co.Mecklenburg ....... 37–119–1009 0.093 0.071 0.082 0.083 0.082 0.078 

Rockwell .............. Rowan ................. 37–159–0021 0.084 0.071 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.075 

Enochville School Rowan ................. 37–159–0022 0.082 0.073 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.076 

Monroe Middle 

School.

Union .................. 37–179–0003 0.08 0.067 0.071 0.073 0.072 0.070 

* An ozone monitor is located in York County, South Carolina; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The 3-year design value for 2008– 

2010 submitted by South Carolina for 

redesignation of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area is 0.082 ppm, which meets the 

NAAQS as described above. As 

mentioned above, on November 15, 

2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA published a 

clean data determination for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The 2009–2011 certified 

data show that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with a design value of 

0.079 ppm at the Garinger High School 

monitor. In today’s action, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Area is 

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA will not go forward with 

the redesignation if the Area does not 

continue to attain until the time that 

EPA finalizes the redesignation. As 

discussed in more detail below, the 

State of South Carolina has committed 

to continue monitoring in this Area in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

Criteria (2)—South Carolina Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for 

the York County Area; and Criteria (5)— 

South Carolina Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of Title I of the CAA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the state has met 

all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D of title I of the 

CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and 

that the state has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) for the area (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes 

to find that South Carolina has met all 

applicable SIP requirements for the 

York County Area under section 110 of 

the CAA (general SIP requirements) for 

purposes of redesignation. Additionally, 

EPA proposes to find that the South 

Carolina SIP satisfies the criterion that 

it meets applicable SIP requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas) in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, 

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 

proposed determinations, EPA 

ascertained which requirements are 

applicable to the Area and, if applicable, 

that they are fully approved under 

section 110(k). SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to 

requirements that were applicable prior 

to submittal of the complete 

redesignation request. 

a. The York County Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

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 interstate transport of air pollutants 

(e.g., NOX SIP Call 2 and the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) 3). 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated a 

portion of York County (excluding the Catawba 

Indian Nation reservation lands) as nonattainment 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This rulemaking 

does not address requirements for the portion of 

York County that was designated nonattainment for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for 

the portion of York County that was designated 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

will be addressed in the future. 

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, EPA does not believe that the 

CAA’s interstate transport requirements 

should be construed to be applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. However, as discussed 

later in this notice, addressing pollutant 

transport from other states is an 

important part of an area’s maintenance 

demonstration. 

In addition, EPA believes other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

attainment status are 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 completed rulemaking on a 

submittal from South Carolina dated 

December 13, 2007, addressing 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements required 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

under CAA section 110(a)(2) on July 13, 

2011. See 76 FR 41111. However, these 

are statewide requirements that are not 

a consequence of the nonattainment 

status of the York County Area. As 

stated above, EPA believes that section 

110 elements not linked to an area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, 

EPA believes it has approved all SIP 

elements under section 110 that must be 

approved as a prerequisite for 

redesignating the York County Area to 

attainment. 

Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable 

SIP requirements. Subpart 1 of part D, 

found in sections 172(c)(1) through (9) 

and in section 176 of the CAA, sets forth 

the basic nonattainment requirements 

applicable to all nonattainment areas. A 

thorough discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). Subpart 2 of part D, 

which includes section 182 of the CAA, 

establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

ozone nonattainment classification. 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). 

Part D Subpart 1 Section 172 

Requirements and Part D, Subpart 2 

Section 182 Requirements. Section 

172(c)(1) requires the plans for all 

nonattainment areas to provide for the 

implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment of the national 

primary ambient air quality standards. 

EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all nonattainment 

areas to consider all available control 

measures and to adopt and implement 

such measures as are reasonably 

available for implementation in each 

area as components of the area’s 

attainment demonstration. Under 

section 172, states with nonattainment 

areas must submit plans providing for 

timely attainment and meeting a variety 

of other requirements. Section 182 of 

the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, 

establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

ozone nonattainment classification. 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). 

However, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, 

EPA’s November 15, 2011, 

determination that the Area was 

attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

suspended South Carolina’s obligation 

to submit most of the attainment 

planning requirements that would 

otherwise apply. Specifically, the 

determination of attainment suspended 

South Carolina’s obligation to submit an 

attainment demonstration and planning 

SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures under sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA. 

The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992) also discusses the 

evaluation of these requirements in the 

context of EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining a standard (General 

Preamble for Implementation of Title I 

(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)). 

Because attainment has been reached 

in the bi-state Charlotte Area, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS,4 and section 

172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment 

demonstration and RACM are no longer 

considered to be applicable for purposes 

of redesignation as long as the Area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS until redesignation. See 

also 40 CFR 51.918. 

The RFP plan requirements under 

sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) are 

defined as progress that must be made 

toward attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. These requirements are 

not relevant for purposes of 

redesignation because EPA has 

determined that the entire bi-state 

Charlotte Area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See General Preamble, 57 FR 

13564. See also 40 CFR 51.1004 (c). 

While it is not a requirement for 

redesignation, EPA is considering taking 

action on South Carolina’s RFP plan for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS separate 

from today’s proposed action. 

Section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b) 

requires submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions. Section 

182(b) references section 182(a) of the 

CAA which requires, in part, for states 

to submit a current inventory of actual 

emissions (182(a)(1)). As part of South 

Carolina’s attainment demonstration for 

the York County Area, South Carolina 

submitted a 2002 base year emissions 

inventory. EPA approved the 2002 base 

year inventory on May 18, 2012, as 

meeting the section 172(c)(3) and 

section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory 

requirement. See 77 FR 29540. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

emissions for major new and modified 

stationary sources to be allowed in an 

area, and section 172(c)(5) and section 

182(b) require source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68093 

EPA has determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, 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 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed 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 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ South 

Carolina has demonstrated that the York 

County Area will be able to maintain the 

NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, 

and therefore South Carolina need not 

have fully approved part D NSR 

programs prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. Nonetheless, 

South Carolina currently has a fullyapproved part D NSR program in place. 

South Carolina’s PSD program will 

become applicable in the York County 

Area upon redesignation to attainment. 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA 

believes the South Carolina SIP meets 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 182(b) references, in part, 

section 182(a)(3), which requires states 

to submit periodic inventories and 

emissions statements. Section 

182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to submit a periodic inventory every 3 

years. The periodic emissions inventory 

is discussed in more detail in Criteria 

(4)(e), Verification of Continued 

Attainment. 

Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA 

requires states with areas designated 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to 

submit a SIP revision to require 

emissions statements to be submitted to 

the state by sources within that 

nonattainment area. EPA approved 

South Carolina’s emissions statements 

requirement, which is part of the 

attainment plan submittal, on June 25, 

2012. See 77 FR 37812. EPA believes the 

South Carolina SIP meets the 

requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires 

states with areas designated 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to 

submit a SIP revision to require 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for all major VOC and NOX

sources and for each category of VOC 

sources in the Area covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

document. 

The CTGs established by EPA are 

guidance to the states and provide 

recommendations only. A state can 

develop its own strategy for what 

constitutes RACT for the various CTG 

categories, and EPA will review that 

strategy in the context of the SIP process 

and determine whether it meets the 

RACT requirements of the CAA and its 

implementing regulations. If no major 

sources of VOC or NOX emissions 

(which should be considered separately) 

or no sources in a particular source 

category exist in an applicable 

nonattainment area, a state may submit 

a negative declaration for that category. 

South Carolina did a RACT analysis 

for major VOC and NOX sources in the 

York County Area and determined that 

these sources met RACT. EPA approved 

South Carolina’s RACT submittal on 

November 28, 2011. See 76 FR 72844. 

SC DHEC provided certifications to this 

effect to EPA within the original August 

31, 2007, attainment demonstration and 

on February 23, 2009, for Group III, and 

on July, 9, 2009, for Group IV. On 

November 28, 2011, EPA approved 

South Carolina’s SIP revisions in 

support of the negative declarations for 

Groups I, II, III and IV CTG, and 

concluded that the York County Area 

has met all the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for making a negative 

declaration regarding Groups I, II, III 

and IV CTG. See 76 FR 72844. EPA 

believes the South Carolina SIP meets 

the requirements of section 182(b)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Originally, the section 182(b)(3) Stage 

II requirement also applied in all 

moderate ozone nonattainment areas. 

However, under section 202(a)(6) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the 

requirements of section 182(b)(3) no 

longer apply in moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas after EPA 

promulgated the onboard refueling 

vapor recovery standards on April 6, 

1994, 59 FR 16262, codified at 40 CFR 

parts 86 (including 86.098–8), 88 and 

600. Under implementation rules issued 

in 2002 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA retained the Stage IIrelated requirements under section 

182(b)(3) as they applied for the nowrevoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 

CFR 51.900(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.916(a). 

Therefore, the York County Area is not 

subject to the Stage 2 vapor recovery 

program requirements. 

Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires 

states with areas designated 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to 

submit SIPs requiring inspection and 

maintenance of vehicles (I/M). Even 

though a portion of York County was 

designated as part of the moderate bistate Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, applicability of the I/M 

regulations to areas outside the Ozone 

Transport Region is based on the 

population of the urbanized area as 

defined by the 1990 census. As defined 

by the 1990 census, York County and 

Charlotte urbanized areas were distinct 

and were not contiguous. Although the 

Charlotte urbanized portion of the 

metropolitan statistical area is 

contiguous to the North Carolina/South 

Carolina border, it did not extend into 

South Carolina. In 1990, the York 

County urbanized area was totally 

contained within South Carolina and 

did not touch the State line. Therefore, 

the applicability level of a 1990 census 

population of 200,000 or more in an 

urbanized area (40 CFR 51.350(a)(1)) 

applies to each of the two urbanized 

areas separately. Since the York County 

urbanized area had a population less 

than 200,000, the I/M requirement in 

section 182(b)(4) of the CAA is not 

applicable to the York County Area. 

EPA believes the South Carolina SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

182(b)(3) and 182(b)(4) applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. 

Section 182(b)(5) of the CAA requires 

that for purposes of satisfying the 

general emission offset requirement, the 

ratio of total emission reductions to total 

increase emissions shall be at least 1.15 

to 1. South Carolina currently requires 

these offsets. EPA believes the South 

Carolina SIP meets the requirements of 

section 182(b)(5) applicable for 

purposes of 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 that are 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5CAA 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 MVEBs that 

are established in control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements 5 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 Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 

(upholding this interpretation); see also 

60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Tampa, Florida). 

Nonetheless, South Carolina has an 

approved conformity SIP for the York 

County Area. See 74 FR 37168, July 28, 

2009. Thus, the York County Area has 

satisfied all applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of title I of the CAA. 

b. The York County Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

South Carolina SIP for the York County 

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, South Carolina has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved at various times, 

provisions addressing the various 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS SIP elements 

applicable in the York County Area 

(May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

July 13, 2011, 76 FR 41111; RACT, 

November 16, 2011, 76 FR 72884; 

emissions inventory, May 18, 2012, 77 

FR 29540; emissions statement, June 25, 

2012, 77 FR 37812). 

As indicated above, EPA believes that 

the section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked to an area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has approved all 

part D subpart 1 requirements 

applicable for purposes of this 

redesignation. 

Criteria (3)—The Air Quality 

Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte 

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 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the 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 (CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily 

determined that South Carolina has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in its portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, federal 

measures, and other state adopted 

measures. EPA does not have any 

information to suggest that the decrease 

in ozone concentrations in the York 

County Area is due to unusually 

favorable meteorological conditions. 

State, local and federal measures 

enacted in recent years have resulted in 

permanent emission reductions. Most of 

these emission reductions are 

enforceable through regulations. A few 

non-regulatory measures also result in 

emission reductions. 

The state and local measures, some of 

which implement federal requirements, 

that have been implemented to date and 

relied upon by South Carolina to 

demonstrate attainment and/or 

maintenance include: NSR regulations, 

NOX regulations, VOC regulations, 

emissions inventory, emissions 

statements, and RACT. 

The Celanese Acetate Celriver Plant 

closed in 2006. This plant, which 

included six coal-fired boilers, the 

largest of which was rated at 320 

million metric British thermal units per 

hour, was the largest stationary source 

of NOX in the York County Area. As a 

result, South Carolina retired 2,493 tons 

of NOX and 1,686 tons of VOC. 

Additionally, South Carolina 

identified other areas of potential 

reductions. North Carolina has 

implemented measures in the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area, such as North Carolina’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act (CSA), which helps to 

improve air quality in the Area. EPA 

approved the CSA into the North 

Carolina SIP on September 26, 2011. See 

76 FR 59250. Closures of certain 

facilities have resulted in continued 

reductions of local NOX and VOC 

emissions in the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

The federal measures that have been 

implemented include the following: 

Tier 2 vehicle standards. 

Implementation began in 2004 and will 

require all passenger vehicles in any 

manufacturer’s fleet to meet an average 

standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile. 

The Tier 2 rule also reduced the sulfur 

content of gasoline to 30 ppm starting in 

January of 2006. 

Large Non-road Diesel Engines rule. 

EPA issued this rule in June 2004 (69 FR 

38958), which applies to diesel engines 

used in industries, such as construction, 

agriculture, and mining. It is estimated 

that compliance with this rule will cut 

NOX emissions from non-road diesel 

engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. 

The non-road diesel rule was fully 

implemented by 2010. 

Control Technique Guidelines. South 

Carolina listed CTGs under federal 

measures implemented in the York 

County Area. See criteria 2(a) of section 

V of this action for more information. 

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 

highway vehicle standards. EPA issued 

this rule in January 2001 (66 FR 5002). 

This rule includes standards limiting 

the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which 

went into effect in 2004. A second phase 

took effect in 2007, which further 

reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur 

content to 15 ppm, leading to additional 

reductions in combustion NOX and VOC 

emissions. This rule is expected to 

achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX

emissions from diesel trucks and buses. 

Nonroad spark-ignition engines and 

recreational engines standards. This 

rule was effective in 2003 and will 

reduce NOX and hydrocarbon 

emissions. 

NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call 

created the NOX Budget Trading 

Program designed to reduce the amount 

of ozone that crosses state lines. By the 

end of 2008, ozone season emissions 

dropped by 62 percent from 2000 at all 

sources subject to the NOX SIP Call 

(EPA, NOX Budget Trading Program: 

2008 Highlights, October 2009, page 3, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/

airmarkets/progress/NBP_4/NBP_2008_

Highlights.pdf). It follows that the bistate Charlotte nonattainment area 

(including the York County Area) 

benefited from these overall reductions, 

since it is part of the larger NOX SIP Call 

area. The NOX Budget Trading Program 

also reduced local emissions. The one 

source subject to the NOX SIP Call in the 

York County Area, AbitibiBowater 

Inc.—Catawba Operations, reduced 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68095 

ozone season NOX emissions from 36 

tons in 2003, the first year of the NOX

Budget Trading Program, to 14 tons in 

2008, the final year of the NOX Budget 

Trading Program. 

EPA has considered the relationship 

of the York County Area’s maintenance 

plan to the reductions currently 

required pursuant to CAIR. Although 

CAIR was remanded to EPA, the remand 

of CAIR does not alter the requirements 

of the NOX SIP Call and the State has 

now demonstrated that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area can maintain without 

any additional requirements (beyond 

those required by the NOX SIP Call). 

Therefore, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

State’s demonstration of maintenance 

under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) 

remains valid based on reductions from 

the NOX SIP Call. 

The NOX SIP Call required states to 

make emissions reductions. It also 

provided a mechanism, the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, that 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 

established another mechanism—the 

CAIR ozone season trading program— 

which states could use to meet their 

NOX 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 have remained in place 

during the remand, 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 NAAQS. Thus, for purposes of 

today’s action, emissions reductions 

associated with the NOX SIP Call are 

‘‘permanent and enforceable.’’ 

All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that 

currently satisfy their obligations under 

the NOX SIP Call; the NOX 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. 

Additionally, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that South Carolina has 

demonstrated that attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be 

maintained in the York County Area 

with or without the implementation of 

CAIR or the Transport Rule. In addition, 

modeling conducted by EPA during the 

Transport Rule rulemaking process also 

demonstrates that the portion of York 

County, South Carolina that is in the 

Charlotte NC–SC ozone nonattainment 

area will have ozone levels below the 

1997 8-hour standard in both 2012 and 

2014 without taking into account 

emissions reductions from CAIR or the 

Transport Rule. See ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document’’, App. B, B–28, B–29. This 

modeling is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. Moreover, in its August 

2012 decision, the Court also ordered 

EPA to continue implementing CAIR. 

See EME Homer Generation LP v. EPA, 

slip op. at 60. In sum, neither the 

current status of CAIR nor the current 

status of the Transport Rule affects any 

of the criteria for proposed approval of 

this redesignation request for the South 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. 

Criteria (4)—The York County Area Has 

a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to section 175A of the CAA 

(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In 

conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the York County Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, SC DHEC 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 has 

interpreted this as a showing of 

maintenance ‘‘for a period of ten years 

following redesignation.’’ (September 4, 

1992 Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, AQMD, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ p. 9) where the 

emissions inventory method of showing 

maintenance is used, its purpose is to 

show that emissions during the 

maintenance period will not increase 

over the attainment year inventory. 

Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9–10. 

As discussed in detail in the section 

below, the State’s maintenance plan 

submission expressly documents that 

the Area’s emissions inventories will 

remain below the attainment year 

inventories through 2022. In addition, 

for the reasons set forth below, EPA 

believes that the State’s submission, in 

conjunction with additional supporting 

information, further demonstrates that 

the Area will continue to maintain the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS at least through 

2023. In summary, as discussed in 

under ‘‘Criteria 3,’’ the reductions that 

have been realized are due to federal, 

state and local control measures that are 

anticipated to remain in place. For 

example, there have been local 

reductions attributable to North 

Carolina’ CSA, the NOX SIP Call, and 

from local plant closures. A review of 

the reductions achieved and the 

projected emissions inventories as seen 

in Tables 2 and 3 below, it is not 

anticipated that emissions in the York 

County Area will significantly increase 

between 2022 and 2023, such that these 

emissions would be above the 2010 

attainment level emissions. For 

example, mobile NOX emissions 

between 2010 and 2022, are estimated to 

be reduced by 63 percent, and it is not 

expected that mobile NO emissions 

between 2022 and 2023 will increase by 

63 percent. Likewise, mobile VOC 

emissions between 2010 and 2022, are 

estimated to be reduced by 45 percent, 

and it is not expected that mobile VOC 

emissions between 2022 and 2023 will 

increase by 45 percent. Thus, if EPA 

finalizes its proposed approval of the 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan in 2013, it is based on a showing, 

in accordance with section 175A, that 

the State’s maintenance plan provides 

for maintenance for at least ten years 

after redesignation. Therefore, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that this maintenance plan meets the 

requirements for approval under section 

175A of the CAA. 

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 must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68096 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

remainder of the 20-year period 

following the initial 10-year period. To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency measures as EPA 

deems necessary to assure prompt 

correction of any future 1997 8-hour 

ozone violations. The Calcagni 

Memorandum provides further guidance 

on the content of a maintenance plan, 

explaining that a 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, EPA 

proposes to find that South Carolina’s 

maintenance plan includes all the 

necessary components and is thus 

proposing to approve it as a revision to 

the South Carolina SIP. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

The bi-state Charlotte Area attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

from 2008–2010. South Carolina 

selected 2010 as the attainment 

emissions inventory year. The 

attainment inventory identifies a level 

of emissions in the Area that is 

sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. South Carolina began 

development of the attainment 

inventory by first generating a baseline 

emissions inventory for the York County 

Area. As noted above, the year 2010 was 

chosen as the base year for developing 

a comprehensive emissions inventory 

for NOX and VOC, for which projected 

emissions could be developed for 2013, 

2016, 2019, and 2022. All large 

permitted sources defined as Inventory 

Type A sources under EPA’s Air 

Emissions Reporting Rule are required 

to report emissions annually and other 

title V sources are required to report 

every three years to SC DHEC. 

Additionally, EPA requires SC DHEC to 

submit this data to the EPA Emissions 

Inventory System (EIS) on the same 

schedule. The latest year available for 

the Inventory Type A point source 

inventory submitted to EPA is 2010. For 

the smaller sources that report 

emissions every three years, the most 

recent emissions inventory available 

(2008) was used as representative of 

2010 emissions. The emissions data 

upon which SC DHEC’s maintenance 

plan is based were from files maintained 

by the SC DHEC. In addition to 

comparing the final year of the plan, 

2022, to the base year, 2010, South 

Carolina compared interim years to the 

baseline to demonstrate that these years 

are also expected to show continued 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As mentioned above, 

emissions inventory levels in 2022 are 

well below the attainment year 

inventory levels, and it is highly 

improbable that they will suddenly 

increase and exceed attainment year 

inventory levels in 2023. 

The emissions inventory is composed 

of four major types of sources: point, 

area, on-road mobile and non-road 

mobile. The emissions inventory was 

projected to future years by utilizing 

EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis 

System (E–GAS) version 5 software. 

There are two major data sources that 

are used as growth indicators in EGAS 

5.0: the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

Annual Energy Outlook and version 6.0 

of state-level economic models from 

Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). 

In general, DOE data are expected to be 

used as growth indicators for fuel 

combustion/production categories, 

while REMI data will be used for all 

other source categories. The complete 

descriptions of how the inventories 

were developed are discussed in the 

appendices of the June 2, 2011, SIP 

revision, which can be found in the 

docket for this action. Non-road mobile 

emissions estimates were based on the 

EPA’s NONROAD2008a non-road 

mobile model, with the exception of the 

railroad locomotives, commercial 

marine, and aircraft engine. These 

emissions are estimated by taking 

activity data, such as landings and 

takeoffs, and multiplying by an EGAS 

5.0 emissions factor. On-road mobile 

source emissions were calculated using 

EPA’s MOVES2010a mobile emission 

factors model. The 2010 NOX and VOC 

emissions for the bi-state Charlotte Area, 

as well as the emissions for other years, 

were developed consistent with EPA 

guidance and are summarized in Tables 

2 through 4 of the following subsection 

discussing the maintenance 

demonstration. 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The June 2, 2011, final SIP revision 

includes a maintenance plan for the 

York County Area. The maintenance 

plan: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard by providing information to 

support the demonstration that current 

and future emissions of NOX and VOC 

remain at or below 2010 emissions 

levels. 

(ii) Uses 2010 as the attainment year 

and includes future emissions inventory 

projections for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022. 

(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, NOX and VOC MVEB were 

established for an interim year (2013) 

and the last year (2022) of the 

maintenance plan (see section VI 

below). 

(iv) Provides actual and projected 

emissions inventories, in tons per day 

(tpd), for the York County Area, as 

shown in Tables 2 through 4 below. 

TABLE 2—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA* 

Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 

Point ........................................................................... 4 .54 4 .64 4 .91 5 .19 5 .48 

Area ............................................................................ 1 .1733 1 .2219 1 .2665 1 .3183 1 .3641 

Nonroad ..................................................................... 3 .209 2 .686 2 .174 1 .817 1 .595 

Mobile ........................................................................ 12 .05 8 .73 6 .52 5 .16 4 .42 

Total .................................................................... 20 .97 17 .28 14 .87 13 .49 12 .86 

* Portion of York County within the nonattainment area. 

TABLE 3—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA* 

Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 

Point ........................................................................... 2 .07 2 .06 2 .2 2 .34 2 .49 

Area ............................................................................ 7 .1645 7 .3870 7 .5672 7 .7027 7 .8311 

Nonroad ..................................................................... 2 .149 1 .776 1 .541 1 .438 1 .407 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68097 

6Conversion factor from kilograms to tons is 

0.0011023. 

TABLE 3—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA*—Continued 

Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 

Mobile ........................................................................ 3 .92 3 .14 2 .61 2 .29 2 .14 

.

Total .................................................................... 15 .30 14 .36 13 .92 13 .77 13 .87 

* Portion of York County within the nonattainment area. 

TABLE 4—EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR

THE YORK COUNTY AREA

Year VOC 

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

2010 .................................. 15.30 20.97 

2013 .................................. 14.36 17.28 

2016 .................................. 13.92 14.87 

2019 .................................. 13.77 13.49 

2022 .................................. 13.87 12.86 

Difference from 2010 to 

2022 .............................. ¥1.43 ¥8.11 

Tables 2 through 4 summarize the 

2010 and future projected emissions of 

NOX and VOC from York County. In 

situations where local emissions are the 

primary contributor to nonattainment, 

the ambient air quality standard should 

not be violated in the future as long as 

emissions from within the 

nonattainment area remain at or below 

the baseline with which attainment was 

achieved. South Carolina has projected 

emissions as described previously and 

determined that emissions in the York 

County Area will remain below those in 

the attainment year inventory for the 

duration of the maintenance plan. 

As discussed in section VI of this 

proposed rulemaking, 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. 

South Carolina selected 2010 as the 

attainment emissions inventory year for 

the York County Area. South Carolina 

calculated safety margins for years 2013 

and 2022 in its submittal for years 2013, 

2016, 2019, and 2022. The State has 

decided to allocate a safety margin to 

the 2013 and 2022 MVEB for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. For the year 2013, the 

NOX safety margin was calculated as 

3,348 kilograms per day (kg/day) 6 and 

for VOC as 853 kg/day. For the year 

2022, the safety margin was calculated 

as 7,357 for kg/day for NOX and 1,297 

kg/day for VOC. The State has decided 

to allocate the full safety margin 

amounts to the MVEB for these years. 

Therefore, no remaining safety margin 

will be available for VOC and NOX for 

the years 2013 and 2022. The MVEB to 

be used for transportation conformity 

proposes is discussed in section VI. This 

allocation and the resulting available 

safety margin for the York County Area 

are discussed further in section VI of 

this proposed rulemaking. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There is currently one monitor 

measuring ozone in York County. 

However, this monitor is not located 

within the nonattainment area 

boundary. The State of South Carolina, 

through SC DHEC, has committed to 

continue operation of the monitor in 

York County in compliance with 40 CFR 

part 58 and have thus addressed the 

requirement for monitoring. EPA 

approved South Carolina’s 2011 

monitoring plan on October 12, 2011. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The State of South Carolina, through 

SC DHEC, has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the York County 

Area. 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. 

South Carolina will continue to 

update its emissions inventory at least 

once every three years. In addition to 

the emissions inventory for 2010, the 

emissions inventory base year, and the 

last year of the maintenance plan, 2022, 

interim years of 2013, 2016 and 2019 

were selected to show a trend analysis 

for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Tracking the progress of 

the maintenance plan also includes 

performing reviews of the updated 

emissions inventories for the area using 

the latest emissions factors, models, and 

methodologies. For these periodic 

inventories, SC DHEC will review the 

assumptions made for the purpose of 

the maintenance demonstration 

concerning projected growth of activity 

levels. In addition, SC DHEC will 

continue to work with local 

stakeholders to maintain the NAAQS as 

required. 

f. Contingency Measures in the 

Maintenance Plan 

The contingency measures 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 June 1, 2011, SIP revision, 

South Carolina 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 portion 

of the maintenance determination was 

further clarified with a July 8, 2011, 

letter. This letter can be found in the 

docket for today’s action using Docket 

ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0327. 

The contingency plan included in 

South Carolina’s June 1, 2011, SIP 

revision includes a triggering 

mechanism to determine when 

contingency measures are needed and a 

process of developing and 

implementing appropriate control 

measures. The State of South Carolina 

will use actual ambient monitoring data 

as the triggering event to determine 

when contingency measures should be 

implemented. 

South Carolina has identified a 

primary trigger as occurring when a 

quality assured/quality controlled (QA/ 

QC) design value exceeds the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS at any monitor in 

the Area. In the event that the trigger is 

activated, SC DHEC will verify the data 

through QA/QC and certification; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68098 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7As stated earlier, there is currently one monitor 

measuring ozone in York County. This monitor is 

not located in the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

analyze the data to verify monitored 

ozone data, meteorology, transport, and 

related activities to determine the 

possible cause of the violation; consult 

with North Carolina Department of Air 

Quality 7 to determine which state will 

implement a contingency measure(s) 

within a time frame specified in the 

respective maintenance plan to bring 

the Area back into attainment; if 

necessary, select a contingency measure 

within three months after verification of 

an exceedance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; and develop and implement 

necessary regulations as soon as 

practicable and within the in guidelines 

established in the South Carolina 

Administrative Procedures Act or no 

more than two years after selection of 

the appropriate measure. South Carolina 

further clarified this statement in the 

July 8, 2011, letter to EPA by defining 

the triggering event as the date of the 

design value violation, and not the final 

QA/QC date, such that appropriate 

measures would be implemented within 

24 months of activating the primary 

trigger. Further, the guidelines set forth 

in the South Carolina Administrative 

Procedures Act state the selection of a 

measure and the development and 

implementation of necessary regulations 

would be expected to be completed 

within 24 months of activating the 

primary trigger. However, if it is 

determined that a longer schedule is 

required to implement specific 

contingency measures, then, upon 

selection of appropriate measures, SC 

DHEC will notify EPA, for approval, of 

the proposed schedule and provide 

sufficient information to demonstrate 

that the proposed measures are a 

prompt correction of the triggering 

event. 

At least one of the following 

contingency measures will be adopted 

and implemented upon a primary 

triggering event: 

• RACT for NOX on existing 

stationary sources not subject to existing 

requirements; 

• Implementation of diesel retrofit 

programs, including incentives for 

performing retrofits for fleet vehicle 

operations; 

• Alternative fuel programs for fleet 

vehicle operations; 

• Gas can and lawnmower 

replacement programs; 

• Voluntary engine idling reduction 

programs; 

• SC DHEC’s Take a Break from the 

Exhaust program; and 

• Other measures deemed appropriate 

at the time as a result of advances in 

control technologies. 

In addition to the trigger indicated 

above, as a secondary trigger South 

Carolina will monitor periodic 

emissions inventory updates and 

compare to actual emissions. As stated 

in the June 1, 2011, SIP revision, and 

further explained in the July 8, 2011, 

clarification letter, if actual emissions 

are greater than 10 percent of the 

projected emissions in the maintenance 

plan, SC DHEC will investigate the 

differences and develop an appropriate 

strategy for addressing the differences. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and a contingency plan. Therefore, the 

maintenance plan SIP revision 

submitted by the State of South Carolina 

for the York County Area meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA, and thus EPA is proposing 

approval of the plan. 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of South 

Carolina’s proposed NOX and VOC 

MVEB for the York County area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

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 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for that NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEB for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a 

MVEB must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. A state 

may adopt MVEB 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 the York 

County Area, South Carolina has 

developed MVEB for NOX and VOC for 

the York County Area. South Carolina is 

developing these MVEB, as required, for 

the last year of its maintenance plan, 

2022. Through the interagency 

consultation process, MVEB were also 

set for the interim year 2013. The MVEB 

reflect the total on-road emissions for 

2013 and 2022, plus an allocation from 

the available NOX and VOC safety 

margin. 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. 

The NOX and VOC MVEB 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 vehicle miles traveled 

and new emission factor models. The 

NOX and VOC MVEB for the York 

County Area are defined in Table 5 

below. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68099 

8This proposed action does not proposed to 

change the Area’s designation for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 5—YORK COUNTY PORTION OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREAX AND VOC MVEB (KG/DAY) 

2013 2022 

NOX Emissions 

Base Emissions ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,924 4,011 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ........................................................................................................................... 3,348 7,357 

NOX Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................................................................ 11,272 11,368 

VOC Emissions 

Base Emissions ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,846 1,939 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ........................................................................................................................... 853 1,297 

VOC Conformity MVEB ........................................................................................................................................... 3,699 3,236 

As mentioned above, South Carolina 

has chosen to allocate a portion of the 

available safety margin to the NOX and 

VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the 

York County Area. This allocation is 

3,348 kg/day and 853 kg/day for NOX

and VOC, respectively for 2013 and 

7,357 kg/day and 1,297 kg/day for NOX

and VOC, respectively for 2022. Thus, 

the remaining safety margins for 2013 

and 2022 are 0 kg/day for NOX and 

VOC. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve the MVEB for NOX

and VOC for 2013 and 2022 for the York 

County Area because EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the Area 

maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with the emissions at the levels 

of the budgets. Once the MVEB for the 

York County Area are approved or 

found adequate (whichever is 

completed first), they must be used for 

future conformity determinations. After 

thorough review, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that the budgets meet the 

adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4), and is proposing to 

approve the budgets because they are 

consistent with maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2022. As 

discussed in section V, EPA is 

proposing that if this approval is 

finalized in 2013, the Area will continue 

to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through at least 2023. 

Consistent with this proposal, EPA is 

proposing to approve the MVEB 

submitted by the State in its June 1, 

2011, maintenance plan for the York 

County Area. EPA is proposing that the 

submitted MVEB are consistent with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2023. 

VII. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 

proposed NOX and VOC MVEB for 2013 

and 2022 for the York County area? 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEB, 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 a 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 

determination. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

MVEB for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ 

EPA adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process 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 transportation conformity 

purposes 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, South Carolina’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

NOx and VOC MVEB for the York 

County Area for 2013, an interim year 

of the maintenance plan, and 2022, the 

last year of the maintenance plan. EPA 

reviewed the NOx and VOC MVEB 

through the adequacy process. The 

South Carolina SIP submission, 

including the bi-state Charlotte Area 

NOx and VOC MVEB, was open for 

public comment on EPA’s adequacy 

Web site on October 28, 2011, found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy for the MVEB for 2013 and 

2022 for the York County Area closed 

on November 28, 2011. No comments, 

adverse or otherwise, were received 

during EPA’s adequacy process for the 

MVEB associated with South Carolina’s 

1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. 

The 2013 and 2022 NOx and VOC 

MVEB must be used for future 

transportation conformity 

determinations. For required regional 

emissions analysis years that involve 

2013 through 2021, the applicable 2013 

MVEB will be used and for 2022 and 

beyond, the applicable budgets will be 

the 2022 MVEB established in the 

maintenance plan, as defined in section 

VI of this proposed rulemaking. 

VIII. 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 South 

Carolina’s redesignation request would 

change the legal designation of the 

designated portion of York County in 

South Carolina (including the Catawba 

Indian Nation reservation lands) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment.8 Approval of South 

Carolina’s request would also 

incorporate a plan for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the York 

County Area through 2022 into the 

South Carolina SIP. This maintenance 

plan includes contingency measures to 

remedy any future violations of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures 

for evaluation of potential violations. 

The maintenance plan also establishes 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
68100 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

NOx and VOC MVEB for the York 

County Area. The NOx MVEB for 2013 

and 2022 for the York County Area are 

11,272 kg/day and 11,368 kg/day, 

respectively. The VOC MVEB for 2013 

and 2022 for the York County Area are 

3,699 kg/day and 3,236 kg/day, 

respectively. Additionally, EPA is 

notifying the public of the status of 

EPA’s adequacy determination for the 

newly-established NOx and VOC MVEB 

for 2013 and 2022 for the York County 

Area, and is notifying the public that the 

2022 MVEB are consistent with 

maintenance in the Area through 2023 

as well. 

IX. Proposed Actions on the 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions 

Including Approval of the NOx and 

VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the 

York County Area 

EPA previously determined that the 

entire bi-state Charlotte Area (including 

the portion of York County that is a part 

of this Area) was attaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS on November 15, 

2011, at 76 FR 70656. EPA is now 

proposing to take two separate but 

related actions regarding the York 

County Area’s redesignation and 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

First, EPA is proposing to determine, 

based on complete, quality-assured and 

certified monitoring data for the 2009– 

2011 monitoring period that the entire 

bi-state Charlotte Area (including the 

portion of York County that is a part of 

this Area) is attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

determine that South Carolina has met 

the criteria under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) for the York County Area 

for redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

redesignation request for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the York County 

Area. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

the maintenance plan for the York 

County Area, including the NOx and 

VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022, into the 

South Carolina SIP (under CAA section 

175A). The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and the budgets meet all 

of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as 

part of today’s action, EPA is describing 

the status of its adequacy determination 

for the NOx and VOC MVEB for 2013 

and 2022 in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1). On September 24, 2012, at 

77 FR 58829, EPA announced the 

adequacy of the MVEB would take effect 

on October 9, 2012. Within 24 months 

from this effective date, the 

transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOx

and VOC MVEB pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). 

As discussed in section V, EPA is 

proposing that if this approval is 

finalized in 2013 the area will continue 

to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through at least 2023. 

Consistent with this proposal, EPA is 

proposing to approve the MVEB 

submitted by the State in its June 1, 

2011, maintenance plan for the York 

County Area. EPA is proposing that the 

submitted MVEB are consistent with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2023. 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the 

nonattainment portion of York County 

(including the Catawba Indian Nation 

reservation lands) in the Area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

this reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

action[s]’’ subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are 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.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are 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 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the redesignation for the 

York County Area does have Tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because it may have substantial 

direct effects on the Catawba Indian 

Nation as the Tribe’s reservation lands 

are within the York County Area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As such, 

today’s proposal to redesignate the York 

County Area to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS includes the 

Catawba Indian Nation reservation 

lands. Accordingly, EPA and the 

Catawba Indian Nation consulted on 

this redesignation prior to today’s 

proposed action. EPA’s consultation on 

this and other ozone SIP matters for the 

York County Area with the Catawba 

Indian Nation commenced on October 

14, 2011, and concluded on October 31, 

2012. EPA further notes that today’s 

action is not anticipated to impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules 68101 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: November 6, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27807 Filed 11–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with