*,w=4+* 3 

### 24%:: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGtON 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET -r

% ppR&% ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 May 25,2012

Robert 

### W. King Jr., 

### P.E. Deputy Commissioner Environmental Quality Control South Carolina Department ofHealth

and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Dear Mr. King: Thank you for the May 10,2010, supplement to the August 3 1,2007,reasonable further progress 

### (RFP) plan submittal portion ofthe South Carolina bi-state 

### 1997 8-hr ozone area. The bi-state Charlotte I997 8-hour ozone area iscomprised of Charlotte-Gastonia 

### and Rock Hill (York County) South Carolina. The South Carolina portion ofthe Rock-Hill area 

### is comprised of a portion of York County. This RFP supplement includedthe required motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) meeting the Clean Air Act requirements for reasonable further progress.
Pursuant to section.93.118(e)(4) of the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 

### 93, Subpart A), the 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed South Carolina's RFP plan and supplemental information for the

### MVEB for the York County portion of the Charlotte bi-state area. This MVEB was developed with MOBILE 

### 6.2 emission factor model. 

### We have determined that this 

### MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

# '

South Carolina's 1997 8-hour ozone 

### RFP for the South Carolina portion of the Charlotte bi-state area has a MVEB for 

### VOC for 2008. This MVEB, presented 

### in the table below, is only for a partial area of York County, South Carolina.
York 

### County, South Carolina 8-hr Ozone VOC 

### MVEB York County (partial area) 

### MVEB

This MVEB meets the standard requirement that any MVEB must meet before it can be used to determine conformity for a transportation improvement program or long range transportation plan. This adequacy finding does not relate to the merits of the state implementation plan submittal nor does it indicate whether the submittal meets the requirements for approval. 

### VOC

On May 2, 2012, the EPA sent a letter regarding adequacy for this MVEB. In the EPA's May 2, 2012, letter, the EPA inadvertently referred to MVEB submitted for other purposes as opposed to the RFP MVEB. This letter corrects that inadvertent error, and replaces EPA's May 2, 2012, letter. InternetAddress (URL) http:l/www.epa.gov RecycledlRecyclable .Printed with Vegelable OilBased Inkson ReqdedPaper(Miomurn 30% POSICO~SU~~I~~) 

### 2008 6.053 tons per dav 

### 2008 5,493 kilograms per day

### The EPA opened a commentperiod onthe adequacy of the 

### VOC 

### MVEB contained inthe original York County, South Carolina 

### RFPplan and supplemental 

### SIP submission by posting it onour website on May 1

### 3,2010 (see htt~://epa.gov/ota~/stateresources/transconf/ade~m). The comment period closed onJune 14'2010. Comments were received during the EPA's adequacy comment period from the Southern Environmental Law Center. Responses to these comments will be posted at http://eva.

### g;ov/otaqlstateresources/transconf/vastsips.htm.
More infomationon SIPSand adequacy reviews is available on the EPA web site. 

### The EPA will soon publish a notice 

### in the Federal Register announcing this adequacy finding. The Federal Register 

### will also announce the date that the adequacy finding becomes effective. The 2008 

### VOC 

### MVEB will be available for use on the effective date. Sincerely, 

### I

Beverly 

### H. Banister V 

### Director Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division