1 

### Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC

Area Designations f or the
20 08 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard s

The table below identifies the areas in North Carolina and South Carolina that EPA has designated as

“nonattainment” for the 2008 ozone national ambie nt air quality standards (2008 ozone NAAQS) as part
of the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC area . In accordance with section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA must designate an area (county or part of a county) “nonattainment” if it is violating the 2008 ozone

N AAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a nearby area. The technical analyses supporting the boundaries for this nonattainment area is provided below

.

Table 1: Final Nonattainment Area for the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC A rea

Area State Recommended Nonattainment

Counties EPA’s Final Designated

Nonattainment Counties

Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC * North Carolina: Cabarrus (partial) ** Gaston (partial) ** Iredell (partial) **

Lincoln (partial) ** Mecklenburg County

Rowan (pa rtial) **

Union (partial) ** North Carolina: Cabarrus (partial) ** Gaston (partial) ** Iredell (partial) **

Lincoln (partial) ** Mecklenburg County

Rowan (partial) **

Union (partial) **

South Carolina: None South Carolina: York (partial) 1

* Charlotte

- Rock H ill , NC

- SC is a multi

- state nonattainment area.

** Recommended /designated along township boundaries. Specifically, North Carolina recommended that the nonattainment designations be defined as the following: Cabarrus County (part)

- Central

Cabarrus Tow nship

, Georgeville Township

, Harrisburg Township

, Kannapolis Township

, Midland Township

, Mount Pleasant Township

, New Gilead Township

, Odell Township

, Poplar Tent Township

, and Rimertown Township ; Gaston County (part)

- Crowders Mountain Township

, Dallas T ownship

, Gastonia Township

, Riverbend Township

, and South Point Township ; Iredell County (part)

- Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township ; Lincoln County (part)

- Catawba Springs Township

, Ironton Township

, and Lincolnton Township ; Rowan County (part)

- Atwell Township

, China Grove Township

, Franklin Township

, Litaker Township

, Locke Township

, Providence Township

, Salisbury Township

, Steele Township

, and Unity Township ; Union County (part)

- Goose Creek Township

, Marshville Township

, Monroe Township

, Sa ndy Ridge Township

, and Vance Township

.

EPA designated the remaining counties in North Carolina and South Carolina that are not listed in the

table above as “ unclassifiable/ attainment ” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, the Indian country

of the Cata wba Indian Nation is being designated as a separate “unclassifiable/attainment” area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 2 The Catawba Indian Nation recommended designation of a separate

1 Unless otherwise noted, throughout this document the reference to York County or a por tion of York County is meant to exclude the consideration of Indian County associated with the Catawba Indian Nation.

2 The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the bi

- state Charlotte nonattainment

area. Genera lly air quality State Implementation Plans (SIPs) do not apply in Indian country throughout the United States. However, for purposes of the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the South Carolina SIP does apply within the

Reservation area of Ind ian country . Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27

- 16

- 120, “ all2 unclassifiable/attainment area through their response to the EPA’s 120

- day lette r which was released on December 9, 2011

. More information about EPA’s decision

- making with respect to the Indian County

associated with the Catawba Indian Nation can be found in “ Appendix to the Charlotte

- Rock Hill Technical Support Document

– Catawba In dian Nation .”

The analysis below provides the basis for the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area boundar y

. It relies on EPA’s analysis of whether and which monitors are violating the 20 08 o zone NAAQS

, based

on certified air quality monitoring dat a from 200 9

- 201 1, and an evaluation of whether nearby areas are contributing to such violations. EPA has evaluated contribution s from nearby areas based on a weight of evidence analysis considering the factors identified below.

EPA issued guidance on De cember 4, 2008 that identified these factors as ones EPA would consider in determining nonattainment area boundaries and recommended that states consider these factors in making their designations recommendations to EPA. 3

1. Air quality data (including the design value calculated for each Federal Reference Method or Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors in the area);

2. Emissions and emissions

- related data (including location of sources and population, amount of emissions and emissions controls, and urban growth patterns);

3. Meteorology (weather/transport patterns);

4. Geography and topography (mountain ranges or other basin boundaries);

5. Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties , air districts, existing nonattainment areas, Indian
country , metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs))

Ground

- level ozone generally is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight.

Because NOx and VOC emissions from a broad range of sources over a wide area typically contribute to

violations of the ozone NAAQS , EPA believes it is important to consider whether there are contributing emissions from a broad geographic area. Accordingly, EPA chose to examine the 5 f actors with respect to the larger of the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) or Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) associated with the violating monitor(s). 4 All data and information used by EPA in this evaluation are the latest

available to EPA.

In EPA’s des ignations guidance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS

, EPA recommended examining

CSA/CBSA s because certain factors used to establish CSAs and CBSAs are similar to the factors EPA is using in this technical analysis to determine if a nearby area is contributing to a violation of the 20 08 ozone NAAQS. Congress required a similar approach in 1990 for areas classified as serious or above for

the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS and EPA used the same basic approach in the designation process for the

1997 o zone NAAQS. Where a violating monitor is not located in a CSA or C BS A, EPA ’s guidance recommended using the boundary of the county containing the violating monitor as the starting point for considering the nonattainment area’s boundary.

state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and lo cal agencies and authorities. ”

3 The December 4, 2008 guidance memorandum “Area Designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” refers to 9 factors. In this technical support document we have grouped the emissions

- related f actors together under the heading of “Emissions and Emissions

- Related Data

, ” which results in 5 categories of factors.

4 Lists of CBSAs and CSAs and their geographic components are provided at www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metrodef.html . The lists are periodically updated by the Office of Management and Budget. EPA used the most recent update, based on 2008 population estimates, issued on December 1, 2009 (OMB Bulletin No. 10

- 02).3 Technical Analysis for Charlotte

- Rock Hill , NC

- SC

Figure 1 is a map of the Charlotte

- Rock Hill , NC

- SC n onattainment area . The map provides other relevant information including the locations and design values of air quality monitors, county and other jurisdictional boundaries, the CSA boundary, and na tional highways.

For purposes of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, EPA designated the entire counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union Counties, in their entireties, and a portion of Iredell County in North Carolina; and a portion of York County (including Indian Country) , in South Carolina.

In March 2009

, North Carolina recommended that the counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union, and a portion of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) be designated as “nonattainment” for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality data from 2006

- 2008

. Additionally, in March 2009, South Carolina recommended that the portion of York County encompassed by the boundaries of the Rock Hill

- Fort Mill Area Transportati on Study (RFATS) MPO and the contiguous area encompassing the York ozone monitoring station (45

- 091

- 0006) be designated

as “nonattainment” for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality data from 2006

- 2008. The

Catawba Indian Nation did not submit a recommendation at that time.

In October 2011, North Carolina submitted an update to their 2009 recommendation and did not make revisions to their previous recommendation. Additionally, i n October 2011, South Carolina submitted

an amendment to their 2009 recommendation, and based on preliminary air quality data from 2009

-4 2011

, revised their recommendation to “attainment” designations for each county in the State, including York County, for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS

. These data are from F E M monitors sit ed and operated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58. ( Letter s from Dee Freeman, North Carolina Environmental Secretary to A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator

- EPA Region 4 and Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator

- EPA Region 4 regardi ng the initial and updated nonattainment boundary recommendations for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for North Carolina (October 28, 2011 and March 12, 2009, respectively); Letter from Mark Sanford, South Carolina Governor to A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Region al Administrator

- EPA Region 4 regarding initial nonattainment boundary recommendations for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for South Carolina (March 12, 2009); Letter from Robert W. King, Jr., Deputy Commissioner of the South Carolina Environmental Quality Con trol to Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator

- EPA Region 4 regarding updated nonattainment boundary recommendations for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS for South Carolina (October 11, 2011)).

On December 9, 2011, EPA initiated the 120 day consulta tion process by notifying the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, and the Catawba Indian Nation that based on EPA’s technical analysis of

the 13

- county Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA, EPA intend ed to designate six whole counties and one partial county in North Carolina; one partial county in South Carolina and Indian C ountry (associated with the Catawba Indian Nation) in South Carolina (identified in Table 2 below) as “nonattainment” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area. In this

December 2011 letter, EPA also requested that if the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, and

the Catawba Indian Nation wished to provide comments on EPA’s intended designation or to use early

certified data for des ignation, they should provide comments or early certify by February 29, 2012.

Table 2 . State's Recommended

, Tribe’s Recommended and EPA’s Intended Designated Nonattainment

Counties for Charlotte

- Rock Hill , NC

- SC from December 9 , 2011

Charlotte

- Rock Hill

, NC

- SC Stat e

- or Tribe

- Recommended

Nonattainment Counties and Areas of Indian Country EPA Intended

Nonattainment Counties and Areas of Indian Country ^

Catawba Indian Nation None Catawba Indian Nation

North Carolina Cabarrus

Gaston

Iredell (partial)

Lincoln Mecklenburg

Rowan
Union Cabarrus

Gaston Iredell (partial)
Lincoln Mecklenburg

Rowan
Union

South Carolina None York (partial)

^ bold italics represent areas that were modified in the final boundary determination for the Charlotte

Rock Hill , NC

- SC nonattainment area.

The Catawba Indian Nation, and the States of North Carolina and South Carolina all submitted additional information to support their designation and boundary recommendations. In summary, on February 29, 2012, the Catawba Indian Na tion provided a recommendation of

“attainment /unclassifiable ” for the area of Indian country and submitted technical information to support

the t ribe’s recommendation of attainment. North Carolina provided certified 2009

- 2011 monitoring

data

, and revised its previous boundary recommendation to reduce the boundaries for the nonattainment5 area from whole counties to partial counties for Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan and Union counties. North Carolina’s recommended boundary for Mecklenburg County , and a p ortion of Iredell County was consistent with its previous recommendation

. North Carolina provided additional technical analysis to support this recommendation . The State of South Carolina provided recommendations based on

certified 2009

- 2011 monitoring d ata, along with additional technical information, and maintained the

State ’ s recommendation that York County in its entirety be designated attainment.

EPA originally started with the CSA or CBSA areas for evaluating what areas violate and contribute to violations of the ozone NAAQS , and for final determinations refined its evaluation based on additional technical information provided by the states and tribes. After considering the recommendation s and

additional technical information for the Catawba Indi an N ation, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and

based on EPA's reevaluation of the eight counties and Indian Country as described below, EPA designated Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan, and Un ion Counties in North Carolina, and a portion of York County (excluding the Indian

C ountry associated with the Catawba Indian Nation ) in South Carolina as “nonattainment” for the 2008

oz one NAAQS as part of the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area

. More information about

EPA’s decision

- making with respect to Indian Count r y associated with the Catawba Indian Nation can be found in “Appendix to the Charlotte

- Rock Hill Technical Support Document

– Catawba Indian

Nation.”

Factor Assessment



### Factor 1: Air Quality Data

For this factor

, EPA considered 8

- hour o zone design values (in parts per billion (ppb) ) for air quality

monitors in counties in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury, NC

- SC CSA, based on data for the 200 9

- 201 1 period (i.e., the 201 1 desig n value ) , which are the most recent years with fully

- certified air quality data

. It should be noted that for EPA’s December 9, 2011 technical analysis EPA only had certified monitoring data for the 2008

- 2010 period for the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury , NC

- SC CSA to

consider. While the updated 2009

- 2011 monitoring data for the Area indicated a decline in levels

overall from the 2008

- 2010 monitoring data , the 2009

- 2011 monitor data also indicated the violating

monitors are in the same counties that contained violating monitors when EPA considered for the development of the preliminary boundary determination for the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC

nonattainment area.

A monitor’s design value is the metric or statistic that indicates whether that monitor attains a specified air quality standard. The 2008 o zone NAAQS are met at a monitor when the annual f ourth

- highest daily

maximum 8

- hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 75 ppb or less

. A design value is only valid if minimum data completeness crit eria are met. See 40 CFR part 50 App endix P . Where several monitors are located in a county (or a designated nonattainment area or maintenance area ), the design

value for the county or area is determined by the monitor with the highest level.

The 201 1 d esign values for the o zone NAAQS for counties in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury, NC

- SC

CSA and nearby surrounding area are shown in Table 3

. (Counties not identified do not have monitors

. )

Table 3 . Air Quality Data. ^6 County State Recommended

Nonatt ainment? 200 9

- 201 1 Design Value (ppb) Mecklenburg, NC Yes 79 Lincoln, NC Yes 7 1 Rowan, NC Yes 7 6 Union, NC Yes 7 0 York, SC No 6 4

^ Bolded counties are those violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

Based on 2009

- 2011 monitoring data, Mecklenburg and Rowan Co unties in North Carolina show violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, therefore Mecklenburg County, in its entirety, and a portion of Rowan County (including the area where the violating monitor is located) is included in the Charlotte

Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonatta inment area.

A county (or partial county) must also be designated nonattainment if it contributes to a violation in a nearby area. Each county without a violating monitor that is located near a county with a violating

monitor has been evaluated , as dis cussed below, based on the five factors to determine whether it contributes to the nearby violation

.



### Factor 2: Emissions and Emissions

- Related Data

EPA evaluated emissions of ozone precursors (i.e., NO x and VOC emissions) and other emissions

related d ata that provide information on areas contributing to violating monitors.

Emissions Data

EPA evaluated county

- level emission data for NO x and VOC derived from the 200 8 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), version 1.5

. This is the most recently available N EI. (See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html ) Significant emissions levels in a nearby area indicate the potential for the area to contribute to observed violations. EPA als o consider ed any additional information the Agency receive d on changes to emissions levels that are not reflected in

recent inventories.7 As mentioned above, EPA received additional information from the States of North Carolina, South

Carolina and the Cat awba Indian Nation for the preliminary boundary determination for the Charlotte

Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area, and this information was considered for this final designations. While more refined information was provided in some cases for meteorolog y (and is discussed below), and population and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) to account for a partial county emissions (also discussed below), no information was provided specifically to indicate that the overall emissions data used by EPA from the 2008 NE I was inaccurate. EPA notes that the Agency determined it was appropriate to consider full county emissions for Iredell County in North Carolina and York County in

South Carolina for the EPA’s initial determination in December 2011 for consideration of th ese counties as part of the CSA in this Area because the CSA (and not the previous nonattainment boundary) was the Agency’s analytical starting point for the 2008 8

- hour ozone designations. Iredell and York Counties in their entireties (i.e., not just the partial counties that are currently included in the 1997 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area) are within the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA and thus were fully considered.

The precursor emission source

- category percentages used below and throughout the document were

derived from emissions data from the 2008 NEI version 1.5 referenced above. EPA considered the refined information for partial county emissions to determine the appropriateness of a partial county boundary for these and the other counties in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA for the final designations. Table 4 shows emissions of NO x and VOC (given in tons per year (tpy) ) for violating and nearby counties that EPA considered for inclusion in the Charlotte

- Rock Hill , NC

- SC area.

Table 4

. Total 2008 NO x and VOC Emissions. ^

County State Recommended

Nonattainment? NOx (tpy) VOC (tpy)

Anson, NC No 1,241 1,123 Cabarrus, NC Yes 5,361 9,074 Chester, SC No 2,652 1,780 Cleveland, NC No 3,393 4,799 Gaston, NC Yes 13,002 7,326 Iredell, NC Yes (partial) 10,261 10,815 Lancaster, SC No 1,626 2,744 Lincoln, NC Yes 2,097 3,320 Mecklenburg, NC Yes 27,275 33,412 Rowan, NC Yes 7,117 9,834 Stanly, NC No 1,935 2,986 Union, NC Yes 5,190 7,748 York, SC No 7,031 11,840

Areawide: 88,179 106,802

^ Bolded counties (or portions thereof) that are being included in the nonattainment area.

NOx Emissions: The Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA profile reveals that mobile emissions comprise 55 percent of the total NOx in this Area, and th at area sources comprise nine percent. The total of both

mobile and area sources comprises 64 percent of the total NOx emissions in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

Salisbury CSA

. Mecklenburg, Gaston, Iredell, Rowan, and York C ounties have the largest amounts of

tot al NO x emissions in the CSA with 31 percent , 15 percent , 12 percent , and 8 percent (for both Rowan

and York Counties each) respectively. The highest percentage of NO x emissions in the CSA come from mobile emissions. The percent mobile emissions from the f ollowing counties within the CSA are as

follows: Mecklenburg County

– 19 percent , Iredell County

– 8 percent

, Rowan County

– 8 percent and8 York County

– 4 percent. For Gaston County

, the highest percentage of NOx emission s within the CSA

is from point sou rces , with 9 percent of their total NOx emissions

.

VOC Emissions: The Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA profile reveals that mobile emissions comprise 42 percent of the total VOC emissions in this Area

, and that area sources comprise 38 percent

for the t otal VOC emissions in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA . The total of both mobile and area sources makes up 80 percent of the total VOC emissions in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury Area. EPA notes that while VOC emissions were considered in the analysi s for the A rea, EPA also acknowledges the study that was submitted by North Carolina during the 120

- day consultation period that indicates that VOC emissions are not the primary driver for ozone formation in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury

CSA. Mecklenbu rg, York, Iredell, Rowan, and Cabarrus C ounties have the largest amounts of total

VOC emissions in the CSA with 31 percent , 11 percent , 10 percent , 9 percent , and 8 percent

, respectively. The highest percentage of VOC emissions within the CSA for Mecklenb urg County is

from a rea sources with 14 percent of their total VOC emissions. The highest percentage of VOC

emissions within the CSA for Iredell, Cabarrus, and Rowan Counties is from mobile sources with 6 percent for Iredell County and 5 percent for both C abarrus and Rowan Counties . Mecklenburg County’s

VOC emissions for mobile sources comprise 13 percent of the CSA

. York C ounty emissions are primarily from mobile and area sources

.

North Carolina provided additional information showing that th e townships i n the portions of the following Counties: Cabarrus (i.e., Gold Hill Township); Gaston (Cherryville Township); Iredell ( Barringer, Bethany, Chambersburg, Concord, Cool Springs, Eagle Mills, Fallstown, New Hope, Olin, Sharpesburg, Shiloh, Statesville, Turne rsburg, and Union Grove Townships ); Lincoln (Howards Creek and North Brook Townships); Rowan (Cleveland, Morgan, Mount Ulla, and Scotch Irish Townships) and Union (Buford, Jackson, Lanes Creek and New Salem Townships) did not contain point sources or

conta ined point source emissions below 100 tpy for NOx. The State also provided information that these same townships, with the exception of Cleveland Township, did not contain point sources or contained point source emissions below 100 tpy for VOC. Cleveland Township in Rowan County contains one point source that emits 211 tpy of VOC emissions.

Population density and degree of urbanization

EPA evaluated the population and vehicle use characteristics and trends of the A rea as indicators of the probable lo cation and magnitude of non

- point source emissions . These include ozone precursor emissions from on

- road and off

- road vehicles and engines, consumer products, residential fuel combustion, and consumer services. Areas of dense population or commercial dev elopment are an indicator of area source and mobile source NOx and VOC emissions that may contribute to ozone formation. Rapid population or VMT growth (see below) in a county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integration with the core urban are a, and indicates that it may be appropriate to include the

area associated with the area source and mobile source emissions as part of the nonattainment area.

Table 5 shows the population, population density, and population growth information for Charlotte

Gastonia

- Salisbury, NC

- SC CSA that EPA considered for inclusion in the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC

area.9 Table 5 . Population and Growth. ^

County State

Recommended

Nonattainment? 2010 Population 2010 Population

Density (1000 pop/sq mi) Absolute

chan ge in population (2000

- 2010) Population % change

(2000

- 2010)
Anson, NC No 26,948 0.05 1,637 +6% Cabarrus, NC Yes 178,011 0.49 45,793 +35%
Chester, SC No 33,140 0.06 (968)

- 3%
Cleveland, NC No 98,078 0.21 1,607 +2%
Gaston, NC Yes 206,086 0.57 15,310 +8%
Iredell, NC Yes (partial) 159,437 0.27 35,828 +29%
Lancaster, SC No 76,652 0.14 15,259 +25%
Lincoln, NC Yes 78,265 0.25 14,176 +22% Mecklenburg,
NC Yes 919,628 1.67 218,914 +31%
Rowan, NC Yes 138,428 0.26 7,753 +6% Stanly, NC No 60,585 0.15 2,339 +4%
Union, NC Yes 201,292 0.31 75,733 +60%
York, SC No 226,073 0.32 60,368 +36%

Areawide: 2,402,623 0.36 493,749 +26%

^ Bolded counties (or portions thereof) that are being included in the nonattainment area.

Source s : U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for 20 10 as of August 4, 2011 ( http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTP L2.STO5&prodType=table )

Mecklenburg County has the largest population and is the most densely populated of all CSA counties with a population of 919,628 and 1,670 people/square mile . The population densities for Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and York Countie s all are above 250 people/square mile

. A dditionally, the population growth for these same counties is 22 percent and

above.

In response to EPA’s December 9, 2011, preliminary determination for the nonattainment boundary in

association with counties and tribal lands in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA, North Carolina and South Carolina provided additional technical information to support a recommendation for a boundary that differed from EPA’s December 9, 2011, preliminary determination. More discuss ion on this information and how EPA considered it for the final designation is discussed below.

In support of North Carolina’s revised recommendations for EPA to consider partial county boundaries for Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan and Union, the State provided additional information on population in these townships

. The following summarizes the additional information that North Carolina provided.

• Cabarrus County

- Based on the 2010 census, 178,011 people live in Cabarrus County, of which 176,580 li ve in the portion recommended by the State of North Carolina for10 nonattainment. The western portion of the county is highly populated and centered around a large interstate corridor, while the eastern portion of the county is mostly rural. The Gold Hill Township recommended for attainment has a population density of 54 people per square mile. The population in Cabarrus County showed a n increase between 2000 and 2010 of 34.7 percent. By comparison, population grew by 13 percent in Gold Hill Township. A county

- wide increase of 23.4 percent is expected between 2010 and 2020.

• Gaston County

- There are 206,086 people who live in Gaston County, and 189,586 people live in the five townships recommended as nonattainment, which is 92 percent of the County’s

popu lation. The majority of the townships in Gaston County have population densities greater than 300 people per square mile or higher, with Gastonia being the highest at over 1200 people per square mile. The Cherryville Township has the lowest population de nsity of any Gaston County townships, at 253 people per square mile. The population in Gaston County grew approximately 8.26 percent from 2000 to 2010, and an additional growth of 17.2 percent is

ex pected between 2010 and 2020. The majority of this growt h occurred in the eastern two

- thirds of the county, with the largest increases observed in Riverbend and South Point Townships, which border Mecklenburg County. Cherryville Township’s population increased by only 776 people, which corresponds to a 5.2 per cent increase in the township’s population density.

• Iredell Coun ty

- There are 159,437 people who live in Iredell County, and 65,385 people live in the two townships designated as nonattainment, which is 41 percent of the County’s population.

The northern , eastern and western portions of Iredell County have population density in the 11 townships o f 250 people per square mile or less. Statesville, located in central Iredell County, has a population density of 814 people per square mile. The area recommende d for nonattainment, the two townships in the southern portion of Iredell County, is densely populated, having population density values of 860 and 714 people per square mile. The population in Iredell County grew considerably from 2000 to 2010, increasin g by 30 percent, and an additional growth of 17.2 percent is expected between 2010 and 2020. The majority of this growth occurred in the two southern townships recommended for nonattainment. Davidson Township’s population growth was 90 percent and Coddle Creek Township’s growth was 43 percent. Population growth in all other townships in Iredell County was less than 40 percent with most being less than 20 percent.

• Lincoln County

- Based on the 2010 census, 78,265 people live in Lincoln County and 63,437

p eople live in the three townships recommended as nonattainment, which is 81 percent of the County’s population. The eastern three townships within Lincoln County, where Lincolnton and Catawba Springs are located, are densely populated, with population val ues of 468,286, and 347 people per square mile. This more densely populated area is located in the three eastern townships recommended for nonattainment. The western two townships have population densities of 112 and 137 people per square mile. The popul ation in Lincoln County grew considerably from 2000 to 2010, increasing by 22 percent, and an additional growth of 20 percent is expected between 2010 and 2020. The majority of this growth occurred in the eastern half of the county. The population of the eastern

- most township, Catawba Springs, increased by nearly 7,700 people from 2000 to 2010, which corresponds to an increase in population density of over 53 percent. Conversely, the two townships recommended for attainment by the State (i.e., Howards Cre ek and North Brook Townships) only grew by 1,313 and 665 people, respectively, from 2000 to 2010; this corresponds to a respective increase in population density of 17 percent and 13.1 percent for these two townships.

• Rowan County

- Based on the 2010 censu s, 138,428 people live in Rowan County, of which 128,675 live in the portion recommended for nonattainment. The far northwestern and far eastern townships in the county are mostly rural with population densities less than 100 people per square mile. Conv ersely, the areas recommended for nonattainment in general have a11 significantly higher population density and are more urban in nature. The four townships recommended to be designated attainment by the State have population density ranging from 52 to 98 p eople per square mile. The population in Rowan County increased slightly between 2000 and 2010 (5.9 percent). The townships recommended for attainment showed a combined population growth of 466 people during this time. Of these, Mount Ulla Township had the highest growth

- 295 people, corresponding to an increase in population density of 21 percent. Cleveland and Scotch Irish Townships increased 4 percent in population density, while Morgan Township actually decreased slightly in population. The population of Rowan County is projected to grow only 6.5 percent between 2010 and 2020.

• Union County

- There are 201,292 people who live in Union County as 2010, of which 173,775 people live in the portion recommended for nonattainment by the State. The eastern an d southern portion of the county is mostly rural; all four townships that North Carolina

recommended to be designated attainment have population densities of 189 people per square

mile or less. The area recommended for nonattainment is more urbanized with three of the six townships having a population density of greater than 500 people per square mile. The population in Union County showed a significant increase between 2000 and 2010, with an increase of 60.5 percent. Most of the increases were focused ov er the townships of Monroe, Vance, Goose Creek and Sandy Ridge. Vance Township’s population increased by 27,237 people from 2000 to 2010, corresponding to a 109 percent increase in population density. Sandy Ridge Township increased in population by 29,24 5, a 181 percent increase in population density. The townships recommended for attainment by the State collectively increased by 5,144 people during this time. A county

- wide increase in population of 26 percent is expected between 2010

and 2020.

In suppo rt of South Carolina’s recommendation that York County, in its entirety, be designated

attainment for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, South Carolina provided additional information regarding the population in the portion of York County that EPA included in th e Agency’s December 9, 2011 boundary determination for the counties and tribal lands in association Char lotte

- Gastonia

Salisbury CSA. EPA notes that while South Carolina’s additional technical information is provided for only the portion of York County tha t Agency is considering for nonattainment, that the Agency’s analytical starting point, as described in EPA’s December 2004 boundary guidance

, is the entire CSA

which includes York County in its entirety

. EPA does not agree that the Agency’s use of the ful l county information for York County is a misrepresentation. To the contrary, EPA believes that use of full county information is consistent with the approach outlined in EPA’s December 2008 boundary guidance of considering all of the counties in a CSA/CBS A. Utilizing full county information , the absolute change in population from 2000 to 2010 in York County is calculated as 60,368. The population percent change is calculated as 36 percent change. This percentage presents the second largest percent growth o ver the ten year period of 2000

- 2010 within the CSA and demonstrates York County cannot be excluded from consideration of contribution to violations at monitors in the Charlotte

Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA.

EPA considered the more refined partial county inf ormation for the final determination on whether or not a partial county boundary for York County is appropriate. As noted by South Carolina, while the

p opulation for York County

, in its entirety for 2010 of 226, 273 people, the portion of York County that EPA is considering for nonattainment has a majority of the County’s population at 173,881 people which is approximately 80 percent of the population in York County

.12 Traffic and commuting patterns

EPA evaluated the total VMT for each county in the are a . In combination with the population/ population density data and the location of main transportation arteries (see above), this information helps identify the probable location of non

- point source emissions. A county with high VMT is generally an integra l part of an urban area and indicates the presence of motor vehicle emissions that may contribute to ozone formation that contributes to nonattainment in the area. Rapid population or VMT growth in a county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integ ration with the core urban area, and indicates that the associated area source and mobile source emissions may be appropriate to

include in the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area. Table 6 shows traffic data, including

total 2008 VMT data.

Tab le 6 . Traffic and Commuting Patterns

. ^

^ Bolded counties (or portions thereof) that are being included in the non attainment area.

* * ** MOBILE model VMT are those inputs into the NEI version 1.5.

Consistent with EPA’s 2008 boundary guidance, the Agency considered VMT, traffic and commuting from all of the counties in the CSA/CBSA for areas as the analytical starting point for the determination of a boundary for a nonattainment area. For this initial analysis, EPA did not assume or predetermine a partial county boundary for any particular county that was within the CSA. Utilizing full county information, Cabarrus, G aston, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union, and York Counties VMT are the highest where each county have VMT greater than 1,790 million miles. These traffic data support a further consideration of inclusion of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union, and York Counties, or portions thereof, for the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area.

North Carolina’s February 29, 2012

, submission provided additional information on traffic and commuting in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA, and i n particular for the townships for which the County State

Recommended

Nonattainment? 2008 VMT (million

miles)
Anson, NC No 287
Cabarrus, NC Yes 1,982
Chester, SC No 562
Cleveland, NC No 1,230
Gaston, NC Yes 2,347
Iredell, NC Yes (partial) 2,558

Lancaster , SC No 656
Lincoln, NC Yes 805 Mecklenburg,
NC Yes 11,315
Rowan, NC Yes 1,816 Stanly, NC No 605
Union, NC Yes 1,791
York, SC No 2,002

Areawide: 27,95613 State requested exclusion from the final nonattainment area

. The information provided by North

Carolina is summarized below.

• Cabarrus County has 5.7 million daily VMT, according to 2010 data. Cabarrus Count y contributes 5.17 percent of the commuters who drive in to Mecklenburg County to work each day, most of which live in the western portion of the county. Cabarrus County ranks number 2 in commuting counties into Mecklenburg County. The VMT are expected t o increase to 6.5 million by 2015 and 8.1 million by 2025. Traffic and commuting counts for Gold Hill Township are 0.3 percent of the county

- wide total of commuters traveling into Mecklenburg County.

• Gaston County has 5.7 million average daily VMT, accord ing to 2010 data. Gaston County contributes 4.97 percent of the commuters who drive into Mecklenburg County to work each day. Gaston ranks number 4 in the commuting counties into Mecklenburg. The VMT are expected to increase to approximately 7.5 million by 2015 and 9.1 million by 2025. For Cherryville Township, there were approximately 800 trips to/from Mecklenburg County, which was under 3 percent of the County total and less than 0.2 percent of trips to/from Mecklenburg County in the entire CSA.

• Irede ll County has 5.7 million average daily VMT, according to 2010 data. Iredell County contributes 1.91 percent of the commuters who drive into Mecklenburg County to work each day. Iredell County ranks number 5 in the commuting counties into Mecklenburg Cou nty. The VMT are expected to increase to approximately 7.3 million by 2020. Traffic counts are highest in the southern townships and decline substantially in the next tier of townships. The southern two townships are covered by the region’s Travel Deman d Model, which predicts that the VMT will be 3.4 million by 2015, and 4.1 million in 2025.

• Lincoln County has 2.3 million average daily VMT, according to 2010 data. Lincoln County contributes approximately 1.49 percent of the commuters who drive into Meck lenburg County to work each day. Lincoln County ranks number 6 in the commuting counties into Mecklenburg County. The VMT are expected to increase to approximately 2.7 million by 2015 and 3.4 million by 2025. A significant amount of commuter traffic from the three eastern townships travels into Mecklenburg County. Therefore, the eastern townships may be impacting the ambient air quality data in this CSA and North Carolina recommends the three eastern townships be designated nonattainment. Commuter traff ic into Mecklenburg County from the two western townships was an estimated 230 trips, which was less than 3 percent of the county total and less than 0.4 percent of the CSA total.

• Rowan County has 5.3 million daily VMT, according to 2010 data. Rowan County contributes 0.96 percent of the commuters who drive in to Mecklenburg County to work each day, most of

which live in the central and south

- central portions of the county. Rowan County ranks number 8 in commuting counties into Mecklenburg County

. The VMT is expected to increase to 5.7 million by 2015 and 6.9 million in 2025. The far northwestern and far eastern townships in the county have very low traffic counts and would have little impact on ozone concentrations in the CSA. Morgan, Mount Ulla and Scot ch Irish Townships collectively account for approximately 98 trips to Mecklenburg County, which represents about 2 percent of the total from Rowan County and 0.02 percent from the entire CSA.

• Union County has 5.2 million daily VMT, according to 2010 data. Union County contributes 6.84 percent of the commuters who drive in to Mecklenburg County to work each day, most of which live in the western portion of the C ounty. Union County ranks number 1 in commuting counties into Mecklenburg County

. The VMT are e xpected to increase to 6.5 million in 2015 and 8.7 million in 2025. There is a significant amount of commuter traffic from the northern and western townships into Mecklenburg County. These townships (Monroe, Sandy Ridge, Vance and Goose Creek Townships) may be impacting the ambient air quality data in the CSA. The 414 townships recommended for attainment have lower traffic counts compared to the 5 townships that are recommended for nonattainment. Of the 4 townships recommended to be excluded by

the State

, Jackson Township had an estimated 1563 trips to/from Mecklenburg County, which was 4.1 percent of the county total and 0.3 percent of the trips from the entire CSA. Traffic to/from Mecklenburg County for the 3 other townships (Buford, Lanes Creek, and Ne w Salem Townships) was even less.

To support its recommendation of attainment for York County, in its entirety, South Carolina provided partial county VMT for the portion of York County that is currently in the 1997 8

- hour ozone Charlotte

nonattainment ar ea. Specifically, South Carolina provided additional information in their February 29,

2012

, submission related to the portion of York County along the Rock Hill

– Fort Mills Area Transportation Study ( RFATS ) boundary. RFATS is the MPO for the Rock Hill area. EPA notes again that the analytical starting point that was considered by the Agency (as consistent with EPA’s 2008 boundary guidance) was the entire area that is located in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA, which is York County in its entirety. Utilizing full county information, York Count y’s VMT is the fourth highest for the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Sal i sbury CSA at 2,002 million miles. As mentioned above, EPA is considering the refined partial county data provided by the State to make a determinat ion on whether or not a partial county boundary (as opposed to a whole county boundary) for York County is appropriate.

South Carolina used applied 2010 partial county annual average daily VMT (AADVMT) and the whole county York County AADVMT to determine that 82.6 percent of the York County VMT was attributed to the partial county portion of the 2009 model run for the Charlotte Area. Using this ratio , the VMTs
for the partial county in York County was calculated as 1

, 653 million miles

. EPA reviewed the m ost recent data submitted in South Carolina’s May 31, 2011

, Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance

Plan which utilizes a ratio of 75.8 percent of the total York County 2010 VMTs as the portion of York County which EPA is designating as nonattainment. EPA used the Annual Average Weekday Vehicles Miles Travelled HPMS tool, 5 a motor vehicle emission simulator c onverter to ol , to calculate the AADVMT for this portion of York County. EPA’s calculation is 1

, 953 million miles. Regardless of

what data set is u sed for the partial county information, it appears that a majority of the VMT from York County is from the portion of the County that is being included in the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area, and thus a partial county boundary could be approp riate for this Area

.

5 EPA’s converter tool can be found on the EPA website at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/tools.htm

.15 

### Factor 3: Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

For this factor, EPA analyzed 30

- years of National Weather Service (NWS) wind speed and wind

direction data collected at the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport ( NWS S tation 138 81 ) to help determine transport patterns and source contributions. EPA assessed wind direction and speed for the

2009

- 201 1 “ozone season” ( April through October) in the Charlotte CSA. These analyses were conducted to better understand the fate and transp ort of precursor emissions contributing to ozone

formation. EPA’s analysis of the NWS data indicate predominate winds blowing from the south

, southwest , and north for the Charlotte CSA.

The counties of Rowan and Mecklenburg in the CSA have violating moni tors with design values at or greater than 76 pp b. The prevailing winds during the 2009

- 2011 ozone season s have a strong southwesterly component, suggesting that the part of York County that includes the majority of the population and commuting traffic (wh ich is southwest of the violating monitors) should be included in

the nonattainment area. Lincoln and Gaston Counties are also southwest and west

- southwest and may contribute to the violating monitors in Rowan County. P revailing winds during the ozone se ason also have strong north and south component s which suggests that Union , Cabarrus and Iredell Count ies may contribute to the violating monitor s in Mecklenburg and Rowan Count ies

.

North Carolina provided detailed information in Appendix I of their respo nse to EPA’s 120 Day letter, presenting wind back trajectories and wind roses for the Charlotte Area. North Carolina used National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s ( NOAA) Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model (HYSPLIT) model to develop the back trajectories for all monitors on all days with ozone concentrations at or above 76 ppb within the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA. The information provided is consistent with EPA’s assessment of the entire area as discussed above.

S outh Carolina also provided a detailed meteorological data analysis, including a thorough back trajectory analysis developed with NOAA’s HYSPLIT model for each of the ozone monitors in the

Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA during episodes when the monitors measured exceedances of the ozone standard (see Appendix A of South Carolina’s February 29, 2012 response). EPA agrees with South Carolina’s assertion that many of the back trajectories show air masses passing over Charlotte on ozone exceedance days. Howev er, some of the back trajectories also pass over York County indicating the potential for York county emissions to contribute to ozone exceedances during these specific events (e.g., June 8, 2011). Recirculation of emissions from other areas and elevated “aged ozone” from stagnation conditions may contribute to the ozone exceedances during these events, but nothing provided by South Carolina conclusively precludes transport of emissions from York County. Therefore, York County cannot be ruled out as a pote ntial contributor to ozone violations at monitors in the

Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA.



### Factor 4: Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries)

The geography/topography analysis evaluates the physical features of the land that might affect the airshed and, therefore, the distribution of ozone over the area

.

The Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury, NC

- SC CSA does not have any geographical or topographical barriers significantly limiting air pollution transport within its air shed. The refore, this factor did not play a significant role in this evaluation

.16 

### Factor 5: Jurisdictional boundaries

Once EPA identified the general areas that the Agency anticipated would be included in the nonattainment area, EPA then consider ed existing juri sdictional boundaries for the purposes of providing a clearly defined legal boundary and to help identify the areas appropriate for carrying out the air quality planning and enforcement functions for nonattainment areas. Examples of jurisdictional

boundari es include existing/prior nonattainment area boundarie s for ozone or other urban

- scale pollutants, county lin es, air district boundarie s, township boundarie s, area covered by an MPO , state lines, Areas of Indian Country

, and urban growth boundary. Where ex isting jurisdictional boundaries

were not adequate or appropriate to describe the nonattainment area, other clearly defined and permanent landmarks or geographic c oordinates were considered.

The Charlotte area has previously established nonattainment boun daries associated with both the 1

- hour

ozone and 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. The Charlotte nonattainment boundary for the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS included Mecklenburg County, North Carolina in its entirety. Whereas the Charlotte nonattainment boundary for the 199 7 8

- hour ozone NAAQS included Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union Counties in North Carolina in their entireties, a portion of Iredell County, North Carolina, a portion of York County, South Carolina, and Indian Country associated with

the Catawba Indian Nation . The States have recommended a different boundary for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, the Catawba Indian Nation recommended designation of a separate unclassifiable/attainment area through their response to the EPA’s 120

- day letter which was released on December 9, 2011. More information about EPA’s decision

- making with respect to the Indian County associated with the Catawba Indian Nation can be found in “Appendix to the Charlotte

- Rock Hill Technical Support Document

– Cata wba Indian Nation.” In South Carolina’s October 2011 letter, they revised their boundary recommendations to attainment statewide as a result of the most current air quality data which indicates attainment of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard. The presence o f a violating monitor is not the only factor considered in nonattainment boundaries. However, a consideration of the other factors was not presented in their October 2011 letter.



### Conclusion

Based on the assessment of factors described above and through out this technical support document

, EPA has concluded that the following counties should be included as part of the Charlotte

- Rock Hill

, NC

- SC nonattainment area because they are either violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS or contributing to

a violation in a ne arby area : Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston,

Iredell , Li ncoln, Rowan and Union Counties in North Carolina , and a portion of York County, South

Carolina

. All of these counties , or portions thereof, are included in the Cha rlotte nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The air quality monitors in Mecklenburg and Rowan Counties, North Carolina are currently violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on 201 1 design values , therefore these counties (or portions thereof) are inc luded in the nonattainment area. Portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, and Union Counties in North Carolina and a portion of York County, South Carolina a re nearby

counties that do not have violating monitors or do not contain monitors , but EPA h as concluded that these areas contribute to the ozone concentrations in violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through

emissions from mobile and area sources. Gaston, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and York Counties have the highest NOx emissions in the area. Cab arrus, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and York Counties have among the highest VOC emissions in the area. Lincoln

, Union , and York Counties ranked relatively high

for emissions

- related data such as population, and population density; commuting; meteorology, and jurisdictional boundaries

.17 

## Appendix to the Charlotte

- Rock Hill , NC

- SC Technical Support

Document

– Catawba Indian Nation

The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation, which consists of two tracts of land within York County, South Carolina, is being design ated for the 2008 O zone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ) as a separate “unclassifiable/attainment” area from the surrounding Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area (Charlotte Area). The Catawba Indian Nation recommended designation of its

Reservation as a separate unclassifiable/attainment area through the Tribe’s February 29, 2012, response to the EPA’s proposed designation for the Charlotte Area (120

- day letter).

In March 2009, and in October 2011, prior to EPA’s 120

- day letters, N orth Carolina and South Carolina made recommendations for their respective portions of the Charlotte Area. The Catawba Indian Nation

did not submit a recommendation at either time. On December 9, 2011, the EPA initiated the 120

- day consultation process b y notifying the States of North Carolina and South Carolina, and the Catawba

Indian Nation that

, based on the EPA’s technical analysis of the 13

- county Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury combined statistical area (CSA), EPA intended to designate six whole counti es and one partial county in North Carolina; one partial county in South Carolina; and the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation as

“nonattainment” for the 2008 O zone NAAQS as part of the Charlotte Area. In this December 2011 letter, the EPA also requested th at if North Carolina or South Carolina, or the Catawba Indian Nation wished to provide comments on the EPA’s intended designation, it should do so by February 29, 2012.

The Catawba Indian Nation, North Carolina

, and South Carolina each submitted comments on the EPA’s proposed designations and provided additional information to support their designation and boundary recommendations. On February 29, 2012, the Catawba Indian Nation provided its

recommendation of “attainment/unclassifiable” for the Tribe’s R eservation and submitted technical information to support its recommendation of attainment.

Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA designate an area nonattainment if it violates a NAAQS or contributes to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. The EPA’s December 20, 2011, Policy for Establishing Separate Air Quality Designations for Areas of Indian Country, provides a process whereby an analysis of the factors described below may be used to determine

whether an area of Indian Cou ntry located within or next to a larger multi

- jurisdictional area should be excluded from that area and potentially designated separately or whether it should be designated according to the rest of the area. Provided below is a summation of the informatio n relied upon by the EPA to designate the Catawba Indian Reservation as attainment/unclassifiable for purposes of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS , separate from the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC Area

.

Factor Assessment

Factor 1: Air Quality Data

The air quality da ta analysis for Tribal areas evaluates the data pertaining to air quality in the relevant area of Indian country. Where such data is unavailable or incomplete, the analysis also involves consideration of other available information that may enable the Agen cy to characterize air quality in the

area.18 There are no monitors within the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation. The sole monitor in York County, located approximately 16 to 18 miles west of the Reservation, is attaining the 2008 Ozone NAAQS based upon th e 2009

- 2011 period (i.e., the “2011 design value,” which represents the most recent years with fully

- certified air quality data). 6 Consequently, the EPA’s designation analysis for this Reservation is based upon whether sources are contributing to the viol ating monitors in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

Salisbury CSA. Based on data provided by North Carolina, South Carolina and the Catawba Indian

Nation

, there is no indication that the air quality on the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is violating

the 2008 Ozon e NAAQS.

Factor 2: Emissions and Emissions

- Related Data

EPA evaluated emissions of ozone precursors (i.e., NOx and VOC emissions) and other emissions

related data to determine whether sources on the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation are contributing to

violations . This analysis is comprised of three general considerations: population density and degree of urbanization; traffic and commuting patterns; and, source emissions data. Each of these considerations, as applicable to the Catawba Indian Reservatio n
, is summarized below.

Population density and degree of urbanization

As described above, the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within York County, South

Carolina. The Tribe included information in its technical support document to distinguis h the Reservation from the York County, South Carolina area that is being designated nonattainment as part of

the Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC area. In the Catawba Indian Nation’s February 29, 2012, letter, the Tribe provided information to demonstrate that the prevailing population density and degree of

urbanization with in the Reservation is not consistent with the portion of York County proposed by the EPA for inclusion in the Charlotte Area. The Tribe explained that while the Reservation is within York

C ounty, it is outside of the urban cluster of Rock Hill, and is less densely populated

- and is more rural

in character

- than the York County portion of the CSA. The Tribe further explained that the Catawba

Indian Nation consists of two tracts of land alo ng the Catawba River with a total land base of approximately 1,000 acres, which comprises only 0.002 percent of the land area of York County and 0.004 percent of the land area in the portion of York County that is being considered for nonattainment

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Tribal members living on the Reservation comprise only about 0.003 percent of the population of York County and exhibit close to zero percent population growth. The most recent demographic data for the Catawba Indian Nation indicat es that the population consists of 586

T ribal members living in 312 homes within the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation

.

Traffic and commuting patterns

According to information provided by the Catawba Indian Nation, of the 586 members of the Tribe, only

3 40 are of working age. In addition, the unemployment rate is relatively high and many adults have

limited or no access to transportation (the Tribe operates a public transit program for those members who do not have transportation). Of the T ribal members that are children, 90 percent of them travel to school by bus and 10 percent by car.

6 A monitor’s design value is the metric or statistic that indicates whet her that monitor attains a specified air quality standard. The 2008 ozone NAAQS are met at a monitor when the annual fourth

- highest daily maximum 8

- hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 75 ppb or less. A design value is only valid if minimum data completeness criteria are met. See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix P. Where several monitors are located in a county (or a designated nonattainment area or maintenance area), the design value for the county or area is determined by the monitor with the highe st recorded level of ozone.19 Source Emissions Data

There are currently no point sources of ozone precursors within the boundaries of the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation. York County, South Caroli na does contain a number of major sources for NOx and VOC, however, these sources are all located at least two miles from the Reservation. T herefore, there is no indication that sources on the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation are contributing to violatio ns in the surrounding state area

Factor 3: Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

The meteorology analysis evaluates how weather and transport patterns of the area affect the fate and transport of emissions from sources on or nearby the relevant area of Indian country. The meteorological conditions on the Reservation are not distinguishable from that of the surrounding portions of York County, South Carolina. In response to the EPA’s proposed designation for Charlotte Area (120

- day letter) , both Nort h Carolina and South Carolina provided thorough analyses of the wind and transport patterns affecting the violating monitors in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA. These analyses included wind roses showing wind speeds and directions on each of the viol ating days and

wind back

- trajectories created with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s ( NOAA) Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model (HYSPLIT) model for all monitors and all days at and above the 76 ppb within the C harlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA. An analysis of this information does not provide any conclusive evidence that the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is contributing to violations at the monitors in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA. Also, these analys es do not show that violations measured at the monitors in the area would be representative of the air quality on the Reservation.

Factor 4: Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries)

The geography/topography analysis evaluat es the physical features of the land that might affect the air shed and, therefore, the distribution of ozone over the area

.

The Catawba Indian Country does not have any geographical or topographical barriers significantly limiting air pollution transport within its air shed. Therefore, this factor did not play a significant role in

this evaluation.

Factor 5: Jurisdictional boundaries

The jurisdictional boundary analysis is conducted to evaluate whether boundaries exist to clear ly establish the area pe rtaining to the designation request and to enable carrying out of the air quality planning and enforcement functions for nonattainment areas.20 As described above, the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation consists of two tracts of land within York County, South Carolina. The Catawba Indian Nation is a federally

- recognized Indian Tribe, and the Reservation tracts are held by the Federal Government in trust for the Tribe. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 27

- 16

- 120, all State and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation members and Reservation and such laws and regulations are fully enforceable by all relevant S tate and local agencies and authorities. The Tribe, however, does

retain authorit y to impose regulations applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation. Id

. Based upon these facts, the jurisdictional boundaries of the Reservation provide sufficiently clear defined legal boundaries for the purpose of carrying out of the air quality planning and enforcement functions for adjacent nonattainment areas. In addition, the legal authority of the State of South Carolina and local agencies to regulate and enforce air quality standards on the Reservation is well

defined.

Conclusion

EPA has evaluated the additional information submitted by the Catawba Indian Nation, and has

concluded that there is no indication that activities on the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation are contributing to the violations at the monitors in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA

. Also, there is

no indication that violations measured at the monitors in the Charlotte

- Gastonia

- Salisbury CSA would be representative of the air quality on the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation . Therefore , the Catawba

Indian Nat ion Reservation is being designated as an unclassifiable/attainment area separate from the

Charlotte

- Rock Hill, NC

- SC nonattainment area for the 2008 O zone NAAQS.