s^

ED ST

^^^

AT^^

2^5^^z^

.^

·r

^LPR OT6'

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Mr. James E. Baker 

York County Manager 

6 South Congress Street 

P.O. Box 66 

York, South Carolina 29745-0066 

I am pleased to respond to your July 24, 2012, letter of supportjoining the South Carolina Department 

of Health and Environmental Control petition for reconsideration concerning the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's final rule, "Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards." See 77 Federal Register 30008 (May 21, 2012). The petition requests that the EPA 

reconsider the nonattainment designation of the eastern part of York County, S.C., as part of the 

Charlotte, N.C.-Rock Hill, S.C., ozone nonattainment area. 

The EPA has carefully evaluated the issues and information in the petition. For the reasons explained in 

the EPA's final designation action and information provided in the enclosure to this letter, the EPA is 

denying the petition. The EPA continues to believe the above mentioned eastern portion of York County 

is properly designated nonattainment because of its contribution to ozone nonattainment in the bi-state 

Charlotte area. 

The enclosure provides additional information on the EPA's decision to deny the petition beyond what 

is already provided in the docket for the May 21, 2012, rulemaking. The EPA considers the designation 

of nonattainment areas with appropriate boundaries to be an important step in implementing the 2008 

ozone standards. 

We appreciate the action you have taken in South Carolina to reduce ozone levels and provide cleaner, 

healthier air for millions of people. We look forward to working with you to ensure achievement of the 

2008 ozone standards in the Charlotte, N.C.-Rock Hill, S.C., area. 

In the meantime, I thank you for your interest in protecting the quality of our environment. 

This paper is printed with vegelable-oll-based inks and is 100-percent postconsumer recycled material, chlorine-free-processed and recyclable
The EPA Response to James F. Baker, York County Manager letter of support joining the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Petition for Reconsideration 

By a letter dated July 20, 2012, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(SC DHEC) petitioned the EPA to reconsider the final area designation for a portion of York County, 

South Carolina in the Charlotte - Rock Hill, NC-SC ozone nonattainment area. For the reasons 

discussed below, the EPA is denying the Petition. For the sake of clarity, we have organized this 

response according to the structure of the July 20, 2012, petition. 

I. Concern Regarding Timing of Decision 

Issue: The Petitioner claims that it appears that the designation determination was "rushed and made 

without adequate time to filly consider SC DHEC's submissions." As evidence, the Petitioner quotes 

the EPA's Response to Comments in which the Agency stated that "[i]n those cases where timing 

constraints and the lack of additional information prevented a more detailed assessment, EPA believes 

that the default wind rose analyses, in conjunction with the remainder of the multi-factor analysis, can 

provide an adequate assessment of appropriate boundaries" and claims that the EPA published its final 

designation nearly a month before the deadline to issue to the 2008 national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Petition at 1-2. 

Also, the Petitioner states that "during a February 9, 2012, consultation meeting, EPA referred to and 

referenced a back trajectory analysis that EPA had performed. Despite a request by DHEC during the 

February 9, 2012, meeting, this referenced back trajectory analysis was never shared with 

DHEC.. .[t]his, taken in conjunction with EPA's response to DHEC's kreiging [sic] analysis, wherein 

EPA objects based on the fact that DHEC did not provide any 'uncertainty analysis' for its 

methodology, further supports this request for reconsideration." The Petitioner states that "EPA has not 

disclosed any current data or evidence to DHEC that questions the South Carolina methodology." The 

Petitioner claims that this suggests that either such data or evidence does not exist, or that the EPA did 

consider such other information but improperly failed to disclose it. Petition at 2. 

Response: The EPA's designation determination was not "rushed and made without adequate time to 

fully consider DHEC's submissions." The Agency believes that the record reflects that the EPA 

considered the SC DHEC's submissions and fully responded to SC DHEC's submissions and comments; 

thus, the record supports the Agency's final designation decision. 

Further, the EPA statement regarding "timing constraints and the lack of additional information" cited 

by the Petitioner, can be found in Section 3.1.3 Meteorology of EPA's Response to Comments but was 

taken out of context by the Petitioner in its Petition for Reconsideration. This statement is referring to 

states that did not conduct a back trajectory analysis and concludes that "the default wind rose analysis 

in conjunction with the remainder of the multi-factor analysis can provide an adequate assessment of 

appropriate boundaries." It was not stating that the timing constraints associated with the designation 

process resulted in insufficient time to consider information submitted by the States or that the EPA 

decisions were based on incomplete or insufficient information.
Here, South Carolina (and North Carolina) did conduct back trajectory analyses, which the EPA 

reviewed as part of the meteorological analyses for counties in both states. The EPA provided its 

analysis of the supplied meteorological analyses in the EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) on 

page 15. 

The EPA did not use or include in the Agency's TSD an EPA-generated back trajectory but relied on the 

combination of North Carolina's and South Carolina's meteorological analyses to assess the 

"meteorology factor" in the five factor analysis. On page 15 of the TSD, the EPA states that North 

Carolina's interpretation of the meteorological data is consistent with the EPA's assessment of the entire 

Charlotte area and that the Agency agrees with some but not all of South Carolina's meteorological data 

interpretation. The EPA went on to state that "nothing provided by South Carolina conclusively 

precludes transport of emissions from York County. Therefore, York County cannot be ruled out as a 

potential contributor to ozone violations at monitors in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury CSA 

[Combined Statistical Area]." TSD at page 15. Finally, the EPA reiterates that our decision to include a 

portion of York County in the nonattainment area was based on a thorough assessment of all five of the 

factors discussed in the TSD. 

Finally, the EPA's assessment of SC DHEC's kriging analysis is on page 44 of the Response to 

Comments. We explained that "it is important to consider the uncertainty associated with interpolating 

(i.e., kriging) data collected at a limited number of air monitoring sites. South Carolina has not provided 

an uncertainty analysis for the kriging methodology that was used. Quoting from section 8.3 of EPA454/R-04-004, '[a] kriging spatial interpolation surface is expected to provide a reasonable spatial 

description of the pollution process in general, but to require it to be highly accurate at each specific 

location may be an unreasonable expectation.' Therefore, the location of specific contours on South 

Carolina's map should be considered estimates and not necessarily highly accurate." 

II. Adequacy of Consultation and TSD 

Issue: The Petitioner claims that the EPA has provided insufficient consultation and detail in its TSD to 

give SC DHEC a clear understanding of the rationale used in making the designation decision. The 

Petitioner claims that, following a meeting between the EPA and SC DHEC during the 120-day 

consultation period, SC DHEC expected "additional opportunities for consultation after all the 

recommendations were received and prior to a final designation being made. Further, in its February 29, 

2012, 120-day response letter to the EPA, SC DHEC expressly requested 'continued discussions 

regarding these matters, especially if EPA received boundary recommendations for this area that may be 

different from our submittal." Petition at 2. In addition, the Petitioner claims that the "EPA stated that 

much of the decision regarding the designation was 'deliberative' and could not be shared..." and claims 

that they have yet to be made aware of any deficiencies in the SC DHEC recommendation. Petition at 3. 

Response: The EPA provided detail about the basis for its decision in the TSD and in the Response to 

Comments document. As the Petitioner stated, during the 1 20-day consultation period, the EPA met 

with SC DHEC to discuss the ozone designation process and the State's recommendations. Also, pages 

43 through 45 of the EPA's Response to Comments document provides our response to issues South 

Carolina raised regarding EPA's intended designation for the Charlotte - Rock Hill, NC-SC 

nonattainment area, agreeing with some but not all of SC DHEC's technical conclusions. In addition, the 

EPA TSD provides the full rationale used in making the designation decision. As noted by the 

Petitioner, the internal process to develop a final decision regarding the designation was deliberative; 

2
however, this does not mean that the EPA failed to provide information in the record to support its 

determination. The EPA's TSD includes the information necessary to support the designations decision. 

In the 120-day letter, the EPA outlined the Agency's designation approach and provided its preliminary 

technical analysis, then during the 120-day consultation period the EPA considered subsequent 

information provided by SC DHEC (as described in the EPA's Response to Comment document), and 

finally, the EPA provided the basis for our designation decision in the final TSD for the Charlotte - 

Rock Hill, NC-SC area. While the EPA appreciates that SC DHEC may not agree with the designation 

determination reached, the Agency has provided in the record all the information relied upon to reach 

that determination. 

The EPA also notes that all the information available to the Agency from other stakeholders regarding 

the Charlotte - Rock Hill, NC-SC area was available to SC DHEC prior to the EPA's final designations. 

The Catawba Indian Nation submitted an unclassifiable/attainment recommendation to the EPA on 

February 29, 2012. The Catawba Indian Nation recommendation, the SC DHEC recommendations and 

the North Carolina recommendations, as well as the supplemental information provided for the EPA's 

consideration were posted in the docket and on EPA's website on or about March 5, 2012. 

III. Application of Factors 

Issue: The Petitioner quotes an EPA statement regarding the York County monitor and interprets the 

EPA quote to mean that "any area containing a source of emissions should forever be considered as 

contributing to far removed violations unless and until it can be conclusively proved otherwise." The 

Petitioner claims that SC DHEC has "adequately demonstrated... through scientific analysis that York 

County does not contribute.., to violations elsewhere." The Petitioner also questions the use and 

interpretation of the word "contribute" found in the Clean Air Act Section 1 07(d)( 1 )(A)(i), and claims 

that under EPA's interpretation, any single source of emission could contribute to remote violations and 

thereby justify virtually any nonattainment area. Finally, the Petitioner notes that it agrees with the 

EPA's designation of the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation as a separate unclassifiable/attainment 

area from the Charlotte - Rock Hill, NC-SC nonattainment area, but disagrees that the surrounding 

portion of York County should have been designated nonattainment. The Petitioner claims that the EPA 

actions to designate the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation as attainment and the surrounding portions 

of York County as nonattainment are inconsistent and irreconcilable, and indicate that the EPA did not 

consistently apply the 5 relevant factors. Petition at 3-4. 

Response: The EPA does not agree that "DHEC has adequately demonstrated, through scientific 

analysis that York County does not contribute.., to violations elsewhere," nor does the Agency agree 

with SC DHEC's interpretation of the EPA's statement regarding attainment status of the York County 

monitor as indicating that the EPA would "justify virtually any nonattainment area" without an 

appropriate analysis and evidence of contribution. The record for EPA's designation describes our 

assessment of information relevant to five factors in our conclusion that a portion of York County 

contributed to nonattainment in the Charlotte - Rock Hill, NC-SC area. See the final Charlotte area 

TSD and Response to Comments at pages 9 and 15. In brief, York County is among those in the area 

that have the highest NOx and VOC emissions, and meteorological information supports a conclusion 

that emissions from the county contribute to ozone violations in the area.
With respect to the Petitioner's claims regarding the separate designation for the Catawba Indian Nation, 

the first page of the Appendix to the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC TSD - Catawba Indian Nation 

(Appendix) states that "[t]he 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 Country 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." The EPA then provides, in the 

remainder of the Appendix, a summation of the information 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. 

Page 2 of the Appendix describes that there are no monitors within the Catawba Indian Nation 

Reservation and notes that, 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 Ozone NAAQS. The sole monitor in York County, located approximately 16 to 18 

miles west of the Reservation, is attaining the 2008 Ozone NAAQS based upon the 2009-2011 period. 

Consequently, the EPA's designation analysis for this Reservation is based upon whether any sources 

therein are contributing to the violating monitors in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury CSA. Consistent 

with the EPA's December 20, 2011, Policy, data from the Catawba Indian Nation and York County 

were independently analyzed to determine if either area was contributing to violations at monitors in the 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury CSA. There are no point sources on the Reservation, and few mobile and 

area sources. Accordingly, we concluded that the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is appropriately 

designated unclassifiable/attainment in agreement with their request. 

IV. Jurisdictional Boundaries 

Issue: The Petitioner states that "South Carolina has yet to understand the scientific rationale used in 

this decision, despite its many requests" and they cite the EPA's December 20, 2011, tribal designation 

policy regarding consultation. The Petitioner also states that "[b]ecause we have yet to be made aware of 

any specific claimed deficiencies in DHEC's back trajectory analysis or in other materials submitted by 

DHEC and because, we did not anticipate different findings related to Indian lands and the area 

immediately surrounding them, South Carolina had no real reason to offer alternatives for a more 

compact nonattainment zone. The findings and recommendations we submitted were focused on York 

County as a whole because the data and analysis supported such a focus. The EPA has clearly disagreed. 

However, had the consultation process afforded a greater opportunity for understanding the scientific 

basis for our disagreements, it is highly likely a better choice could have been made for a nonattainment 

area boundary." SC DHEC mentions a future metropolitan plarming organization (MPO) change and 

goes on to cite example where in North Carolina the EPA designated partial county boundaries using 

township boundaries. 

The Petitioner states that they would like to discuss the boundaries with the EPA in the future and they 

state that "[d]esignating uncertain boundaries due to impending changes or drawing the boundaries 

larger than they need to be, based on an incomplete examination of all available data would place York 

County and the rest of South Carolina at an unfair economic disadvantage. Instead... [SC DHEC 

wouldi like to discuss potential boundaries that might rely on more appropriate jurisdictional 

boundaries."
Response: See Response to II above regarding the EPA's consultation with SC DHEC and the EPA's 

rationale for the designation decision. The EPA believes that SC DHEC had the opportunity prior to and 

during the 120 day consultation period to offer alternatives to its recommendation that the entire York 

County be attainment. As mentioned above, all the information that was provided to the Agency for 

consideration from parties in this Area was made available on the EPA website on March 5, 2012. Not 

having any alternatives with supporting technical information from SC DHEC to consider besides its 

recommendation of attainment for the entire York County, the EPA designated the urbanized portion of 

York County nonattainment. 1 In contrast, in response to the s 120 day letter, North Carolina 

provided EPA with a technical justification for the township boundaries used for the final designation 

related to the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte - Rock Hill, NC-SC area. This information also 

was included with the materials provided on the EPA's website on March 5, 2012, and was available to 

SC DHEC prior to the Agency's final designation for the area which was signed by the EPA 

Administrator on April 30, 2012. The EPA considered North Carolina's recommendation and technical 

justification for the alternative boundary for their portion of the Charlotte - Rock Hill, NC-SC area, and 

determined that the available information supported designation of partial counties consistent with the 

State's recommendation. 

There was an opportunity for stakeholders to provide updated information about future changes to the 

MPO boundary during the EPA's public comment period and during the period prior to the EPA's final 

designations; however, no such information was provided. The EPA believes that the boundaries for the 

York County portion of this Area are clear and notes that this boundary is identical (with the exception 

of Indian Country) to the boundary of the Area for the nonattainment designation the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Finally, and as was stated in the EPA's Response to Comments on page 39, "We do not believe that 

regulatory burden or compliance costs are pertinent considerations in determining whether an area is 

violating the NAAQS or contributing to a nearby violation of the NAAQS." Also see the EPA's 

Response to Comments Section 3.1.5 on page 14. 

The EPA notes that the nonattainment portion of York County covers only a portion of the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area 

Transportation Study (RFATS) MPO area in eastern York County. 

5