Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 75859 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established in accordance with 

FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), 

such as the tolerances in this final rule, 

do not require the issuance of a 

proposed rule, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VIII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 12, 2012. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.641, add alphabetically the 

following new entry to the table in 

paragraph (b). 

§ 180.641 Spirotetramat; tolerances for 

residues. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration 

date 

* * * * * 

Watercress .... 1.5 12/31/15 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–30854 Filed 12–21–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0750; FRL–9373–5] 

Pyraflufen-Ethyl; Extension of TimeLimited Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation extends 

already established time-limited 

tolerances for residues of pyraflufenethyl in or on cattle, meat byproducts; 

goat, meat byproducts; horse, meat 

byproducts; sheep, meat byproducts; 

and milk. Nichino America, Inc. 

requested the tolerance extensions 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 26, 2012. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 25, 2013, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0750, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Montague, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 305–1243; email address: 

montague.kathryn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75860 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ 

textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the 

OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this 

document electronically, please go to 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select 

‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2012–0750 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before February 25, 2013. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0750, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance Extension 

In the Federal Register of September 

28, 2012 (77 FR 59576) (FRL–9363–8), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 2F8075 by 

Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New 

Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, 

Wilmington, DE 19808. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.585 be 

amended by extending the expiration 

date for temporary tolerances for 

residues of the herbicide, pyraflufenethyl, pyraflufen-ethyl, ethyl 2-chloro-5- 

(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4- 

fluorophenoxyacetate and its acid 

metabolite, E-1, 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5- 

difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid, in or 

on: Cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat 

byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; 

sheep, meat byproducts; and milk until 

December 31, 2016. That document 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by Nichino America, Inc., the 

registrant, which is available to the 

public in the docket, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments were 

received on the notice of filing. EPA’s 

response to those comments is 

discussed in Unit IV.C. These tolerances 

expire on December 31, 2016. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue.* * *’’ 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has 

reviewed the available scientific data 

and other relevant information in 

support of this action. EPA has 

sufficient data to assess the hazards of 

and to make a determination on 

aggregate exposure for pyraflufen-ethyl 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with pyraflufen-ethyl 

follows. 

In 2008, the EPA assessed the use of 

pyraflufen-ethyl on pasture and 

rangeland grasses. The existing cattle 

feeding study conducted at the 5X dose 

was sufficient to establish tolerances for 

cattle, goat, horse, and sheep meat 

byproducts and milk; however, since 

the OPPTS 860.1480 guidelines require 

that the cattle feeding study be 

conducted at a 10X dose, the Agency set 

time-limited tolerances (Federal 

Register of September 5, 2008 (73 FR 

51739) until a new feeding study at the 

10X dose could be submitted for 

permanent tolerances to be established. 

In the most recent pyraflufen-ethyl 

tolerance rulemaking, 76 FR 31479 (June 

1, 2011) EPA assessed risk of aggregate 

exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl assuming 

that exposure occurred in animal meat 

byproducts and milk at the levels of the 

established time-limited tolerances. In 

that action, EPA determined that 

aggregate risk from exposure was safe. 

The dietary exposure estimates assumed 

100 percent crop treated, so EPA is 

confident that aggregate dietary 

exposure is not underestimated and 

concludes that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result to the 

general population, and to infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

pyraflufen-ethyl residues. This action to 

extend time-limited tolerances for 

animal meat byproducts and milk relies 

on the assessments supporting the June 

1, 2011 rulemaking. These assessments 

are posted to docket ID, EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2010–0426 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(Gas Chromatography with Mass 

Spectrometry (GC/MS)) is available to 

enforce the tolerance expression. 

The method may be requested from: 

Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 

Environmental Science Center, 701 

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 

telephone number: (410) 305–2905; 

email address: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 75861 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. The Codex has not 

established a MRL for pyraflufen-ethyl. 

C. Response to Comments 

EPA received one comment to the 

Notice of Filing that made a general 

objection to establishing and/or 

extending tolerances for pesticides. The 

Agency recognizes that some 

individuals believe that certain 

pesticide chemicals should not be 

permitted in our food. However, the 

existing legal framework provided by 

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that 

tolerances may be set when persons 

seeking such tolerances or exemptions 

have demonstrated that the pesticide 

meets the safety standard imposed by 

that statute. When new or amended 

tolerances are requested for residues of 

a pesticide in food or feed, the Agency, 

as is required by section 408 of the 

FFDCA, estimates the risk of the 

potential exposure to these residues. 

The Agency has concluded after this 

assessment, that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate human exposure to 

pyraflufen-ethyl and that, accordingly, 

the pyraflufen-ethyl temporary 

tolerances for cattle, goat, horse and 

sheep meat byproducts, and milk are 

‘‘safe’’ and can be extended. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, time-limited tolerances are 

extended to December 31, 2016 for 

residues of pyraflufen-ethyl, pyraflufenethyl, ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5- 

difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetate and its 

acid metabolite, E-1, 2-chloro-5-(4- 

chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1Hpyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic 

acid, in or on: Cattle, meat byproducts; 

goat, meat byproducts; horse, meat 

byproducts; sheep, meat byproducts; 

and milk. A time limitation has been 

imposed until a cattle feeding study at 

the 10X dose is found acceptable to 

support permanent tolerances. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). Since tolerances and exemptions 

that are established on the basis of a 

petition under FFDCA section 408(d), 

such as the tolerance in this final rule, 

do not require the issuance of a 

proposed rule, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 17, 2012. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.585, revise the following 

entries in the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.585 Pyraflufen-ethyl; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

Revocation 

date 

* * * * * 

Cattle, meat byproducts ......... 0.02 12/31/16 

* * * * * 

Goat, meat byproducts ......... 0.02 12/31/16 

* * * * * 

Horse, meat byproducts ......... 0.02 12/31/16 

Milk .................... 0.02 12/31/16 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75862 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1On March 7, 2012, at 77 FR 13493, EPA 

determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2011, and that the Area 

was continuing to attain the ozone standard with 

monitoring data that was currently available. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

Revocation 

date 

* * * * * 

Sheep, meat byproducts ......... 0.02 12/31/16 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–31067 Filed 12–21–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0327; FRL–9763–8] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a request submitted on June 1, 

2011, from the State of South Carolina, 

through the South Carolina Department 

of Health and Environmental Control 

(SC DHEC), to redesignate the portion of 

York County, South Carolina that is 

within the bi-state Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, North Carolina-South 

Carolina 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). The bi-state 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 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the York 

County Area’’). EPA’s approval of the 

redesignation request is based on the 

determination that South Carolina has 

met the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment set forth in the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). Additionally, EPA is 

approving a revision to the South 

Carolina State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to include the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the York County 

Area that contains the new 2013 and 

2022 motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) for 

the years 2013 and 2022. 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. EPA did not receive 

comments on the November 15, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective on December 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0327. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

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 is the background for the actions? 

II. What are the actions EPA is taking? 

III. Why is EPA taking these actions? 

IV. What are the effects of these actions? 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for the 

actions? 

On June 1, 2011, South Carolina made 

a submission to EPA requesting 

redesignation of the York County Area 

to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and approval of the South 

Carolina SIP revision containing a 

maintenance plan for the York County 

Area. In an action published on 

November 15, 2012 (77 FR 68087), EPA 

proposed approval of South Carolina’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the NOx and VOC 

MVEBs for the York County Area as 

contained in the maintenance plan. At 

that time, EPA also proposed to approve 

the redesignation of the York County 

Area to attainment.1 Additional 

background for today’s action is set 

forth in EPA’s November 15, 2012, 

proposal. 

The MVEBs, specified in kilograms 

per day (kg/day), included in the 

maintenance plan are as follows: 

TABLE 1—YORK COUNTY PORTION OF

THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

NOX 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 

In its November 15, 2012, proposed 

action, EPA noted that the adequacy 

public comment period on these MVEBs 

(as contained in South Carolina’s 

submittal) began on October 28, 2011, 

and closed on November 28, 2011. No 

comments were received during the 

public comment period. 

As stated in the November 15, 2012, 

proposal, this redesignation addresses 

the York County Area’s status solely 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, for which designations were 

finalized on April 30, 2004. See 69 FR 

23857. Effective July 20, 2012, EPA 

designated a portion of York County 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with