Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Portion of York County, South Carolina Within Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 62454-62461 [2012-25172]

Download as PDF 62454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Subpart D—Arizona 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(54)(i)(F) and (c)(151) to read as follows: ■ § 52.120 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (54) * * * (i) * * * * * * * * (F) Previously approved on September 28, 1982, in paragraph (54)(i)(C), and now deleted without replacement: R9– 3–219. * * * * * (151) The following plan revisions were submitted on August 15, 1994 by the Governor’s designee. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (1) Rule R18–2–220, Air pollution emergency episodes, Department of Environmental Quality-Air Pollution Control, amended effective September 26, 1990. (2) A letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, US EPA, dated August 30, 2012, certifying that the attached copy of a document titled ‘‘Procedures for Prevention of Emergency Episodes: 1988 Edition’’ is a true and correct copy of the original and is an official publication of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (3) ‘‘Procedures for Prevention of Emergency Episodes,’’ 1988 edition, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. [FR Doc. 2012–25022 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2008–0177; FRL–9740–9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Portion of York County, South Carolina Within Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reasonable Further Progress Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with AGENCY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions, SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, to address the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the portion of York County, South Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area’’) is comprised of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) Counties in North Carolina; and a portion of York County in South Carolina (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the York County Area’’). EPA is also providing the status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) that were included in South Carolina’s RFP plan. Further, EPA is approving these MVEB. These actions are being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA will take action on North Carolina’s RFP plan for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, in a separate action. DATES: This direct final rule is effective December 14, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 14, 2012. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ‘‘EPA– R04–OAR–2008–0177,’’ by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008– 0177,’’ 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. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR– 2008–0177.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 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: Ms. 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. The telephone number is (404) 562–9061. Ms. Sara Waterson can be reached via electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov. EPA is also describing the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the 2008 MVEB. II. What is the background for EPA’s action? A. General Background On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet the data completeness SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requirement as determined in 40 CFR Table of Contents part 50, appendix I. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness I. What action is EPA taking? requirement is met when the average II. What is the background for EPA’s action? percent of days with valid ambient III. What is EPA’s analysis of the RFP plan for the York County Area? monitoring data is greater than 90 IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the 2008 VOC percent, and no single year has less than MVEB for the York County Area? 75 percent data completeness. V. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy Upon promulgation of a new or determination for the 2008 VOC MVEB revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA for the York County Area? to designate as nonattainment any area VI. Final Action that is violating the NAAQS, based on VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews the three most recent years of ambient I. What action is EPA taking? air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state EPA is approving revisions to the Charlotte Area was designated South Carolina SIP, submitted by the nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour State of South Carolina through SC ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 DHEC, on August 31, 2007, and April (effective June 15, 2004) using 2001– 29, 2010, to meet RFP requirements of 2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR the CAA for the York County Area for 23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The designation the bi-state Charlotte Area RFP plan demonstrates that VOC emissions will be reduced by at least 15 was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour percent for the period of 2002 through ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, 2008. Additionally, EPA is approving Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, the required 2008 VOC MVEB which EPA established ozone nonattainment were included in the York County Area area attainment dates based on Table 1 RFP plan. EPA is taking these actions of section 181(a) of the CAA. This because they are consistent with CAA established an attainment date six years requirements for the requirements for after the June 15, 2004, effective date for RFP. The York County Area MVEB, areas classified as moderate areas for the expressed in tons per day (tpd) and kilograms per day (kgd), are provided in 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Section 181 of the CAA Table 1 below. explains that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas shall be TABLE 1—YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA* 1997 8-HOUR OZONE as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years after designation, or VOC MVEB June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area’s original attainment date 2008 2008 was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004. York County ( partial county) VOC MVEB The bi-state Charlotte Area did not VOC 6.053 tpd 5,493 kgd attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by * Represents only the portion of York County June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment that is in the nonattainment area for the bi- date for moderate nonattainment areas); state Charlotte Area. however, the Area qualified for an VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 62455 extension of the attainment date. Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment date under specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that North Carolina and South Carolina met the CAA requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bistate Charlotte Area. See 76 FR 31245. As a result, EPA extended the bi-state Charlotte Area’s attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and subsequently, on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13493), EPA determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The determination of attaining data was based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008–2010 period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard were suspended as a result of the determination of attainment, so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 40 CFR 52.2125(a). On January 12, 2012, South Carolina withdrew the attainment demonstration submissions (except RFP, emissions statements, and the emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918 for the York County Area.2 1 Originally, South Carolina submitted SIP revisions, including an attainment demonstration, on August 31, 2007, to address nonattainment requirements related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, South Carolina submitted an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, emissions statement, a 2002 base year emissions inventory and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the York County Area. South Carolina withdrew the August 31, 2007, attainment demonstration portion of the SIP for the York County Area on December 22, 2008. On April 29, 2010, South Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration SIP, and provided a supplement for the August 31, 2007, RFP plan for the York County Area. 2 South Carolina did not withdraw any elements related to reasonably available control technology E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM Continued 15OCR1 62456 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Subsequently, EPA approved South Carolina’s SIP revisions related to the emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the EPA action related to the emissions statements requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 37812 (June 25, 2012). For the EPA action related to the emissions inventory requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 29540 (May 18, 2012). Despite the determination of attainment, South Carolina opted to leave the SIP submissions related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS before EPA for action. As such, EPA is taking action to approve South Carolina’s August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions as they related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. B. Background for RFP On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727), EPA published a rule entitled ‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline’’ (hereafter referred to as the Phase 2 Rule). Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA’s Phase 2 Rule 3 require a state, for each 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area that is classified as moderate, to submit an emissions inventory and a RFP plan to show how the state will reduce emissions of VOC. The bi-state Charlotte Area had an attainment date of June 15, 2010 (i.e., that is beyond five years after designation), that was later extended to June 15, 2011. See 76 FR 31245 (May 31, 2011). For a moderate area with an attainment date of more than five years after designation, the RFP plan must obtain a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions for the first six years after the baseline year (2002 through 2008). Since the York County Area did not have a previous plan to address RFP requirements,4 the initial RFP requirement for the Area must be met through VOC reductions as required by the 1990 CAA Amendments. Pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9), RFP plans must include contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the state or EPA, which includes additional controls that would be implemented if the area fails to reach the RFP milestones. While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of emissions reductions required, EPA provided guidance interpreting the CAA that implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted base year inventory in the year following the RFP milestone year (i.e., in this case 2008). For more information on contingency measures please see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 71650). Finally, RFP plans must also include a MVEB for the precursors for which the plan is developed. See Section IV of this rulemaking for more information on MVEB requirements. On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA’s requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The August 31, 2007, SIP revision (as supplemented by the April 29, 2010, SIP revision) included an attainment demonstration plan, RFP plan for 2008 milestone year, contingency measures, RACT, RACM requirements, on-road VOC MVEB, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory. These SIP revisions were subject to notice and comment by the public and the State addressed the comments received on the proposed SIPs. Today’s rulemaking is approving only the RFP plan, including the associated MVEB. The remainder of South Carolina’s August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions were addressed by previous EPA actions, or by the State’s withdrawal of submissions that were no longer necessary. III. What is EPA’s analysis of the RFP plan for the York County Area? On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA’s requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Below provides EPA’s analysis of South Carolina’s RFP submissions. A. Base Year Emissions Inventory An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources and is required by section 182(a)(1) of the CAA. Because the York County Area as part of the bi-state Charlotte Area did not implement the 15 percent VOC reductions for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the requirement for South Carolina to meet RFP is a 15 percent VOC reduction between 2002 and 2008 with continued progress toward attainment through attainment.5 EPA recommended 2002 as the base year emissions inventory, and is therefore the starting point for calculating RFP. South Carolina submitted its 2002 base year emissions inventory on August 31, 2007. In an action on May 18, 2012, EPA approved South Carolina’s 2002 base year emissions inventory for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 29540. A summary of the York County Area 2002 base year emissions inventories is included in Table 2 below. TABLE 2—2002 POINT AND AREA SOURCES ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA [Tons per summer day] Point Area Non-road Mobile County NOX York (partial) * .................. VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC 11.1 7.29 2.2 7.48 4.9 3.19 13.8 6.84 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with * Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area. (RACT) requirements, to the extent that these requirements were addressed in the attainment demonstration submissions. 3 RFP regulations are at 40 CFR 51.910. 4 Some areas that were designated as moderate or above for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS may have VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 implemented Rate of Progress plans (i.e., plans similar to the RFP requirements) by which the area would have achieved at least a 15 percent reduction in VOC from an initial baseline. Such areas have the flexibility to met RFP requirements through a reduction in VOC or nitrogen oxides, after the PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 initial achievement in a reduction of at least 15 percent for VOC emissions for the area. 5 The bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2011, based on 2008–2010 data. E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 62457 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations As mentioned above, EPA has already approved this emissions inventory and thus is not taking comment on these inventories in the parallel proposal to today’s direct final action. B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 adjusted base year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the exclusion from the base year inventory of emissions benefits resulting from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions are determined by the State using EPA’s on-road mobile source emissions modeling software, MOBILE6. The FMVCP and RVP emission reductions are then removed from the base year inventory by the State, resulting in an adjusted base year inventory. The emission reductions needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then calculated from the adjusted base year inventory. These reductions are then subtracted from the adjusted base year inventory to establish the emissions target for the RFP milestone year (2008). For moderate areas like the York County Area (as part of the bi-state Charlotte Area),6 the CAA specifies a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions over an initial six year period following the baseline inventory year. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this requirement for areas that were also designated nonattainment and classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or higher that has the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed of several areas or portions of areas, for which EPA fully approved a 15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, is considered to have met the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In this situation, a moderate nonattainment area is subject to RFP under section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than 3 years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must provide for a 15 percent emission reduction (either nitrogen oxides (NOx) and/or VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the six year period following the baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002–2008. As mentioned earlier and according to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, emission reductions that resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules promulgated prior to 1990 are not creditable for achieving RFP emission reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by subtracting the VOC and NOx emission reductions that are expected to occur between 2002 and the future milestone years due to the FMVCP and RVP rules. In the Phase 2 Rule, promulgated on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA outlines Method 1 as the process that states should use to show compliance with RFP for areas like the York County Area. A summary of the steps for Method 1 is provided below. • Step A is the actual anthropogenic base year VOC emissions inventory in 2002. • Step B is to account for creditable emissions for RFP. • Step C is to calculate non-creditable emissions for RFP. Non-creditable emissions include emissions from: (1) Motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990; (2) regulations concerning RVP promulgated by November 15, 1990; (3) RACT corrections required prior to November 1990; and (4) corrective inspection and maintenance (I/M) plan required prior to November 1990. • Step D is the 2002 base year emissions (Step A) minus the noncreditable emissions (Step C). • Step E is to calculate the 2008 target level VOC emissions. This is calculated by reducing the emissions from Step D by 15 percent. • The estimated 2008 VOC emissions are then compared to the 2008 target level VOC emissions (Step E). As provided in South Carolina’s August 31, 2007, SIP revision (as supplemented by the April 29, 2010, SIP revision), the State utilized the steps from Method 1 of the Phase 2 Rule. Specifically, South Carolina sets out its calculations in Section VI.B.2 of the August 31, 2007, plan and SC DHEC’s April 29, 2010, SIP revision as summarized below. 1. Step A: Estimate the actual anthropogenic base year VOC inventory in 2002 with all 2002 control programs in place for all sources. South Carolina provided this emission inventory in Table VI–1 of the April 29, 2010, York County RFP plan, and as shown in Table 3, below. As mentioned above, EPA has already approved this inventory. See 77 FR 29540 (May 18, 2012). TABLE 3—2002 VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA [Tons per summer day] Point Nonroad Mobile Total 7.29 York * Area 7.48 3.19 6.84 24.80 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with * Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area. 6 The portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area that was classified as moderate under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS contained the counties of Gaston and Mecklenburg in North Carolina. Gaston and Mecklenburg counties were also designated nonattainment as a part of the 1997 8-hour ozone moderate bi-state Charlotte Area. Although a VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 portion of this Area was classified as moderate for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, a 15 percent rate of progress (ROP) plan was not submitted for this Area due to its change in attainment status. Specifically, North Carolina submitted a redesignation and maintenance plan request instead before the due date of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS ROP plan. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Therefore, because the bi-state Charlotte Area did not implement a 15 percent ROP plan under the 1hour ozone NAAQS, the Area must have VOC reductions totaling at least 15 percent for the first six years following the baseline inventory year of 2002 in order for the RFP plan to be approved. E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 62458 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2. Step B: Using the same highway vehicle activity inputs used to calculate the actual 2002 inventory, run the appropriate motor vehicle emissions model for 2002 and for 2008 with all post-1990 CAA measures turned off. Any other local inputs for vehicle I/M programs should be set according to the program that was required to be in place in 1990. Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 or 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) depending on the RVP required in the local area as a result of fuel RVP regulations promulgated in June, 1990. South Carolina conducted the mobile modeling in accordance with the directions outlined above for Step B. For the York County Area, the RVP requirement was set at 9.0 psi. Currently, I/M is not required in the York County Area, nor were there any outstanding obligations for the State to correct deficiencies for an existing or required I/M program. The York County Area was not designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS until June 15, 2005, and thus did not have outstanding requirements related I/M. 3. Step C: Calculate the difference between the 2002 and 2008 VOC emission factors calculated in Step B and multiply by the 2002 vehicle miles traveled. The result is the VOC emission calculation that will occur between 2002 and 2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA measures. These are the non-creditable reductions that occur over this period. 5. Step E: Reduce the adjusted VOC inventory calculated in Step D by 15 percent. The result is the target level of VOC emissions in 2008 in order to meet the 2008 RFP requirement. The actual projected 2008 inventory for all sources with all control measures in place, including projected 2008 growth in activity, must be at or lower than this target level of emissions. South Carolina calculated the noncreditable emission reductions between 2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 2008 motor vehicle emissions with all post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and calculating the difference. This difference resulted in 1.00 tpd and can be found in Table VI–3 of the State’s August 31, 2007, SIP revision. The targeted level of emissions reductions for the York County Area to meet RFP requirements is 3.57 tpd of VOC (i.e, 23.80 tpd multiplied by 15 percent). Thus the required targeted level of VOC emissions is 20.23 tpd for the York County Area. 4. Step D: Subtract the non-creditable reductions calculated in Step C from the actual anthropogenic 2002 inventory estimated in Step A. This adjusted VOC inventory is the basis for calculating the target level of emissions in 2008. As mentioned above, the required target level for the York County Area to meet the initial RFP plan requirement is a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions for 2008 from the VOC emissions in 2002 (as adjusted per CAA requirements). Specifically, to meet this requirement, South Carolina needed to demonstrate a reduction of at least 3.57 tpd. Table 4 below summarizes the results of South Carolina’s calculations for this RFP analysis. The adjusted VOC inventory for calculating the target level of VOC emissions reductions for 2008 is 23.80 tpd (i.e., 24.80 tpd (i.e., result of Step A) and 1.00 tpd (i.e., the result of Step C)). C. Final Analysis of South Carolina’s RFP Analysis for the York County Area TABLE 4—YORK COUNTY AREA 15 PERCENT RFP ANALYSIS Step from Method 1 Step Step Step Step A C D E ........................ ....................... ....................... ........................ VOC (tpd) Matrix Total 2002 Base Year Anthropogenic VOC Emissions ............................................................................... Non-Creditable VOC reductions .................................................................................................................. 2002 Base Year minus the Non-Creditable Emissions ............................................................................... 2008 Target Level of VOC Emissions ......................................................................................................... In its August 31, 2007, SIP revision, South Carolina calculated the 2008 VOC emissions inventory for the York County 24.80 1.00 23.80 20.23 Area. This emissions inventory is provided below in Table 5 below. TABLE 5—2008 VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA [Tons per summer day] Point York * .......................... Area 3.60 ......................................................................... Nonroad 7.90 2.40 Mobile 3.94 Total 17.84 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with * Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area. As discussed above, the required target for VOC emissions for the year 2008 for South Carolina to meet the RFP requirements for York County is 20.23 tpd (i.e., 15 percent reduction from the adjusted 2002 baseline). As revealed in Table 5, South Carolina calculated an emissions inventory of 17.84 tpd of VOC for York County in 2008, which is well below the 20.23 tpd required target. Thus, EPA is making the determination VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 that South Carolina’s SIP revision demonstrates the required progress towards attainment for the York County Area as part of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In today’s action, EPA is approving South Carolina’s August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions as meeting the CAA and EPA’s regulations regarding RFP. PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County Area? Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state’s air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS. Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstrations) and maintenance plans create MVEB for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the target year and precursor pollutant of the RFP (i.e., in this case, for the target year of 2008 and for VOC). A state may adopt MVEB for other precursors as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the RFP plan that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area’s planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB. After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the York County Area, South Carolina developed VOC MVEB for the year 2008. Specifically, South Carolina developed these MVEB, as required, for the target year and precursor—2008 and VOC—for the RFP plan. The York County Area MVEB for the 2008 RFP plan are based on the projected 2008 mobile source emissions accounting for all mobile control measures. The 2008 VOC MVEB are defined in Table 6 below. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 62459 adequacy process in the Transportation TABLE 6—YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA* 1997 8-HOUR OZONE Conformity Rule Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National VOC MVEB Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court York County (partial county) VOC MVEB Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ VOC 6.053 tpd 5,493 kgd on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). * Represents only the portion of York County Additional information on the adequacy that is in the nonattainment area for the bi- process for transportation conformity state Charlotte Area purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled, ‘‘Transportation Through this rulemaking, EPA is Conformity Rule Amendments: approving the 2008 VOC MVEB for the Response to Court Decision and York County Area because EPA has made the determination that the Area is Additional Rule Changes,’’ 68 FR 38974, on target to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 38984 (June 30, 2003). As discussed earlier, South Carolina’s NAAQS with the emissions at the levels RFP plan submission includes VOC of the budgets. Once the MVEB for the MVEB for the York County Area for the York County Area are approved or year 2008. EPA reviewed the VOC found adequate (whichever is MVEB through the adequacy process. completed first), they must be used for The South Carolina SIP submission, future conformity determinations for the including the 2008 VOC MVEB for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the York County Area, was open for public Metropolitan Planning Organization’s comment on EPA’s adequacy Web site long-range transportation plans and on May 13, 2010, found at: https:// transportation improvement programs. www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ After thorough review, EPA has transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public previously determined that the budgets comment period on adequacy of the meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) (see 77 FR 33454, Area closed on June 14, 2010. EPA June 6, 2012), and is now approving the received comments during the adequacy budgets because they are consistent process. These comments were with RFP for the 1997 8-hour ozone addressed through the adequacy NAAQS for the year 2008. process, and EPA’s responses to these V. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy comments can be found on EPA’s adequacy Web site. determination for the 2008 VOC MVEB In a letter sent on May 25, 2012, EPA for the York County Area? notified SC DHEC that the MOBILE6.2When reviewing a submitted ‘‘control based 2008 VOC MVEB for the York strategy’’ SIP, RFP or maintenance plan County Area were determined to be containing a MVEB, EPA may adequate for transportation conformity affirmatively find the MVEB contained purposes. On June 6, 2012, EPA therein adequate for use in determining published its adequacy notice in the transportation conformity. Once EPA Federal Register (77 FR 33454). When affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB EPA found the 2008 VOC MVEB is adequate for transportation adequate, this triggered a requirement conformity purposes, that MVEB must that the new MVEB are used for future be used by state and federal agencies in transportation conformity determining whether proposed determinations. For required regional transportation projects conform to the emissions analysis years beyond 2008, SIP as required by section 176(c) of the the applicable budgets are the 2008 VOC CAA. MVEB. The 2008 VOC MVEB are EPA’s substantive criteria for defined in sections I and IV of this determining adequacy of a MVEB are set rulemaking. out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process VI. Final Action for determining adequacy consists of three basic steps: Public notification of EPA is taking direct final action to a SIP submission, a public comment approve portions of two SIP revisions, period, and EPA’s adequacy submitted on August 31, 2007, and determination. This process for April 29, 2010, by the State of South determining the adequacy of submitted Carolina, through the SC DHEC to meet MVEB for transportation conformity the RFP requirements for the York purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone May 14, 1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is Guidance on Implementation of March approving the VOC MVEB for the York 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ County Area that were including in EPA adopted regulations to codify the South Carolina’s RFP plan. These PO 00000 2008 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 2008 E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 62460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations actions are being taken pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comment be filed. This rule will be effective on December 14, 2012 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by November 14, 2012. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised this rule will be effective on December 14, 2012 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this RFP for the York County Area does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the York County Area. 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 and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.’’ EPA notes today’s action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 14, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today’s Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 2, 2012. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart PP—South Carolina 2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding new entries to the end of the table for ‘‘York County 1997 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan’’ and ‘‘Update for York County 1997 8hour ozone reasonable further progress plan’’ to read as follows: ■ § 52.2120 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM 15OCR1 * * 62461 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS State effective date Provision * * York County 1997 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan. Update for York County 1997 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 0, 27, and 90 [PS Docket 12–94; PS Docket No. 06–229; WT Docket 06–150; DA 12–1462] Implementing Public Safety Broadband Provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) of the Commission implemented certain provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Safety Spectrum Act) governing deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. Pursuant to clear statutory directives, the Bureau reallocated the D Block (758–763/788– 793 MHz) for ‘‘public safety services’’ and delete Commission rules that are plainly inconsistent with this revised allocation; deleted the rules establishing, providing license authority with respect to, and governing operations under the Public Safety Broadband License in the existing public safety broadband spectrum; and adopted rules implementing the clear mandate of the Public Safety Spectrum Act to grant a license with respect to the public safety broadband spectrum (763– 768/793–798 MHz), guard band (768– 769/798–799 MHz), and the D Block to the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). By eliminating any confusion or uncertainty about the new regulatory framework applicable to the public safety broadband network, these action takes further steps necessary to facilitate the transition of this spectrum to FirstNet as required by the Act. DATES: Effective November 14, 2012, except for the removal of §§ 90.18 and erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 15:18 Oct 12, 2012 Jkt 229001 * * 10/15/12 [Insert citation of publication] .. * Original submission. 04/29/10 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 Explanation * 08/31/07 [FR Doc. 2012–25172 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: EPA Approval date 10/15/12 [Insert citation of publication] .. Original submission updated to include required 2008 VOC MVEB. 90.528 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register announcing the subsequent effective date of these removals. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Fullano, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 7–C747, Washington, DC 20554. Telephone: (202)–418–0492, email: genaro.fullano@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Report and Order, DA 12–1462, adopted and released September 7, 2012, the Bureau implements certain provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (‘‘Public Safety Spectrum Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) 1 governing deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. The Public Safety Spectrum Act establishes the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to oversee the construction and operation of this network as licensee of both the ‘‘existing public safety broadband spectrum’’ (763–769/793–799 MHz) and the spectrally adjacent ‘‘700 MHz D Block spectrum’’ (758–763/788–793 MHz).2 The Act directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to reallocate the D Block for public safety services,3 to license the D Block and the existing public safety broadband spectrum to FirstNet 4 and to take other actions necessary to ‘‘facilitate the transition’’ of the existing public safety broadband spectrum to FirstNet. In the Report and Order, the Bureau implements clear directives of Congress set forth in the Public Safety Spectrum Act. The Bureau reallocates the D Block for ‘‘public safety services’’ and deletes Commission rules that are plainly 1 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012). 2 See id. Secs. 6201(a), 6202 and 6204(a); see also id. sec. 6001(2) (defining ‘‘700 MHz D Block spectrum’’) and (14) (defining ‘‘existing public safety broadband spectrum’’). 3 See id. sec. 6101. 4 See id. sec. 6201(a). PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * inconsistent with this revised allocation. It also deletes the Commission rules establishing, providing license authority with respect to, and governing operations under the Public Safety Broadband License in the existing public safety broadband spectrum. The Bureau replaces these with rules implementing the clear mandate of the Public Safety Spectrum Act to grant a license with respect to this spectrum and the D Block to FirstNet. The rule changes adopted by the Bureau in this order are strictly limited to implementation of aspects of that mandate that leave no room for agency discretion, and thus fall within the Bureau’s delegated authority and are consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.5 As noted below, by eliminating any confusion or uncertainty about the new regulatory framework applicable to the public safety broadband network, the Bureau’s action takes further steps necessary to facilitate the transition of this spectrum to FirstNet as the prospective licensee established by the Act;. The Report and Order is available at https://transition.fcc.gov/ Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/ db0907/DA-12-1462A1.pdf. This Report and Order will become effective November 14, 2012, except for the deletion of sections 90.18 and 90.528 of the Commission’s rules. Following that date, the Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register announcing the subsequent effective date of these rule deletions, which shall be the date of issuance of a license to the First Responder Network Authority pursuant to Section 6201(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Under Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis relating to the Report and Order because it was not required to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking before effecting the rule changes set forth 5 See E:\FR\FM\15OCR1.SGM id.; 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 15OCR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62454-62461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25172]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177; FRL-9740-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Portion of
York County, South Carolina Within Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area;
Reasonable Further Progress Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve two state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions, submitted by the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on August 31,
2007, and April 29, 2010, to address the reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for the portion of York County, South
Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area'') is comprised
of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion
of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) Counties in North
Carolina; and a portion of York County in South Carolina (hereafter
referred to as ``the York County Area''). EPA is also providing the
status of its adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) that were included
in South Carolina's RFP plan. Further, EPA is approving these MVEB.
These actions are being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act). EPA will take action on North Carolina's RFP plan for
its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, in a separate action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective December 14, 2012 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 14,
2012. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2008-0177,'' by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177,'' 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.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0177.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,

[[Page 62455]]

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: Ms. 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. The
telephone number is (404) 562-9061. Ms. Sara Waterson can be reached
via electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for EPA's action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the RFP plan for the York County
Area?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County
Area?
V. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the 2008
VOC MVEB for the York County Area?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving revisions to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by
the State of South Carolina through SC DHEC, on August 31, 2007, and
April 29, 2010, to meet RFP requirements of the CAA for the York County
Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The RFP plan demonstrates that
VOC emissions will be reduced by at least 15 percent for the period of
2002 through 2008. Additionally, EPA is approving the required 2008 VOC
MVEB which were included in the York County Area RFP plan. EPA is
taking these actions because they are consistent with CAA requirements
for the requirements for RFP. The York County Area MVEB, expressed in
tons per day (tpd) and kilograms per day (kgd), are provided in Table 1
below.

Table 1--York County, South Carolina* 1997 8-Hour Ozone VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
York County ( partial county) VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC 6.053 tpd 5,493 kgd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the
nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

EPA is also describing the status of its transportation conformity
adequacy determination for the 2008 MVEB.

II. What is the background for EPA's action?

A. General Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air
quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet the
data completeness requirement as determined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is
met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data
is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent
data completeness.
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS,
based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the
conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30,
2004 (effective June 15, 2004) using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data
(69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of designation the bi-state
Charlotte Area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone
Implementation Rule, EPA established ozone nonattainment area
attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This
established an attainment date six years after the June 15, 2004,
effective date for areas classified as moderate areas for the 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment designations. Section 181 of the CAA explains
that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas shall be as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years after
designation, or June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area's
original attainment date was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004.
The bi-state Charlotte Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment date for moderate
nonattainment areas); however, the Area qualified for an extension of
the attainment date. Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for
extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the
original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section
181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment
date under specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that
North Carolina and South Carolina met the CAA requirements to obtain a
one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area. See 76 FR 31245. As a result,
EPA extended the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date from June
15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and subsequently,
on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13493), EPA determined that the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. The determination of attaining data was based upon
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for
the 2008-2010 period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control
measures (RACM), RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP
revisions related to attainment of the standard were suspended as a
result of the determination of attainment, so long as the Area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ See 40 CFR
52.2125(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Originally, South Carolina submitted SIP revisions,
including an attainment demonstration, on August 31, 2007, to
address nonattainment requirements related to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, South Carolina submitted an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures,
emissions statement, a 2002 base year emissions inventory and other
planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the York County Area. South Carolina withdrew the
August 31, 2007, attainment demonstration portion of the SIP for the
York County Area on December 22, 2008. On April 29, 2010, South
Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration SIP, and provided
a supplement for the August 31, 2007, RFP plan for the York County
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 12, 2012, South Carolina withdrew the attainment
demonstration submissions (except RFP, emissions statements, and the
emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918 for the York County
Area.\2\

[[Page 62456]]

Subsequently, EPA approved South Carolina's SIP revisions related to
the emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements for the
York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the EPA action
related to the emissions statements requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 37812 (June 25, 2012). For the EPA action
related to the emissions inventory requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 29540 (May 18, 2012). Despite the determination
of attainment, South Carolina opted to leave the SIP submissions
related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS before
EPA for action. As such, EPA is taking action to approve South
Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions as they
related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ South Carolina did not withdraw any elements related to
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements, to the
extent that these requirements were addressed in the attainment
demonstration submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background for RFP

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on June 8, 2007 (72
FR 31727), EPA published a rule entitled ``Final Rule To Implement the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule
To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New
Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply
in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline'' (hereafter referred to as the Phase 2 Rule).
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's Phase 2 Rule \3\ require a
state, for each 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area that is classified
as moderate, to submit an emissions inventory and a RFP plan to show
how the state will reduce emissions of VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ RFP regulations are at 40 CFR 51.910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bi-state Charlotte Area had an attainment date of June 15, 2010
(i.e., that is beyond five years after designation), that was later
extended to June 15, 2011. See 76 FR 31245 (May 31, 2011). For a
moderate area with an attainment date of more than five years after
designation, the RFP plan must obtain a 15 percent reduction in ozone
precursor emissions for the first six years after the baseline year
(2002 through 2008). Since the York County Area did not have a previous
plan to address RFP requirements,\4\ the initial RFP requirement for
the Area must be met through VOC reductions as required by the 1990 CAA
Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Some areas that were designated as moderate or above for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS may have implemented Rate of Progress plans
(i.e., plans similar to the RFP requirements) by which the area
would have achieved at least a 15 percent reduction in VOC from an
initial baseline. Such areas have the flexibility to met RFP
requirements through a reduction in VOC or nitrogen oxides, after
the initial achievement in a reduction of at least 15 percent for
VOC emissions for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9), RFP plans must include
contingency measures that will take effect without further action by
the state or EPA, which includes additional controls that would be
implemented if the area fails to reach the RFP milestones. While the
CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of emissions
reductions required, EPA provided guidance interpreting the CAA that
implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional
emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted base year
inventory in the year following the RFP milestone year (i.e., in this
case 2008). For more information on contingency measures please see the
April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the November
29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone standard implementation rule (70 FR
71612, 71650). Finally, RFP plans must also include a MVEB for the
precursors for which the plan is developed. See Section IV of this
rulemaking for more information on MVEB requirements.
On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted
RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA's requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The August 31, 2007, SIP revision (as
supplemented by the April 29, 2010, SIP revision) included an
attainment demonstration plan, RFP plan for 2008 milestone year,
contingency measures, RACT, RACM requirements, on-road VOC MVEB, and
the 2002 base year emissions inventory. These SIP revisions were
subject to notice and comment by the public and the State addressed the
comments received on the proposed SIPs. Today's rulemaking is approving
only the RFP plan, including the associated MVEB. The remainder of
South Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions
were addressed by previous EPA actions, or by the State's withdrawal of
submissions that were no longer necessary.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the RFP plan for the York County Area?

On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted
RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA's requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Below provides EPA's analysis of South
Carolina's RFP submissions.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources and is required by
section 182(a)(1) of the CAA. Because the York County Area as part of
the bi-state Charlotte Area did not implement the 15 percent VOC
reductions for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the requirement for South
Carolina to meet RFP is a 15 percent VOC reduction between 2002 and
2008 with continued progress toward attainment through attainment.\5\
EPA recommended 2002 as the base year emissions inventory, and is
therefore the starting point for calculating RFP. South Carolina
submitted its 2002 base year emissions inventory on August 31, 2007. In
an action on May 18, 2012, EPA approved South Carolina's 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 29540. A summary of the York County Area 2002 base
year emissions inventories is included in Table 2 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by June 15, 2011, based on 2008-2010 data.

Table 2--2002 Point and Area Sources Annual Emissions for the York County Area
[Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Non-road Mobile
County ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
York (partial) *........................ 11.1 7.29 2.2 7.48 4.9 3.19 13.8 6.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

[[Page 62457]]

As mentioned above, EPA has already approved this emissions inventory
and thus is not taking comment on these inventories in the parallel
proposal to today's direct final action.

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels

The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the
RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 adjusted base
year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the exclusion
from the base year inventory of emissions benefits resulting from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated
by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations
promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions
reductions are determined by the State using EPA's on-road mobile
source emissions modeling software, MOBILE6. The FMVCP and RVP emission
reductions are then removed from the base year inventory by the State,
resulting in an adjusted base year inventory. The emission reductions
needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then calculated from the
adjusted base year inventory. These reductions are then subtracted from
the adjusted base year inventory to establish the emissions target for
the RFP milestone year (2008).
For moderate areas like the York County Area (as part of the bi-
state Charlotte Area),\6\ the CAA specifies a 15 percent reduction in
ozone precursor emissions over an initial six year period following the
baseline inventory year. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this
requirement for areas that were also designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In the
Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or
higher that has the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed
of several areas or portions of areas, for which EPA fully approved a
15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, is considered to have met the
requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In
this situation, a moderate nonattainment area is subject to RFP under
section 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than 3 years
after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must provide
for a 15 percent emission reduction (either nitrogen oxides (NOx) and/
or VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the six year
period following the baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area that was
classified as moderate under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS contained the
counties of Gaston and Mecklenburg in North Carolina. Gaston and
Mecklenburg counties were also designated nonattainment as a part of
the 1997 8-hour ozone moderate bi-state Charlotte Area. Although a
portion of this Area was classified as moderate for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, a 15 percent rate of progress (ROP) plan was not submitted
for this Area due to its change in attainment status. Specifically,
North Carolina submitted a redesignation and maintenance plan
request instead before the due date of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS ROP
plan. Therefore, because the bi-state Charlotte Area did not
implement a 15 percent ROP plan under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the
Area must have VOC reductions totaling at least 15 percent for the
first six years following the baseline inventory year of 2002 in
order for the RFP plan to be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned earlier and according to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the
CAA, emission reductions that resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules
promulgated prior to 1990 are not creditable for achieving RFP emission
reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by
subtracting the VOC and NOx emission reductions that are expected to
occur between 2002 and the future milestone years due to the FMVCP and
RVP rules.
In the Phase 2 Rule, promulgated on November 29, 2005 (70 FR
71612), EPA outlines Method 1 as the process that states should use to
show compliance with RFP for areas like the York County Area. A summary
of the steps for Method 1 is provided below.
Step A is the actual anthropogenic base year VOC emissions
inventory in 2002.
Step B is to account for creditable emissions for RFP.
Step C is to calculate non-creditable emissions for RFP.
Non-creditable emissions include emissions from: (1) Motor vehicle
exhaust or evaporative emissions regulations promulgated by January 1,
1990; (2) regulations concerning RVP promulgated by November 15, 1990;
(3) RACT corrections required prior to November 1990; and (4)
corrective inspection and maintenance (I/M) plan required prior to
November 1990.
Step D is the 2002 base year emissions (Step A) minus the
non-creditable emissions (Step C).
Step E is to calculate the 2008 target level VOC
emissions. This is calculated by reducing the emissions from Step D by
15 percent.
The estimated 2008 VOC emissions are then compared to the
2008 target level VOC emissions (Step E).
As provided in South Carolina's August 31, 2007, SIP revision (as
supplemented by the April 29, 2010, SIP revision), the State utilized
the steps from Method 1 of the Phase 2 Rule. Specifically, South
Carolina sets out its calculations in Section VI.B.2 of the August 31,
2007, plan and SC DHEC's April 29, 2010, SIP revision as summarized
below.
1. Step A: Estimate the actual anthropogenic base year VOC inventory in
2002 with all 2002 control programs in place for all sources.
South Carolina provided this emission inventory in Table VI-1 of
the April 29, 2010, York County RFP plan, and as shown in Table 3,
below. As mentioned above, EPA has already approved this inventory. See
77 FR 29540 (May 18, 2012).

Table 3--2002 VOC Emissions Inventory for the York County Area
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
York * 7.29 7.48 3.19 6.84 24.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

[[Page 62458]]

2. Step B: Using the same highway vehicle activity inputs used to
calculate the actual 2002 inventory, run the appropriate motor vehicle
emissions model for 2002 and for 2008 with all post-1990 CAA measures
turned off. Any other local inputs for vehicle I/M programs should be
set according to the program that was required to be in place in 1990.
Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 or 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi)
depending on the RVP required in the local area as a result of fuel RVP
regulations promulgated in June, 1990.
South Carolina conducted the mobile modeling in accordance with the
directions outlined above for Step B. For the York County Area, the RVP
requirement was set at 9.0 psi. Currently, I/M is not required in the
York County Area, nor were there any outstanding obligations for the
State to correct deficiencies for an existing or required I/M program.
The York County Area was not designated nonattainment for the ozone
NAAQS until June 15, 2005, and thus did not have outstanding
requirements related I/M.
3. Step C: Calculate the difference between the 2002 and 2008 VOC
emission factors calculated in Step B and multiply by the 2002 vehicle
miles traveled. The result is the VOC emission calculation that will
occur between 2002 and 2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA
measures. These are the non-creditable reductions that occur over this
period.
South Carolina calculated the non-creditable emission reductions
between 2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 2008 motor vehicle
emissions with all post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and calculating
the difference. This difference resulted in 1.00 tpd and can be found
in Table VI-3 of the State's August 31, 2007, SIP revision.
4. Step D: Subtract the non-creditable reductions calculated in Step C
from the actual anthropogenic 2002 inventory estimated in Step A. This
adjusted VOC inventory is the basis for calculating the target level of
emissions in 2008.
The adjusted VOC inventory for calculating the target level of VOC
emissions reductions for 2008 is 23.80 tpd (i.e., 24.80 tpd (i.e.,
result of Step A) and 1.00 tpd (i.e., the result of Step C)).
5. Step E: Reduce the adjusted VOC inventory calculated in Step D by 15
percent. The result is the target level of VOC emissions in 2008 in
order to meet the 2008 RFP requirement. The actual projected 2008
inventory for all sources with all control measures in place, including
projected 2008 growth in activity, must be at or lower than this target
level of emissions.
The targeted level of emissions reductions for the York County Area
to meet RFP requirements is 3.57 tpd of VOC (i.e, 23.80 tpd multiplied
by 15 percent). Thus the required targeted level of VOC emissions is
20.23 tpd for the York County Area.

C. Final Analysis of South Carolina's RFP Analysis for the York County
Area

As mentioned above, the required target level for the York County
Area to meet the initial RFP plan requirement is a 15 percent reduction
in VOC emissions for 2008 from the VOC emissions in 2002 (as adjusted
per CAA requirements). Specifically, to meet this requirement, South
Carolina needed to demonstrate a reduction of at least 3.57 tpd. Table
4 below summarizes the results of South Carolina's calculations for
this RFP analysis.

Table 4--York County Area 15 Percent RFP Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step from Method 1 Matrix VOC (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step A........................ Total 2002 Base Year 24.80
Anthropogenic VOC
Emissions.
Step C........................ Non-Creditable VOC 1.00
reductions.
Step D........................ 2002 Base Year minus the 23.80
Non-Creditable
Emissions.
Step E........................ 2008 Target Level of VOC 20.23
Emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its August 31, 2007, SIP revision, South Carolina calculated the
2008 VOC emissions inventory for the York County Area. This emissions
inventory is provided below in Table 5 below.

Table 5--2008 VOC Emissions Inventory for the York County Area
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Nonroad Mobile Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
York *.................... 3.60................ 7.90 2.40 3.94 17.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area.

As discussed above, the required target for VOC emissions for the
year 2008 for South Carolina to meet the RFP requirements for York
County is 20.23 tpd (i.e., 15 percent reduction from the adjusted 2002
baseline). As revealed in Table 5, South Carolina calculated an
emissions inventory of 17.84 tpd of VOC for York County in 2008, which
is well below the 20.23 tpd required target. Thus, EPA is making the
determination that South Carolina's SIP revision demonstrates the
required progress towards attainment for the York County Area as part
of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In today's action, EPA is approving
South Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions as
meeting the CAA and EPA's regulations regarding RFP.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County
Area?

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must
``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air
quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality

[[Page 62459]]

violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not
conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways
cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy,
criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of
such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions
analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing
transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement
for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas
that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have
since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan
for that NAAQS.
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas.
These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment
demonstrations) and maintenance plans create MVEB for criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and
trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the target
year and precursor pollutant of the RFP (i.e., in this case, for the
target year of 2008 and for VOC). A state may adopt MVEB for other
precursors as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable
emissions in the RFP plan that is allocated to highway and transit
vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The
MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also
describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the
MVEB.
After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for
the York County Area, South Carolina developed VOC MVEB for the year
2008. Specifically, South Carolina developed these MVEB, as required,
for the target year and precursor--2008 and VOC--for the RFP plan. The
York County Area MVEB for the 2008 RFP plan are based on the projected
2008 mobile source emissions accounting for all mobile control
measures. The 2008 VOC MVEB are defined in Table 6 below.

Table 6--York County, South Carolina* 1997 8-Hour Ozone VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
York County (partial county) VOC MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC 6.053 tpd 5,493 kgd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents only the portion of York County that is in the
nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area

Through this rulemaking, EPA is approving the 2008 VOC MVEB for the
York County Area because EPA has made the determination that the Area
is on target to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions
at the levels of the budgets. Once the MVEB for the York County Area
are approved or found adequate (whichever is completed first), they
must be used for future conformity determinations for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the Metropolitan Planning Organization's long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. After
thorough review, EPA has previously determined that the budgets meet
the adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) (see 77 FR
33454, June 6, 2012), and is now approving the budgets because they are
consistent with RFP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the year 2008.

V. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the 2008 VOC
MVEB for the York County Area?

When reviewing a submitted ``control strategy'' SIP, RFP or
maintenance plan containing a MVEB, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB
contained therein adequate for use in determining transportation
conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate
for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state
and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy
consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process
for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEB for transportation
conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999,
guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to codify the
adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for
the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Change,'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional
information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity
purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled, ``Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional
Rule Changes,'' 68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).
As discussed earlier, South Carolina's RFP plan submission includes
VOC MVEB for the York County Area for the year 2008. EPA reviewed the
VOC MVEB through the adequacy process. The South Carolina SIP
submission, including the 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County Area, was
open for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on May 13, 2010,
found at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2008 VOC
MVEB for the York County Area closed on June 14, 2010. EPA received
comments during the adequacy process. These comments were addressed
through the adequacy process, and EPA's responses to these comments can
be found on EPA's adequacy Web site.
In a letter sent on May 25, 2012, EPA notified SC DHEC that the
MOBILE6.2-based 2008 VOC MVEB for the York County Area were determined
to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. On June 6, 2012,
EPA published its adequacy notice in the Federal Register (77 FR
33454). When EPA found the 2008 VOC MVEB adequate, this triggered a
requirement that the new MVEB are used for future transportation
conformity determinations. For required regional emissions analysis
years beyond 2008, the applicable budgets are the 2008 VOC MVEB. The
2008 VOC MVEB are defined in sections I and IV of this rulemaking.

VI. Final Action

EPA is taking direct final action to approve portions of two SIP
revisions, submitted on August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, by the
State of South Carolina, through the SC DHEC to meet the RFP
requirements for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, EPA is approving the VOC MVEB for the York County Area
that were including in South Carolina's RFP plan. These

[[Page 62460]]

actions are being taken pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comment be filed. This rule will be effective on December 14,
2012 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment
by November 14, 2012. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will
publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public
that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no
such comments are received, the public is advised this rule will be
effective on December 14, 2012 and no further action will be taken on
the proposed rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this final action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this RFP for the York County Area does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects
on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located
within the York County Area. 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
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes today's action will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 14, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: October 2, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding new entries to the end of
the table for ``York County 1997 8-hour ozone reasonable further
progress plan'' and ``Update for York County 1997 8-hour ozone
reasonable further progress plan'' to read as follows:

Sec. 52.2120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(e) * * *

[[Page 62461]]

EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Provision date EPA Approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
York County 1997 8-hour ozone 08/31/07 10/15/12 [Insert citation Original submission.
reasonable further progress plan. of publication].
Update for York County 1997 8-hour 04/29/10 10/15/12 [Insert citation Original submission
ozone reasonable further progress plan. of publication]. updated to include
required 2008 VOC MVEB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-25172 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.