Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; South Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 68087-68101 [2012-27807]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
maintenance plan for the West Virginia
portion of the Area, submitted on June
30, 2011, as a revision to the West
Virginia SIP because it meets the
requirements of CAA section 175A as
described previously in this notice. EPA
is also proposing to approve the
insignificance determination for on-road
motor vehicle contribution of PM2.5,
NOX, and SO2, submitted by West
Virginia for the West Virginia portion of
the Area in conjunction with its
redesignation request. As noted
previously, the 30 day public comment
period for the proposed insignificance
determination started on November 5,
2012 and will end on December 4, 2012.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA 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 proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed 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);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
• 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 rule proposing
approval of West Virginia’s
redesignation request, maintenance
plan, and transportation conformity
insignificance determination for the
Huntington-Ashland Area for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, PM2.5,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness Areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 7, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012–27785 Filed 11–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
On June 1, 2011, the State of
South Carolina, through the South
Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC),
submitted a request for EPA to
redesignate the portion of York County,
South Carolina that is within the bi-state
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to
as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area,’’ or
‘‘Area’’) to attainment for the 1997 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS); and to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision containing a maintenance plan
for the South Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area (hereafter referred
to as ‘‘the York County Area’’). The bistate Charlotte Area consists of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a
portion of Iredell County (Davidson and
Coddle Creek Townships) in North
Carolina; and a portion of York County
in South Carolina (including the
Catawba Indian Nation reservation
lands). EPA is proposing to approve the
redesignation request for the York
County Area, along with the related SIP
revision, including South Carolina’s
plan for maintaining attainment of the
ozone standard in the York County
Area. EPA is also proposing to approve
the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEB) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) for
the years 2013 and 2022 for the York
County Area. Additionally, EPA is
proposing that the 2022 MVEB are
consistent with maintenance in 2023.
These actions are being proposed
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) and its implementing regulations.
EPA will take action on the North
Carolina submission for the 1997 8-hour
ozone redesignation request and
maintenance plan for its portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area in a separate
action.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before December 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0327, 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–2012–0327,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
DATES:
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0327; FRL–9751–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; South Carolina;
Redesignation of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Moderate Nonattainment Area to
Attainment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68087
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
68088
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0327. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Spann or Sara Waterson of the
Regulatory Development Section, in the
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Spann may be reached by phone at (404)
562–9029, or via electronic mail at
spann.jane@epa.gov. Ms. Waterson may
be reached by phone at (404) 562–9061,
or via electronic mail at
waterson.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to
take?
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed actions?
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
V. What is EPA’s analysis of the request?
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of South
Carolina’s proposed NOX and VOC
MVEB for the York County area?
VII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy
determination for the proposed NOX and
VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the
York County area?
VIII. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
actions?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan SIP
Revision Including Proposed Approval
of the 2013 and 2022 NOX and VOC
MVEB for the York County Area
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is
proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following
two separate but related actions, one of
which involves multiple elements: (1)
To redesignate the York County Area
(including the Catawba Indian Nation
reservation lands) to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and (2) to
approve into the South Carolina SIP,
under section 175A of the CAA, South
Carolina’s 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maintenance plan, including the
associated MVEB. EPA is also notifying
the public of the status of EPA’s
adequacy determination for the York
County Area MVEB. These actions are
summarized below and described in
greater detail throughout this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
First, EPA proposes to determine that
the York County Area has met the
requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve a
request to change the legal designation
of the portion of York County (including
the Catawba Indian Nation reservation
lands) in the bi-state Charlotte Area
from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve
South Carolina’s 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS maintenance plan for the York
County Area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria
for redesignation to attainment status).
The maintenance plan is designed to
help keep the York County Area in
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2022. As explained in
Section V, EPA is also proposing to
approve that attainment can be
maintained through 2023. Consistent
with the CAA, the maintenance plan
that EPA is proposing to approve today
also includes NOX and VOC MVEB for
the years 2013 and 2022 for the York
County Area. EPA is proposing to
approve (into the South Carolina SIP)
the 2013 and 2022 MVEB that are
included as part of South Carolina’s
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. As explained in
Sections V and VI, EPA is also
proposing that the MVEB are consistent
with maintenance through 2023.
EPA is also notifying the public of the
status of EPA’s adequacy process for the
newly-established NOX and VOC MVEB
for 2013 and 2022 for the York County
Area. The Adequacy comment period
for the York County Area 2013 and 2022
MVEB began on October 28, 2011, with
EPA’s posting of the availability of this
submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm).
The Adequacy comment period for
these MVEB closed on November 28,
2011. No comments, adverse or
otherwise, were received during EPA’s
adequacy process for the MVEB
associated with South Carolina’s 1997 8hour ozone maintenance plan. Please
see section VII of this proposed
rulemaking for further explanation of
this process and for more details on the
MVEB.
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Today’s notice of proposed
rulemaking is in response to South
Carolina’s June 1, 2011, SIP revision.
That document addresses the specific
issues summarized above and the
necessary elements described in section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for
redesignation of the York County Area
to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed actions?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08
parts per million (ppm) (62 FR 38856,
July 18, 1997). Under EPA’s regulations
at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3year 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 a data completeness
requirement. 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 as
determined in Appendix I of part 50.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951,
April 30, 2004.
On April 29, 2010,1 South Carolina
submitted an attainment demonstration
and associated reasonably available
control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (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 in the York County Area.
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 the Area met the
CAA requirements to obtain a one-year
extension of the attainment date for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 76 FR
31245. As a result, EPA extended the bistate Charlotte Area’s attainment date
from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On June 1, 2011, South Carolina
requested redesignation of the York
County Area to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
redesignation request included three
years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality data for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS for 2008–2010,
indicating that the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS had been achieved for the bistate Charlotte Area. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient,
complete, quality-assured data is
available for the Administrator to
determine that the area has attained the
standard and the area meets the other
CAA redesignation requirements in
section 107(d)(3)(E).
Subsequently, on March 7, 2012 (77
FR 13493), EPA determined that the bistate Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date. The determination of
attaining data was based upon complete,
1 South Carolina withdrew an August 31, 2007,
attainment demonstration SIP for its portion of the
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone
area on December 22, 2008. EPA issued a finding
of failure to submit for the attainment
demonstration for the Charlotte NC–SC Area on
May 8, 2009. See 74 FR 21550. On April 29, 2010,
South Carolina resubmitted the attainment
demonstration SIP with an updated supplement for
the South Carolina portion of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68089
quality-assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2008–2010
period, showing that the Area had
monitored attainment of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements
for the Area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated 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. See 40 CFR
52.2125(a). The Area continues to attain
the standard with 2009–2011 data.
On January 12, 2012, South Carolina
withdrew the York County portion of
the Area’s attainment demonstration
(except RFP, emissions statements, and
the emissions inventory) as allowed by
40 CFR 51.918. EPA approved the
baseline emissions inventory portion of
the attainment demonstration SIP
revision on May 18, 2012 (77 FR 29540).
Additionally, EPA approved the
emissions statements portion of the
attainment demonstration SIP revision
on June 25, 2012 (77 FR 37812). No
comments were received on either
action. EPA is considering action on
South Carolina’s RFP plan in a separate
action; however, as mentioned
previously, the determination of
attainment suspended South Carolina’s
obligation to meet this requirement for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
III. What are the criteria for
redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation providing that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
the Administrator has fully approved
the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable federal air pollutant
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and, (5) the state containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided
guidance on redesignation in the
General Preamble for the
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
68090
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498),
and supplemented this guidance on
April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has
provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following
documents:
1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’
Memorandum from Bill Laxton,
Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for
Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from G.
T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992 (hereafter referred to as the
‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’);
5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G. T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
redesignation criteria for the York
County Area. The five redesignation
criteria provided under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater
detail for the York County Area in the
following paragraphs of this section.
Management Division, November 30,
1993;
9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part
D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
Criteria (1)—The Bi-State Charlotte Area
(Including the York County Area as Part
of the Bi-State Charlotte Area) Has
Attained the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
IV. Why is EPA proposing these
actions?
On June 1, 2011, the State of South
Carolina, through SC DHEC, requested
the redesignation of the York County
Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA’s evaluation
indicates that the entire bi-state
Charlotte Area (including the York
County Area as part of the bi-State
Charlotte Area) has attained the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS, and that the York
County Area meets the requirements for
redesignation set forth in section
107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance
plan requirements under section 175A
of the CAA. As a result, EPA is
proposing to take the two related actions
summarized in section I of this notice.
V. What is EPA’s analysis of the
request?
As stated above, in accordance with
the CAA, EPA proposes in today’s
action to: (1) Redesignate the York
County Area (including the Catawba
Indian Nation reservation lands) to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; and (2) approve the York
County Area’s 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS maintenance plan, including
the associated MVEB, into the South
Carolina SIP. These actions are based
upon EPA’s preliminary determinations
that the bi-state Charlotte Area
(including the York County Area as part
of the bi-State Charlotte Area) continues
to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
and EPA’s preliminary determination
that South Carolina has met all other
For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS if it meets the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and
Appendix I of part 50, based on three
complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality monitoring
data. To attain these NAAQS, the 3-year
average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured at each
monitor within an area over each year
must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
data handling and reporting convention
described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, the NAAQS are attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data
must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS). The monitors generally should
have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period
required for demonstrating attainment.
On November 15, 2011, at 76 FR
70656, EPA determined that the bi-state
Charlotte Area was attaining the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. For that action
EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data
from monitoring stations in the bi-state
Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for 2008–2010. These
data have been quality-assured and are
recorded in AQS. EPA has reviewed the
2009–2011 data, which indicate that the
Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS beyond the submitted 3year attainment period of 2008–2010.
The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average
for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the 3-year
average of these values (i.e., design
values), are summarized in the
following Table 1 of this proposed
rulemaking.
TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
Annual arithmetic mean concentrations (ppm)
Location
County
2008
Lincoln County
Replacing Iron
Station.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Lincoln ................
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
3-Year design values
(ppm)
Monitor ID
37–109–0004
PO 00000
Frm 00018
0.079
Fmt 4702
2009
2010
0.065
Sfmt 4702
0.072
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
2011
0.077
15NOP1
2008–2010
2009–2011
0.072
0.071
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
68091
TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA—Continued
Annual arithmetic mean concentrations (ppm)
Location
County
2008
Garinger High
School.
Westinghouse
Blvd.
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co.
Rockwell ..............
Enochville School
Monroe Middle
School.
3-Year design values
(ppm)
Monitor ID
2009
2010
2011
2008–2010
2009–2011
Mecklenburg .......
37–119–0041
0.085
0.069
0.082
0.088
0.078
0.079
Mecklenburg .......
37–119–1005
0.073
0.068
0.078
0.082
0.073
0.076
Mecklenburg .......
37–119–1009
0.093
0.071
0.082
0.083
0.082
0.078
Rowan .................
Rowan .................
Union ..................
37–159–0021
37–159–0022
37–179–0003
0.084
0.082
0.08
0.071
0.073
0.067
0.077
0.078
0.071
0.077
0.078
0.073
0.077
0.077
0.072
0.075
0.076
0.070
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, South Carolina; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The 3-year design value for 2008–
2010 submitted by South Carolina for
redesignation of the bi-state Charlotte
Area is 0.082 ppm, which meets the
NAAQS as described above. As
mentioned above, on November 15,
2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA published a
clean data determination for the bi-state
Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The 2009–2011 certified
data show that the bi-state Charlotte
Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with a design value of
0.079 ppm at the Garinger High School
monitor. In today’s action, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Area is
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA will not go forward with
the redesignation if the Area does not
continue to attain until the time that
EPA finalizes the redesignation. As
discussed in more detail below, the
State of South Carolina has committed
to continue monitoring in this Area in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
Criteria (2)—South Carolina Has a Fully
Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for
the York County Area; and Criteria (5)—
South Carolina Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of Title I of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the state has met
all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of title I of the
CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and
that the state has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes
to find that South Carolina has met all
applicable SIP requirements for the
York County Area under section 110 of
the CAA (general SIP requirements) for
purposes of redesignation. Additionally,
EPA proposes to find that the South
Carolina SIP satisfies the criterion that
it meets applicable SIP requirements for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
purposes of redesignation under part D
of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas) in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further,
EPA proposes to determine that the SIP
is fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the Area and, if applicable,
that they are fully approved under
section 110(k). SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to
requirements that were applicable prior
to submittal of the complete
redesignation request.
a. The York County Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D of the CAA
General SIP requirements. Section
110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates
the general requirements for a SIP,
which include enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques; provisions for the
establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality; and
programs to enforce the limitations.
General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of
title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: submittal of a
SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs); provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and
local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
the interstate transport of air pollutants
(e.g., NOX SIP Call 2 and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) 3). The section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are
not linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that state. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
2 On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued
a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia
and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order
to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone
precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call,
South Carolina developed rules governing the
control of NOX emissions from electric generating
units (EGU), major non-EGU industrial boilers,
major cement kilns, and internal combustion
engines. On June 28, 2002, EPA approved South
Carolina’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP
Call (67 FR 43546).
3 On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), EPA
promulgated CAIR, which required 28 upwind
States and the District of Columbia to revise their
SIPs to include control measures that would reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX. Various aspects of CAIR
rule were petitioned in court and on December 23,
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA (see North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Circuit,
December 23, 2008)), which left CAIR in place to
‘‘temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaces it with a rule
consistent with the Court’s ruling. In response to
the court’s decision, EPA issued a new rule to
address interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the
eastern United States (i.e., the Transport Rule, also
known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). See
76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In a ruling on August
21, 2012, the court vacated the Transport Rule and
reiterated its expectation for EPA to continue to
administer CAIR until a replacement rule is in
place. Therefore, CAIR is currently in effect in
South Carolina.
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
68092
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to
a state regardless of the designation of
any one particular area in the state.
Thus, EPA does not believe that the
CAA’s interstate transport requirements
should be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. However, as discussed
later in this notice, addressing pollutant
transport from other states is an
important part of an area’s maintenance
demonstration.
In addition, EPA believes other
section 110 elements that are neither
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions nor linked with an area’s
attainment status are applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after the
area is redesignated. The section 110
and part D requirements which are
linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio,
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001).
EPA completed rulemaking on a
submittal from South Carolina dated
December 13, 2007, addressing
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements required
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
under CAA section 110(a)(2) on July 13,
2011. See 76 FR 41111. However, these
are statewide requirements that are not
a consequence of the nonattainment
status of the York County Area. As
stated above, EPA believes that section
110 elements not linked to an area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
for purposes of redesignation. Therefore,
EPA believes it has approved all SIP
elements under section 110 that must be
approved as a prerequisite for
redesignating the York County Area to
attainment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable
SIP requirements. Subpart 1 of part D,
found in sections 172(c)(1) through (9)
and in section 176 of the CAA, sets forth
the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. A
thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992). Subpart 2 of part D,
which includes section 182 of the CAA,
establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
ozone nonattainment classification. A
thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 182 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).
Part D Subpart 1 Section 172
Requirements and Part D, Subpart 2
Section 182 Requirements. Section
172(c)(1) requires the plans for all
nonattainment areas to provide for the
implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and to
provide for attainment of the national
primary ambient air quality standards.
EPA interprets this requirement to
impose a duty on all nonattainment
areas to consider all available control
measures and to adopt and implement
such measures as are reasonably
available for implementation in each
area as components of the area’s
attainment demonstration. Under
section 172, states with nonattainment
areas must submit plans providing for
timely attainment and meeting a variety
of other requirements. Section 182 of
the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D,
establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area’s
ozone nonattainment classification. For
purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for
all moderate nonattainment areas are
contained in sections 182(b)(1)–(5).
However, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918,
EPA’s November 15, 2011,
determination that the Area was
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
suspended South Carolina’s obligation
to submit most of the attainment
planning requirements that would
otherwise apply. Specifically, the
determination of attainment suspended
South Carolina’s obligation to submit an
attainment demonstration and planning
SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and
contingency measures under sections
172(c)(9) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA.
The General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992) also discusses the
evaluation of these requirements in the
context of EPA’s consideration of a
redesignation request. The General
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of
applicable requirements for purposes of
evaluating redesignation requests when
an area is attaining a standard (General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I
(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)).
Because attainment has been reached
in the bi-state Charlotte Area, no
additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS,4 and section
172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACM are no longer
considered to be applicable for purposes
of redesignation as long as the Area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS until redesignation. See
also 40 CFR 51.918.
The RFP plan requirements under
sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) are
defined as progress that must be made
toward attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. These requirements are
not relevant for purposes of
redesignation because EPA has
determined that the entire bi-state
Charlotte Area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See General Preamble, 57 FR
13564. See also 40 CFR 51.1004 (c).
While it is not a requirement for
redesignation, EPA is considering taking
action on South Carolina’s RFP plan for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS separate
from today’s proposed action.
Section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b)
requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions. Section
182(b) references section 182(a) of the
CAA which requires, in part, for states
to submit a current inventory of actual
emissions (182(a)(1)). As part of South
Carolina’s attainment demonstration for
the York County Area, South Carolina
submitted a 2002 base year emissions
inventory. EPA approved the 2002 base
year inventory on May 18, 2012, as
meeting the section 172(c)(3) and
section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory
requirement. See 77 FR 29540.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
emissions for major new and modified
stationary sources to be allowed in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) and section
182(b) require source permits for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area.
4 Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated a
portion of York County (excluding the Catawba
Indian Nation reservation lands) as nonattainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This rulemaking
does not address requirements for the portion of
York County that was designated nonattainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for
the portion of York County that was designated
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
will be addressed in the future.
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
EPA has determined that, since PSD
requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated
need not comply with the requirement
that a NSR program be approved prior
to redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more
detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ South
Carolina has demonstrated that the York
County Area will be able to maintain the
NAAQS without part D NSR in effect,
and therefore South Carolina need not
have fully approved part D NSR
programs prior to approval of the
redesignation request. Nonetheless,
South Carolina currently has a fullyapproved part D NSR program in place.
South Carolina’s PSD program will
become applicable in the York County
Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
Because attainment has been reached,
no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA
believes the South Carolina SIP meets
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b) references, in part,
section 182(a)(3), which requires states
to submit periodic inventories and
emissions statements. Section
182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA requires states
to submit a periodic inventory every 3
years. The periodic emissions inventory
is discussed in more detail in Criteria
(4)(e), Verification of Continued
Attainment.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA
requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to
submit a SIP revision to require
emissions statements to be submitted to
the state by sources within that
nonattainment area. EPA approved
South Carolina’s emissions statements
requirement, which is part of the
attainment plan submittal, on June 25,
2012. See 77 FR 37812. EPA believes the
South Carolina SIP meets the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires
states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to
submit a SIP revision to require
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for all major VOC and NOX
sources and for each category of VOC
sources in the Area covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
document.
The CTGs established by EPA are
guidance to the states and provide
recommendations only. A state can
develop its own strategy for what
constitutes RACT for the various CTG
categories, and EPA will review that
strategy in the context of the SIP process
and determine whether it meets the
RACT requirements of the CAA and its
implementing regulations. If no major
sources of VOC or NOX emissions
(which should be considered separately)
or no sources in a particular source
category exist in an applicable
nonattainment area, a state may submit
a negative declaration for that category.
South Carolina did a RACT analysis
for major VOC and NOX sources in the
York County Area and determined that
these sources met RACT. EPA approved
South Carolina’s RACT submittal on
November 28, 2011. See 76 FR 72844.
SC DHEC provided certifications to this
effect to EPA within the original August
31, 2007, attainment demonstration and
on February 23, 2009, for Group III, and
on July, 9, 2009, for Group IV. On
November 28, 2011, EPA approved
South Carolina’s SIP revisions in
support of the negative declarations for
Groups I, II, III and IV CTG, and
concluded that the York County Area
has met all the statutory and regulatory
requirements for making a negative
declaration regarding Groups I, II, III
and IV CTG. See 76 FR 72844. EPA
believes the South Carolina SIP meets
the requirements of section 182(b)(2)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Originally, the section 182(b)(3) Stage
II requirement also applied in all
moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
However, under section 202(a)(6) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the
requirements of section 182(b)(3) no
longer apply in moderate ozone
nonattainment areas after EPA
promulgated the onboard refueling
vapor recovery standards on April 6,
1994, 59 FR 16262, codified at 40 CFR
parts 86 (including 86.098–8), 88 and
600. Under implementation rules issued
in 2002 for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA retained the Stage IIrelated requirements under section
182(b)(3) as they applied for the nowrevoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40
CFR 51.900(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.916(a).
Therefore, the York County Area is not
subject to the Stage 2 vapor recovery
program requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68093
Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires
states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to
submit SIPs requiring inspection and
maintenance of vehicles (I/M). Even
though a portion of York County was
designated as part of the moderate bistate Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, applicability of the I/M
regulations to areas outside the Ozone
Transport Region is based on the
population of the urbanized area as
defined by the 1990 census. As defined
by the 1990 census, York County and
Charlotte urbanized areas were distinct
and were not contiguous. Although the
Charlotte urbanized portion of the
metropolitan statistical area is
contiguous to the North Carolina/South
Carolina border, it did not extend into
South Carolina. In 1990, the York
County urbanized area was totally
contained within South Carolina and
did not touch the State line. Therefore,
the applicability level of a 1990 census
population of 200,000 or more in an
urbanized area (40 CFR 51.350(a)(1))
applies to each of the two urbanized
areas separately. Since the York County
urbanized area had a population less
than 200,000, the I/M requirement in
section 182(b)(4) of the CAA is not
applicable to the York County Area.
EPA believes the South Carolina SIP
meets the requirements of section
182(b)(3) and 182(b)(4) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 182(b)(5) of the CAA requires
that for purposes of satisfying the
general emission offset requirement, the
ratio of total emission reductions to total
increase emissions shall be at least 1.15
to 1. South Carolina currently requires
these offsets. EPA believes the South
Carolina SIP meets the requirements of
section 182(b)(5) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity
Requirements. Section 176(c) of the
CAA requires states to establish criteria
and procedures to ensure that federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects that are developed, funded or
approved under title 23 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal
Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally
supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement and enforceability that EPA
promulgated pursuant to its authority
under the CAA.
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
68094
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
EPA interprets the conformity SIP
requirements 5 as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)
(upholding this interpretation); see also
60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995)
(redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
Nonetheless, South Carolina has an
approved conformity SIP for the York
County Area. See 74 FR 37168, July 28,
2009. Thus, the York County Area has
satisfied all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation under section
110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
b. The York County Area Has a Fully
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
EPA has fully approved the applicable
South Carolina SIP for the York County
Area under section 110(k) of the CAA
for all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely
on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (see Calcagni
Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir.
1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action
(see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein). Following passage of
the CAA of 1970, South Carolina has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing the various 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS SIP elements
applicable in the York County Area
(May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; 110(a)(1)
and (2) for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
July 13, 2011, 76 FR 41111; RACT,
November 16, 2011, 76 FR 72884;
emissions inventory, May 18, 2012, 77
FR 29540; emissions statement, June 25,
2012, 77 FR 37812).
As indicated above, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements that are neither
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions nor linked to an area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation. EPA has approved all
part D subpart 1 requirements
applicable for purposes of this
redesignation.
5 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
Federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the MVEBs that
are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
Criteria (3)—The Air Quality
Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Nonattainment Area Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
in Emissions Resulting From
Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution
Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the air quality
improvement in the area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP and
applicable federal air pollution control
regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily
determined that South Carolina has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in its portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, federal
measures, and other state adopted
measures. EPA does not have any
information to suggest that the decrease
in ozone concentrations in the York
County Area is due to unusually
favorable meteorological conditions.
State, local and federal measures
enacted in recent years have resulted in
permanent emission reductions. Most of
these emission reductions are
enforceable through regulations. A few
non-regulatory measures also result in
emission reductions.
The state and local measures, some of
which implement federal requirements,
that have been implemented to date and
relied upon by South Carolina to
demonstrate attainment and/or
maintenance include: NSR regulations,
NOX regulations, VOC regulations,
emissions inventory, emissions
statements, and RACT.
The Celanese Acetate Celriver Plant
closed in 2006. This plant, which
included six coal-fired boilers, the
largest of which was rated at 320
million metric British thermal units per
hour, was the largest stationary source
of NOX in the York County Area. As a
result, South Carolina retired 2,493 tons
of NOX and 1,686 tons of VOC.
Additionally, South Carolina
identified other areas of potential
reductions. North Carolina has
implemented measures in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area, such as North Carolina’s Clean
Smokestacks Act (CSA), which helps to
improve air quality in the Area. EPA
approved the CSA into the North
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Carolina SIP on September 26, 2011. See
76 FR 59250. Closures of certain
facilities have resulted in continued
reductions of local NOX and VOC
emissions in the bi-state Charlotte Area.
The federal measures that have been
implemented include the following:
Tier 2 vehicle standards.
Implementation began in 2004 and will
require all passenger vehicles in any
manufacturer’s fleet to meet an average
standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile.
The Tier 2 rule also reduced the sulfur
content of gasoline to 30 ppm starting in
January of 2006.
Large Non-road Diesel Engines rule.
EPA issued this rule in June 2004 (69 FR
38958), which applies to diesel engines
used in industries, such as construction,
agriculture, and mining. It is estimated
that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel
engines by up to 90 percent nationwide.
The non-road diesel rule was fully
implemented by 2010.
Control Technique Guidelines. South
Carolina listed CTGs under federal
measures implemented in the York
County Area. See criteria 2(a) of section
V of this action for more information.
Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel
highway vehicle standards. EPA issued
this rule in January 2001 (66 FR 5002).
This rule includes standards limiting
the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which
went into effect in 2004. A second phase
took effect in 2007, which further
reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur
content to 15 ppm, leading to additional
reductions in combustion NOX and VOC
emissions. This rule is expected to
achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX
emissions from diesel trucks and buses.
Nonroad spark-ignition engines and
recreational engines standards. This
rule was effective in 2003 and will
reduce NOX and hydrocarbon
emissions.
NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call
created the NOX Budget Trading
Program designed to reduce the amount
of ozone that crosses state lines. By the
end of 2008, ozone season emissions
dropped by 62 percent from 2000 at all
sources subject to the NOX SIP Call
(EPA, NOX Budget Trading Program:
2008 Highlights, October 2009, page 3,
available at https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/progress/NBP_4/NBP_2008_
Highlights.pdf). It follows that the bistate Charlotte nonattainment area
(including the York County Area)
benefited from these overall reductions,
since it is part of the larger NOX SIP Call
area. The NOX Budget Trading Program
also reduced local emissions. The one
source subject to the NOX SIP Call in the
York County Area, AbitibiBowater
Inc.—Catawba Operations, reduced
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
ozone season NOX emissions from 36
tons in 2003, the first year of the NOX
Budget Trading Program, to 14 tons in
2008, the final year of the NOX Budget
Trading Program.
EPA has considered the relationship
of the York County Area’s maintenance
plan to the reductions currently
required pursuant to CAIR. Although
CAIR was remanded to EPA, the remand
of CAIR does not alter the requirements
of the NOX SIP Call and the State has
now demonstrated that the bi-state
Charlotte Area can maintain without
any additional requirements (beyond
those required by the NOX SIP Call).
Therefore, EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the
State’s demonstration of maintenance
under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)
remains valid based on reductions from
the NOX SIP Call.
The NOX SIP Call required states to
make emissions reductions. It also
provided a mechanism, the NOX Budget
Trading Program, that states could use
to achieve those reductions. When EPA
promulgated CAIR, it discontinued
(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget
Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but
established another mechanism—the
CAIR ozone season trading program—
which states could use to meet their
NOX SIP Call obligations, 70 FR 25289–
90. EPA notes that a number of states,
when submitting SIP revisions to
require sources to participate in the
CAIR ozone season trading program,
removed the SIP provisions that
required sources to participate in the
NOX Budget Trading Program. In
addition, because the provisions of
CAIR including the ozone season NOX
trading program have remained in place
during the remand, EPA is not currently
administering the NOX Budget Trading
Program. Nonetheless, all states
regardless of the current status of their
regulations that previously required
participation in the NOX Budget Trading
Program, will remain subject to all of
the requirements in the NOX SIP Call
even if the existing CAIR ozone season
trading program is withdrawn or
altered. In addition, the anti-backsliding
provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f)
specifically provide that the provisions
of the NOX SIP Call, including the
statewide NOX emission budgets,
continue to apply after revocation of the
1-hour NAAQS. Thus, for purposes of
today’s action, emissions reductions
associated with the NOX SIP Call are
‘‘permanent and enforceable.’’
All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that
currently satisfy their obligations under
the NOX SIP Call; the NOX SIP Call
reduction requirements are being met;
and EPA will continue to enforce the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
requirements of the NOX SIP Call even
after any response to the CAIR remand.
For these reasons, EPA believes that
regardless of the status of the CAIR
program, the NOX SIP Call requirements
can be relied upon in demonstrating
maintenance. Here, the State has
demonstrated maintenance based in part
on those requirements.
Additionally, EPA has preliminarily
determined that South Carolina has
demonstrated that attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the York County Area
with or without the implementation of
CAIR or the Transport Rule. In addition,
modeling conducted by EPA during the
Transport Rule rulemaking process also
demonstrates that the portion of York
County, South Carolina that is in the
Charlotte NC–SC ozone nonattainment
area will have ozone levels below the
1997 8-hour standard in both 2012 and
2014 without taking into account
emissions reductions from CAIR or the
Transport Rule. See ‘‘Air Quality
Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document’’, App. B, B–28, B–29. This
modeling is available in the docket for
this rulemaking. Moreover, in its August
2012 decision, the Court also ordered
EPA to continue implementing CAIR.
See EME Homer Generation LP v. EPA,
slip op. at 60. In sum, neither the
current status of CAIR nor the current
status of the Transport Rule affects any
of the criteria for proposed approval of
this redesignation request for the South
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area.
Criteria (4)—The York County Area Has
a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has a
fully approved maintenance plan
pursuant to section 175A of the CAA
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In
conjunction with its request to
redesignate the York County Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, SC DHEC submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment. EPA has
interpreted this as a showing of
maintenance ‘‘for a period of ten years
following redesignation.’’ (September 4,
1992 Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, AQMD, ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ p. 9) where the
emissions inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to
show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68095
over the attainment year inventory.
Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9–10.
As discussed in detail in the section
below, the State’s maintenance plan
submission expressly documents that
the Area’s emissions inventories will
remain below the attainment year
inventories through 2022. In addition,
for the reasons set forth below, EPA
believes that the State’s submission, in
conjunction with additional supporting
information, further demonstrates that
the Area will continue to maintain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS at least through
2023. In summary, as discussed in
under ‘‘Criteria 3,’’ the reductions that
have been realized are due to federal,
state and local control measures that are
anticipated to remain in place. For
example, there have been local
reductions attributable to North
Carolina’ CSA, the NOX SIP Call, and
from local plant closures. A review of
the reductions achieved and the
projected emissions inventories as seen
in Tables 2 and 3 below, it is not
anticipated that emissions in the York
County Area will significantly increase
between 2022 and 2023, such that these
emissions would be above the 2010
attainment level emissions. For
example, mobile NOX emissions
between 2010 and 2022, are estimated to
be reduced by 63 percent, and it is not
expected that mobile NO emissions
between 2022 and 2023 will increase by
63 percent. Likewise, mobile VOC
emissions between 2010 and 2022, are
estimated to be reduced by 45 percent,
and it is not expected that mobile VOC
emissions between 2022 and 2023 will
increase by 45 percent. Thus, if EPA
finalizes its proposed approval of the
redesignation request and maintenance
plan in 2013, it is based on a showing,
in accordance with section 175A, that
the State’s maintenance plan provides
for maintenance for at least ten years
after redesignation. Therefore, EPA has
made the preliminary determination
that this maintenance plan meets the
requirements for approval under section
175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the state must
submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
68096
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
remainder of the 20-year period
following the initial 10-year period. To
address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt
correction of any future 1997 8-hour
ozone violations. The Calcagni
Memorandum provides further guidance
on the content of a maintenance plan,
explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five requirements: the
attainment emissions inventory,
maintenance demonstration,
monitoring, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan. As
is discussed more fully below, EPA
proposes to find that South Carolina’s
maintenance plan includes all the
necessary components and is thus
proposing to approve it as a revision to
the South Carolina SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The bi-state Charlotte Area attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
monitoring data for the 3-year period
from 2008–2010. South Carolina
selected 2010 as the attainment
emissions inventory year. The
attainment inventory identifies a level
of emissions in the Area that is
sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. South Carolina began
development of the attainment
inventory by first generating a baseline
emissions inventory for the York County
Area. As noted above, the year 2010 was
chosen as the base year for developing
a comprehensive emissions inventory
for NOX and VOC, for which projected
emissions could be developed for 2013,
2016, 2019, and 2022. All large
permitted sources defined as Inventory
Type A sources under EPA’s Air
Emissions Reporting Rule are required
to report emissions annually and other
title V sources are required to report
every three years to SC DHEC.
Additionally, EPA requires SC DHEC to
submit this data to the EPA Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) on the same
schedule. The latest year available for
the Inventory Type A point source
inventory submitted to EPA is 2010. For
the smaller sources that report
emissions every three years, the most
recent emissions inventory available
(2008) was used as representative of
2010 emissions. The emissions data
upon which SC DHEC’s maintenance
plan is based were from files maintained
by the SC DHEC. In addition to
comparing the final year of the plan,
2022, to the base year, 2010, South
Carolina compared interim years to the
baseline to demonstrate that these years
are also expected to show continued
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. As mentioned above,
emissions inventory levels in 2022 are
well below the attainment year
inventory levels, and it is highly
improbable that they will suddenly
increase and exceed attainment year
inventory levels in 2023.
The emissions inventory is composed
of four major types of sources: point,
area, on-road mobile and non-road
mobile. The emissions inventory was
projected to future years by utilizing
EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis
System (E–GAS) version 5 software.
There are two major data sources that
are used as growth indicators in EGAS
5.0: the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
Annual Energy Outlook and version 6.0
of state-level economic models from
Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI).
In general, DOE data are expected to be
used as growth indicators for fuel
combustion/production categories,
while REMI data will be used for all
other source categories. The complete
descriptions of how the inventories
were developed are discussed in the
appendices of the June 2, 2011, SIP
revision, which can be found in the
docket for this action. Non-road mobile
emissions estimates were based on the
EPA’s NONROAD2008a non-road
mobile model, with the exception of the
railroad locomotives, commercial
marine, and aircraft engine. These
emissions are estimated by taking
activity data, such as landings and
takeoffs, and multiplying by an EGAS
5.0 emissions factor. On-road mobile
source emissions were calculated using
EPA’s MOVES2010a mobile emission
factors model. The 2010 NOX and VOC
emissions for the bi-state Charlotte Area,
as well as the emissions for other years,
were developed consistent with EPA
guidance and are summarized in Tables
2 through 4 of the following subsection
discussing the maintenance
demonstration.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The June 2, 2011, final SIP revision
includes a maintenance plan for the
York County Area. The maintenance
plan:
(i) Shows compliance with and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard by providing information to
support the demonstration that current
and future emissions of NOX and VOC
remain at or below 2010 emissions
levels.
(ii) Uses 2010 as the attainment year
and includes future emissions inventory
projections for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022.
(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10
years (and beyond) after the time
necessary for EPA to review and
approve the maintenance plan. Per 40
CFR part 93, NOX and VOC MVEB were
established for an interim year (2013)
and the last year (2022) of the
maintenance plan (see section VI
below).
(iv) Provides actual and projected
emissions inventories, in tons per day
(tpd), for the York County Area, as
shown in Tables 2 through 4 below.
TABLE 2—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA*
Sector
2010
Point ...........................................................................
Area ............................................................................
Nonroad .....................................................................
Mobile ........................................................................
2013
4.54
1.1733
3.209
12.05
Total ....................................................................
20.97
2016
4.64
1.2219
2.686
8.73
17.28
2019
4.91
1.2665
2.174
6.52
14.87
5.19
1.3183
1.817
5.16
13.49
2022
5.48
1.3641
1.595
4.42
12.86
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
* Portion of York County within the nonattainment area.
TABLE 3—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA*
Sector
2010
Point ...........................................................................
Area ............................................................................
Nonroad .....................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
2013
2.07
7.1645
2.149
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
2016
2.06
7.3870
1.776
Sfmt 4702
2019
2.2
7.5672
1.541
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
2.34
7.7027
1.438
2022
2.49
7.8311
1.407
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
68097
TABLE 3—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE YORK COUNTY AREA*—Continued
Sector
2010
2013
2016
2019
2022
Mobile ........................................................................
3.92
3.14
2.61
2.29
2.14
.
Total ....................................................................
15.30
14.36
13.92
13.77
13.87
* Portion of York County within the nonattainment area.
TABLE 4—EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR
THE YORK COUNTY AREA
Year
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
2010 ..................................
2013 ..................................
2016 ..................................
2019 ..................................
2022 ..................................
Difference from 2010 to
2022 ..............................
VOC
(tpd)
NOX
(tpd)
15.30
14.36
13.92
13.77
13.87
20.97
17.28
14.87
13.49
12.86
¥1.43
¥8.11
Tables 2 through 4 summarize the
2010 and future projected emissions of
NOX and VOC from York County. In
situations where local emissions are the
primary contributor to nonattainment,
the ambient air quality standard should
not be violated in the future as long as
emissions from within the
nonattainment area remain at or below
the baseline with which attainment was
achieved. South Carolina has projected
emissions as described previously and
determined that emissions in the York
County Area will remain below those in
the attainment year inventory for the
duration of the maintenance plan.
As discussed in section VI of this
proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is
the difference between the attainment
level of emissions (from all sources) and
the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.
The attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
South Carolina selected 2010 as the
attainment emissions inventory year for
the York County Area. South Carolina
calculated safety margins for years 2013
and 2022 in its submittal for years 2013,
2016, 2019, and 2022. The State has
decided to allocate a safety margin to
the 2013 and 2022 MVEB for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. For the year 2013, the
NOX safety margin was calculated as
3,348 kilograms per day (kg/day) 6 and
for VOC as 853 kg/day. For the year
2022, the safety margin was calculated
as 7,357 for kg/day for NOX and 1,297
kg/day for VOC. The State has decided
to allocate the full safety margin
amounts to the MVEB for these years.
Therefore, no remaining safety margin
6 Conversion factor from kilograms to tons is
0.0011023.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
will be available for VOC and NOX for
the years 2013 and 2022. The MVEB to
be used for transportation conformity
proposes is discussed in section VI. This
allocation and the resulting available
safety margin for the York County Area
are discussed further in section VI of
this proposed rulemaking.
d. Monitoring Network
There is currently one monitor
measuring ozone in York County.
However, this monitor is not located
within the nonattainment area
boundary. The State of South Carolina,
through SC DHEC, has committed to
continue operation of the monitor in
York County in compliance with 40 CFR
part 58 and have thus addressed the
requirement for monitoring. EPA
approved South Carolina’s 2011
monitoring plan on October 12, 2011.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of South Carolina, through
SC DHEC, has the legal authority to
enforce and implement the
requirements of the 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the York County
Area. This includes the authority to
adopt, implement and enforce any
subsequent emissions control
contingency measures determined to be
necessary to correct future ozone
attainment problems.
South Carolina will continue to
update its emissions inventory at least
once every three years. In addition to
the emissions inventory for 2010, the
emissions inventory base year, and the
last year of the maintenance plan, 2022,
interim years of 2013, 2016 and 2019
were selected to show a trend analysis
for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Tracking the progress of
the maintenance plan also includes
performing reviews of the updated
emissions inventories for the area using
the latest emissions factors, models, and
methodologies. For these periodic
inventories, SC DHEC will review the
assumptions made for the purpose of
the maintenance demonstration
concerning projected growth of activity
levels. In addition, SC DHEC will
continue to work with local
stakeholders to maintain the NAAQS as
required.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
f. Contingency Measures in the
Maintenance Plan
The contingency measures are
designed to promptly correct a violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for
action by the state. A state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement
all measures with respect to control of
the pollutant that were contained in the
SIP before redesignation of the area to
attainment in accordance with section
175A(d).
In the June 1, 2011, SIP revision,
South Carolina affirms that all programs
instituted by the State and EPA will
remain enforceable and that sources are
prohibited from reducing emissions
controls following the redesignation of
the Area. The contingency plan portion
of the maintenance determination was
further clarified with a July 8, 2011,
letter. This letter can be found in the
docket for today’s action using Docket
ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0327.
The contingency plan included in
South Carolina’s June 1, 2011, SIP
revision includes a triggering
mechanism to determine when
contingency measures are needed and a
process of developing and
implementing appropriate control
measures. The State of South Carolina
will use actual ambient monitoring data
as the triggering event to determine
when contingency measures should be
implemented.
South Carolina has identified a
primary trigger as occurring when a
quality assured/quality controlled (QA/
QC) design value exceeds the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS at any monitor in
the Area. In the event that the trigger is
activated, SC DHEC will verify the data
through QA/QC and certification;
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
68098
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
analyze the data to verify monitored
ozone data, meteorology, transport, and
related activities to determine the
possible cause of the violation; consult
with North Carolina Department of Air
Quality 7 to determine which state will
implement a contingency measure(s)
within a time frame specified in the
respective maintenance plan to bring
the Area back into attainment; if
necessary, select a contingency measure
within three months after verification of
an exceedance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; and develop and implement
necessary regulations as soon as
practicable and within the in guidelines
established in the South Carolina
Administrative Procedures Act or no
more than two years after selection of
the appropriate measure. South Carolina
further clarified this statement in the
July 8, 2011, letter to EPA by defining
the triggering event as the date of the
design value violation, and not the final
QA/QC date, such that appropriate
measures would be implemented within
24 months of activating the primary
trigger. Further, the guidelines set forth
in the South Carolina Administrative
Procedures Act state the selection of a
measure and the development and
implementation of necessary regulations
would be expected to be completed
within 24 months of activating the
primary trigger. However, if it is
determined that a longer schedule is
required to implement specific
contingency measures, then, upon
selection of appropriate measures, SC
DHEC will notify EPA, for approval, of
the proposed schedule and provide
sufficient information to demonstrate
that the proposed measures are a
prompt correction of the triggering
event.
At least one of the following
contingency measures will be adopted
and implemented upon a primary
triggering event:
• RACT for NOX on existing
stationary sources not subject to existing
requirements;
• Implementation of diesel retrofit
programs, including incentives for
performing retrofits for fleet vehicle
operations;
• Alternative fuel programs for fleet
vehicle operations;
• Gas can and lawnmower
replacement programs;
• Voluntary engine idling reduction
programs;
• SC DHEC’s Take a Break from the
Exhaust program; and
• Other measures deemed appropriate
at the time as a result of advances in
control technologies.
In addition to the trigger indicated
above, as a secondary trigger South
Carolina will monitor periodic
emissions inventory updates and
compare to actual emissions. As stated
in the June 1, 2011, SIP revision, and
further explained in the July 8, 2011,
clarification letter, if actual emissions
are greater than 10 percent of the
projected emissions in the maintenance
plan, SC DHEC will investigate the
differences and develop an appropriate
strategy for addressing the differences.
EPA has concluded that the
maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a
maintenance plan: attainment
inventory, monitoring network,
verification of continued attainment,
and a contingency plan. Therefore, the
maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by the State of South Carolina
for the York County Area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA, and thus EPA is proposing
approval of the plan.
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of South
Carolina’s proposed NOX and 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
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 demonstration) 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 last
year of the maintenance plan. A state
may adopt MVEB for other years as
well. The MVEB is the portion of the
total allowable emissions in the
maintenance demonstration 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 has
developed MVEB for NOX and VOC for
the York County Area. South Carolina is
developing these MVEB, as required, for
the last year of its maintenance plan,
2022. Through the interagency
consultation process, MVEB were also
set for the interim year 2013. The MVEB
reflect the total on-road emissions for
2013 and 2022, plus an allocation from
the available NOX and VOC safety
margin. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term
‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level (from all
sources) and the projected level of
emissions (from all sources) in the
maintenance plan. The safety margin
can be allocated to the transportation
sector; however, the total emissions
must remain below the attainment level.
The NOX and VOC MVEB and allocation
from the safety margin were developed
in consultation with the transportation
partners and were added to account for
uncertainties in population growth,
changes in model vehicle miles traveled
and new emission factor models. The
NOX and VOC MVEB for the York
County Area are defined in Table 5
below.
7 As stated earlier, there is currently one monitor
measuring ozone in York County. This monitor is
not located in the bi-state Charlotte Area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
68099
TABLE 5—YORK COUNTY PORTION OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREAX AND VOC MVEB (KG/DAY)
2013
2022
NOX Emissions
Base Emissions .......................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ...........................................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................................................................
7,924
3,348
11,272
4,011
7,357
11,368
2,846
853
3,699
1,939
1,297
3,236
VOC Emissions
Base Emissions .......................................................................................................................................................
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ...........................................................................................................................
VOC Conformity MVEB ...........................................................................................................................................
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
As mentioned above, South Carolina
has chosen to allocate a portion of the
available safety margin to the NOX and
VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the
York County Area. This allocation is
3,348 kg/day and 853 kg/day for NOX
and VOC, respectively for 2013 and
7,357 kg/day and 1,297 kg/day for NOX
and VOC, respectively for 2022. Thus,
the remaining safety margins for 2013
and 2022 are 0 kg/day for NOX and
VOC.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve the MVEB for NOX
and VOC for 2013 and 2022 for the York
County Area because EPA has
preliminarily determined that the Area
maintains 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. After
thorough review, EPA has preliminarily
determined that the budgets meet the
adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4), and is proposing to
approve the budgets because they are
consistent with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2022. As
discussed in section V, EPA is
proposing that if this approval is
finalized in 2013, the Area will continue
to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through at least 2023.
Consistent with this proposal, EPA is
proposing to approve the MVEB
submitted by the State in its June 1,
2011, maintenance plan for the York
County Area. EPA is proposing that the
submitted MVEB are consistent with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2023.
VII. What is the status of EPA’s
adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC MVEB for 2013
and 2022 for the York County area?
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans
containing MVEB, EPA may
affirmatively find the MVEB contained
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
maintenance plan submission includes
NOx and VOC MVEB for the York
County Area for 2013, an interim year
of the maintenance plan, and 2022, the
last year of the maintenance plan. EPA
reviewed the NOx and VOC MVEB
through the adequacy process. The
South Carolina SIP submission,
including the bi-state Charlotte Area
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOx and VOC MVEB, was open for
public comment on EPA’s adequacy
Web site on October 28, 2011, found at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.
The EPA public comment period on
adequacy for the MVEB for 2013 and
2022 for the York County Area closed
on November 28, 2011. No comments,
adverse or otherwise, were received
during EPA’s adequacy process for the
MVEB associated with South Carolina’s
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.
The 2013 and 2022 NOx and VOC
MVEB must be used for future
transportation conformity
determinations. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve
2013 through 2021, the applicable 2013
MVEB will be used and for 2022 and
beyond, the applicable budgets will be
the 2022 MVEB established in the
maintenance plan, as defined in section
VI of this proposed rulemaking.
VIII. What is the effect of EPA’s
proposed actions?
EPA’s proposed actions establish the
basis upon which EPA may take final
action on the issues being proposed for
approval today. Approval of South
Carolina’s redesignation request would
change the legal designation of the
designated portion of York County in
South Carolina (including the Catawba
Indian Nation reservation lands) for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40
CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment.8 Approval of South
Carolina’s request would also
incorporate a plan for maintaining the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the York
County Area through 2022 into the
South Carolina SIP. This maintenance
plan includes contingency measures to
remedy any future violations of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures
for evaluation of potential violations.
The maintenance plan also establishes
8 This proposed action does not proposed to
change the Area’s designation for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
68100
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
NOx and VOC MVEB for the York
County Area. The NOx MVEB for 2013
and 2022 for the York County Area are
11,272 kg/day and 11,368 kg/day,
respectively. The VOC MVEB for 2013
and 2022 for the York County Area are
3,699 kg/day and 3,236 kg/day,
respectively. Additionally, EPA is
notifying the public of the status of
EPA’s adequacy determination for the
newly-established NOx and VOC MVEB
for 2013 and 2022 for the York County
Area, and is notifying the public that the
2022 MVEB are consistent with
maintenance in the Area through 2023
as well.
IX. Proposed Actions on the
Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions
Including Approval of the NOx and
VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the
York County Area
EPA previously determined that the
entire bi-state Charlotte Area (including
the portion of York County that is a part
of this Area) was attaining the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS on November 15,
2011, at 76 FR 70656. EPA is now
proposing to take two separate but
related actions regarding the York
County Area’s redesignation and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
First, EPA is proposing to determine,
based on complete, quality-assured and
certified monitoring data for the 2009–
2011 monitoring period that the entire
bi-state Charlotte Area (including the
portion of York County that is a part of
this Area) is attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to
determine that South Carolina has met
the criteria under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) for the York County Area
for redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina’s
redesignation request for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS for the York County
Area.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve
the maintenance plan for the York
County Area, including the NOx and
VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022, into the
South Carolina SIP (under CAA section
175A). The maintenance plan
demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the budgets meet all
of the adequacy criteria contained in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as
part of today’s action, EPA is describing
the status of its adequacy determination
for the NOx and VOC MVEB for 2013
and 2022 in accordance with 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1). On September 24, 2012, at
77 FR 58829, EPA announced the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
adequacy of the MVEB would take effect
on October 9, 2012. Within 24 months
from this effective date, the
transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to the new NOx
and VOC MVEB pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e).
As discussed in section V, EPA is
proposing that if this approval is
finalized in 2013 the area will continue
to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through at least 2023.
Consistent with this proposal, EPA is
proposing to approve the MVEB
submitted by the State in its June 1,
2011, maintenance plan for the York
County Area. EPA is proposing that the
submitted MVEB are consistent with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2023.
If finalized, approval of the
redesignation request would change the
official designation of the
nonattainment portion of York County
(including the Catawba Indian Nation
reservation lands) in the Area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40
CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed
actions merely approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
this reason, these proposed actions:
• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory
action[s]’’ subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Are 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.);
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Do 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, the redesignation for the
York County Area does have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because it may have substantial
direct effects on the Catawba Indian
Nation as the Tribe’s reservation lands
are within the York County Area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As such,
today’s proposal to redesignate the York
County Area to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS includes the
Catawba Indian Nation reservation
lands. Accordingly, EPA and the
Catawba Indian Nation consulted on
this redesignation prior to today’s
proposed action. EPA’s consultation on
this and other ozone SIP matters for the
York County Area with the Catawba
Indian Nation commenced on October
14, 2011, and concluded on October 31,
2012. EPA further notes that today’s
action is not anticipated to impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Dated: November 6, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–27807 Filed 11–14–12; 8:45 am]
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:27 Nov 14, 2012
Jkt 229001
68101
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\15NOP1.SGM
15NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68087-68101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27807]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0327; FRL-9751-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; South Carolina;
Redesignation of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South
Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2011, the State of South Carolina, through the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC
DHEC), submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the portion of York
County, South Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-
Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area,'' or
``Area'') to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS); and to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the South Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area (hereafter referred to as ``the
York County Area''). The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Cabarrus,
Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell
County (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) in North Carolina; and a
portion of York County in South Carolina (including the Catawba Indian
Nation reservation lands). EPA is proposing to approve the
redesignation request for the York County Area, along with the related
SIP revision, including South Carolina's plan for maintaining
attainment of the ozone standard in the York County Area. EPA is also
proposing to approve the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
for the years 2013 and 2022 for the York County Area. Additionally, EPA
is proposing that the 2022 MVEB are consistent with maintenance in
2023. These actions are being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations. EPA will take action on
the North Carolina submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation
request and maintenance plan for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area in a separate action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0327, 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-2012-0327, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 68088]]
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 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0327. 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.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann or Sara Waterson of the
Regulatory Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029, or via
electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. Ms. Waterson may be reached by
phone at (404) 562-9061, or via electronic mail at
waterson.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of South Carolina's proposed
NOX and VOC MVEB for the York County area?
VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the York
County area?
VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
IX. Proposed Action on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan SIP Revision Including Proposed Approval of the 2013 and 2022
NOX and VOC MVEB for the York County Area
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following two separate but related
actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To redesignate
the York County Area (including the Catawba Indian Nation reservation
lands) to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and (2) to approve
into the South Carolina SIP, under section 175A of the CAA, South
Carolina's 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the
associated MVEB. EPA is also notifying the public of the status of
EPA's adequacy determination for the York County Area MVEB. These
actions are summarized below and described in greater detail throughout
this notice of proposed rulemaking.
First, EPA proposes to determine that the York County Area has met
the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change
the legal designation of the portion of York County (including the
Catawba Indian Nation reservation lands) in the bi-state Charlotte Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the York County Area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan
is designed to help keep the York County Area in attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2022. As explained in Section V, EPA is also
proposing to approve that attainment can be maintained through 2023.
Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is proposing to
approve today also includes NOX and VOC MVEB for the years
2013 and 2022 for the York County Area. EPA is proposing to approve
(into the South Carolina SIP) the 2013 and 2022 MVEB that are included
as part of South Carolina's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. As explained in Sections V and VI, EPA is also proposing that
the MVEB are consistent with maintenance through 2023.
EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
process for the newly-established NOX and VOC MVEB for 2013
and 2022 for the York County Area. The Adequacy comment period for the
York County Area 2013 and 2022 MVEB began on October 28, 2011, with
EPA's posting of the availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy
Web site (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). The Adequacy comment period for these MVEB closed on
November 28, 2011. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received
during EPA's adequacy process for the MVEB associated with South
Carolina's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. Please see section VII
of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process and
for more details on the MVEB.
[[Page 68089]]
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to South
Carolina's June 1, 2011, SIP revision. That document addresses the
specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements described
in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of the York County
Area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 parts per million (ppm) (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997). 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 a data completeness requirement. 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 as determined in Appendix I of part 50.
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.
On April 29, 2010,\1\ South Carolina submitted an attainment
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress (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 in the York County Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ South Carolina withdrew an August 31, 2007, attainment
demonstration SIP for its portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area on December 22, 2008. EPA issued a
finding of failure to submit for the attainment demonstration for
the Charlotte NC-SC Area on May 8, 2009. See 74 FR 21550. On April
29, 2010, South Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration
SIP with an updated supplement for the South Carolina portion of the
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
the Area met the CAA requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the
attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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 June 1, 2011, South Carolina requested redesignation of the York
County Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
ambient air quality data for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2008-2010,
indicating that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS had been achieved for the
bi-state Charlotte Area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be
redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured
data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has
attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
Subsequently, on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13493), EPA determined that
the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its
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 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. See 40 CFR 52.2125(a). The Area continues
to attain the standard with 2009-2011 data.
On January 12, 2012, South Carolina withdrew the York County
portion of the Area's attainment demonstration (except RFP, emissions
statements, and the emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918.
EPA approved the baseline emissions inventory portion of the attainment
demonstration SIP revision on May 18, 2012 (77 FR 29540). Additionally,
EPA approved the emissions statements portion of the attainment
demonstration SIP revision on June 25, 2012 (77 FR 37812). No comments
were received on either action. EPA is considering action on South
Carolina's RFP plan in a separate action; however, as mentioned
previously, the determination of attainment suspended South Carolina's
obligation to meet this requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under
section 110 and part D of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the
General Preamble for the
[[Page 68090]]
Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498),
and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has
provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the
following documents:
1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June
18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
On June 1, 2011, the State of South Carolina, through SC DHEC,
requested the redesignation of the York County Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's evaluation indicates that the entire
bi-state Charlotte Area (including the York County Area as part of the
bi-State Charlotte Area) has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
that the York County Area meets the requirements for redesignation set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan
requirements under section 175A of the CAA. As a result, EPA is
proposing to take the two related actions summarized in section I of
this notice.
V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in
today's action to: (1) Redesignate the York County Area (including the
Catawba Indian Nation reservation lands) to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) approve the York County Area's 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEB, into the
South Carolina SIP. These actions are based upon EPA's preliminary
determinations that the bi-state Charlotte Area (including the York
County Area as part of the bi-State Charlotte Area) continues to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and EPA's preliminary determination that
South Carolina has met all other redesignation criteria for the York
County Area. The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the York County Area
in the following paragraphs of this section.
Criteria (1)--The Bi-State Charlotte Area (Including the York County
Area as Part of the Bi-State Charlotte Area) Has Attained the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as determined
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on
three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data. To attain these NAAQS, the 3-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed
0.08 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described
in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the NAAQS are attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at
the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required
for demonstrating attainment.
On November 15, 2011, at 76 FR 70656, EPA determined that the bi-
state Charlotte Area was attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For
that action EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from monitoring stations
in the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
2008-2010. These data have been quality-assured and are recorded in
AQS. EPA has reviewed the 2009-2011 data, which indicate that the Area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-
year attainment period of 2008-2010. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone
average for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the 3-year average of these values
(i.e., design values), are summarized in the following Table 1 of this
proposed rulemaking.
Table 1--Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual arithmetic mean concentrations (ppm) 3-Year design values
---------------------------------------------------- (ppm)
Location County Monitor ID -------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2008-2010 2009-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Lincoln.............. 37-109-0004 0.079 0.065 0.072 0.077 0.072 0.071
Station.
[[Page 68091]]
Garinger High School............... Mecklenburg.......... 37-119-0041 0.085 0.069 0.082 0.088 0.078 0.079
Westinghouse Blvd.................. Mecklenburg.......... 37-119-1005 0.073 0.068 0.078 0.082 0.073 0.076
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co......... Mecklenburg.......... 37-119-1009 0.093 0.071 0.082 0.083 0.082 0.078
Rockwell........................... Rowan................ 37-159-0021 0.084 0.071 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.075
Enochville School.................. Rowan................ 37-159-0022 0.082 0.073 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.076
Monroe Middle School............... Union................ 37-179-0003 0.08 0.067 0.071 0.073 0.072 0.070
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* An ozone monitor is located in York County, South Carolina; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The 3-year design value for 2008-2010 submitted by South Carolina
for redesignation of the bi-state Charlotte Area is 0.082 ppm, which
meets the NAAQS as described above. As mentioned above, on November 15,
2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA published a clean data determination for the
bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2009-2011
certified data show that the bi-state Charlotte Area continues to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.079 ppm at
the Garinger High School monitor. In today's action, EPA is proposing
to determine that the Area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA will not go forward with the redesignation if the Area does not
continue to attain until the time that EPA finalizes the redesignation.
As discussed in more detail below, the State of South Carolina has
committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58.
Criteria (2)--South Carolina Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) for the York County Area; and Criteria (5)--South Carolina Has
Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of Title I
of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA
proposes to find that South Carolina has met all applicable SIP
requirements for the York County Area under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally,
EPA proposes to find that the South Carolina SIP satisfies the
criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of
redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific
to 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas) in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is
fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making
these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved
under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete
redesignation request.
a. The York County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
General SIP requirements. Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA
delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques; provisions for the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality;
and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of
the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants (e.g., NOX SIP Call \2\ and the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) \3\). The section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that
the requirements linked with a
[[Page 68092]]
particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate
transport requirements should be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. However, as discussed later
in this notice, addressing pollutant transport from other states is an
important part of an area's maintenance demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's
NOX SIP Call, South Carolina developed rules governing
the control of NOX emissions from electric generating
units (EGU), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns,
and internal combustion engines. On June 28, 2002, EPA approved
South Carolina's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX
SIP Call (67 FR 43546).
\3\ On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), EPA promulgated CAIR, which
required 28 upwind States and the District of Columbia to revise
their SIPs to include control measures that would reduce emissions
of SO2 and NOX. Various aspects of CAIR rule
were petitioned in court and on December 23, 2008, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA
(see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Circuit, December 23,
2008)), which left CAIR in place to ``temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a
rule consistent with the Court's ruling. In response to the court's
decision, EPA issued a new rule to address interstate transport of
NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States
(i.e., the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule). See 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In a ruling on
August 21, 2012, the court vacated the Transport Rule and reiterated
its expectation for EPA to continue to administer CAIR until a
replacement rule is in place. Therefore, CAIR is currently in effect
in South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's attainment status are applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements
which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748,
December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
EPA completed rulemaking on a submittal from South Carolina dated
December 13, 2007, addressing ``infrastructure SIP'' elements required
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2) on July 13,
2011. See 76 FR 41111. However, these are statewide requirements that
are not a consequence of the nonattainment status of the York County
Area. As stated above, EPA believes that section 110 elements not
linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable for
purposes of redesignation. Therefore, EPA believes it has approved all
SIP elements under section 110 that must be approved as a prerequisite
for redesignating the York County Area to attainment.
Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. Subpart 1
of part D, found in sections 172(c)(1) through (9) and in section 176
of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable
to all nonattainment areas. A thorough discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for
Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Subpart 2 of
part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional
specific requirements depending on the area's ozone nonattainment
classification. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 182 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of
Title I (57 FR 13498).
Part D Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements and Part D, Subpart 2
Section 182 Requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all
nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the
national primary ambient air quality standards. EPA interprets this
requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all
available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as
are reasonably available for implementation in each area as components
of the area's attainment demonstration. Under section 172, states with
nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment
and meeting a variety of other requirements. Section 182 of the CAA,
found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific
requirements depending on the area's ozone nonattainment
classification. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request,
the applicable part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for all moderate
nonattainment areas are contained in sections 182(b)(1)-(5). However,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, EPA's November 15, 2011, determination that
the Area was attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS suspended South
Carolina's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning
requirements that would otherwise apply. Specifically, the
determination of attainment suspended South Carolina's obligation to
submit an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for
RFP, RACM, and contingency measures under sections 172(c)(9) and
182(b)(1) of the CAA.
The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992) also discusses the evaluation of these requirements in
the context of EPA's consideration of a redesignation request. The
General Preamble sets forth EPA's view of applicable requirements for
purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining
a standard (General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992)).
Because attainment has been reached in the bi-state Charlotte Area,
no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,\4\ and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an
attainment demonstration and RACM are no longer considered to be
applicable for purposes of redesignation as long as the Area continues
to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until redesignation. See also 40
CFR 51.918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated a portion of York
County (excluding the Catawba Indian Nation reservation lands) as
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This rulemaking does
not address requirements for the portion of York County that was
designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Requirements for the portion of York County that was designated
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be addressed in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RFP plan requirements under sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1)
are defined as progress that must be made toward attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements are not relevant for
purposes of redesignation because EPA has determined that the entire
bi-state Charlotte Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See General Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 40 CFR 51.1004
(c). While it is not a requirement for redesignation, EPA is
considering taking action on South Carolina's RFP plan for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS separate from today's proposed action.
Section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b) requires submission and
approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions. Section 182(b) references section 182(a) of the CAA which
requires, in part, for states to submit a current inventory of actual
emissions (182(a)(1)). As part of South Carolina's attainment
demonstration for the York County Area, South Carolina submitted a 2002
base year emissions inventory. EPA approved the 2002 base year
inventory on May 18, 2012, as meeting the section 172(c)(3) and section
182(a)(1) emissions inventory requirement. See 77 FR 29540.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed
in an area, and section 172(c)(5) and section 182(b) require source
permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area.
[[Page 68093]]
EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' South
Carolina has demonstrated that the York County Area will be able to
maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore South
Carolina need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to
approval of the redesignation request. Nonetheless, South Carolina
currently has a fully-approved part D NSR program in place. South
Carolina's PSD program will become applicable in the York County Area
upon redesignation to attainment. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the
NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are
needed to provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the South
Carolina SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
Section 182(b) references, in part, section 182(a)(3), which
requires states to submit periodic inventories and emissions
statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit a
periodic inventory every 3 years. The periodic emissions inventory is
discussed in more detail in Criteria (4)(e), Verification of Continued
Attainment.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires states with areas
designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision
to require emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources
within that nonattainment area. EPA approved South Carolina's emissions
statements requirement, which is part of the attainment plan submittal,
on June 25, 2012. See 77 FR 37812. EPA believes the South Carolina SIP
meets the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) applicable for purposes
of redesignation.
Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision to require
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for all major VOC and
NOX sources and for each category of VOC sources in the Area
covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document.
The CTGs established by EPA are guidance to the states and provide
recommendations only. A state can develop its own strategy for what
constitutes RACT for the various CTG categories, and EPA will review
that strategy in the context of the SIP process and determine whether
it meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing
regulations. If no major sources of VOC or NOX emissions
(which should be considered separately) or no sources in a particular
source category exist in an applicable nonattainment area, a state may
submit a negative declaration for that category.
South Carolina did a RACT analysis for major VOC and NOX
sources in the York County Area and determined that these sources met
RACT. EPA approved South Carolina's RACT submittal on November 28,
2011. See 76 FR 72844. SC DHEC provided certifications to this effect
to EPA within the original August 31, 2007, attainment demonstration
and on February 23, 2009, for Group III, and on July, 9, 2009, for
Group IV. On November 28, 2011, EPA approved South Carolina's SIP
revisions in support of the negative declarations for Groups I, II, III
and IV CTG, and concluded that the York County Area has met all the
statutory and regulatory requirements for making a negative declaration
regarding Groups I, II, III and IV CTG. See 76 FR 72844. EPA believes
the South Carolina SIP meets the requirements of section 182(b)(2)
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Originally, the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement also applied
in all moderate ozone nonattainment areas. However, under section
202(a)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the requirements of section
182(b)(3) no longer apply in moderate ozone nonattainment areas after
EPA promulgated the onboard refueling vapor recovery standards on April
6, 1994, 59 FR 16262, codified at 40 CFR parts 86 (including 86.098-8),
88 and 600. Under implementation rules issued in 2002 for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, EPA retained the Stage II-related requirements under
section 182(b)(3) as they applied for the now-revoked 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.900(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.916(a). Therefore, the
York County Area is not subject to the Stage 2 vapor recovery program
requirements.
Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit SIPs requiring inspection
and maintenance of vehicles (I/M). Even though a portion of York County
was designated as part of the moderate bi-state Charlotte Area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, applicability of the I/M regulations to areas
outside the Ozone Transport Region is based on the population of the
urbanized area as defined by the 1990 census. As defined by the 1990
census, York County and Charlotte urbanized areas were distinct and
were not contiguous. Although the Charlotte urbanized portion of the
metropolitan statistical area is contiguous to the North Carolina/South
Carolina border, it did not extend into South Carolina. In 1990, the
York County urbanized area was totally contained within South Carolina
and did not touch the State line. Therefore, the applicability level of
a 1990 census population of 200,000 or more in an urbanized area (40
CFR 51.350(a)(1)) applies to each of the two urbanized areas
separately. Since the York County urbanized area had a population less
than 200,000, the I/M requirement in section 182(b)(4) of the CAA is
not applicable to the York County Area. EPA believes the South Carolina
SIP meets the requirements of section 182(b)(3) and 182(b)(4)
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Section 182(b)(5) of the CAA requires that for purposes of
satisfying the general emission offset requirement, the ratio of total
emission reductions to total increase emissions shall be at least 1.15
to 1. South Carolina currently requires these offsets. EPA believes the
South Carolina SIP meets the requirements of section 182(b)(5)
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects that
are developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement and enforceability that EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
[[Page 68094]]
EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements \5\ as not applying
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation
and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this
interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, South Carolina has an approved
conformity SIP for the York County Area. See 74 FR 37168, July 28,
2009. Thus, the York County Area has satisfied all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D
of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions
to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity
SIPs are different from the MVEBs that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The York County Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable South Carolina SIP for the
York County Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP
approvals in approving a redesignation request (see Calcagni Memorandum
at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d
984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action (see
68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein). Following passage of
the CAA of 1970, South Carolina has adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved at various times, provisions addressing the various 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS SIP elements applicable in the York County Area (May
31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; 110(a)(1) and (2) for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
July 13, 2011, 76 FR 41111; RACT, November 16, 2011, 76 FR 72884;
emissions inventory, May 18, 2012, 77 FR 29540; emissions statement,
June 25, 2012, 77 FR 37812).
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that
are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to
an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. EPA has approved all part D subpart 1
requirements applicable for purposes of this redesignation.
Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the SIP and applicable federal air pollution
control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that South
Carolina has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in
its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the SIP, federal measures, and other state adopted measures. EPA does
not have any information to suggest that the decrease in ozone
concentrations in the York County Area is due to unusually favorable
meteorological conditions.
State, local and federal measures enacted in recent years have
resulted in permanent emission reductions. Most of these emission
reductions are enforceable through regulations. A few non-regulatory
measures also result in emission reductions.
The state and local measures, some of which implement federal
requirements, that have been implemented to date and relied upon by
South Carolina to demonstrate attainment and/or maintenance include:
NSR regulations, NOX regulations, VOC regulations, emissions
inventory, emissions statements, and RACT.
The Celanese Acetate Celriver Plant closed in 2006. This plant,
which included six coal-fired boilers, the largest of which was rated
at 320 million metric British thermal units per hour, was the largest
stationary source of NOX in the York County Area. As a
result, South Carolina retired 2,493 tons of NOX and 1,686
tons of VOC.
Additionally, South Carolina identified other areas of potential
reductions. North Carolina has implemented measures in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, such as North
Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), which helps to improve air
quality in the Area. EPA approved the CSA into the North Carolina SIP
on September 26, 2011. See 76 FR 59250. Closures of certain facilities
have resulted in continued reductions of local NOX and VOC
emissions in the bi-state Charlotte Area.
The federal measures that have been implemented include the
following:
Tier 2 vehicle standards. Implementation began in 2004 and will
require all passenger vehicles in any manufacturer's fleet to meet an
average standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile. The Tier 2
rule also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 ppm starting in
January of 2006.
Large Non-road Diesel Engines rule. EPA issued this rule in June
2004 (69 FR 38958), which applies to diesel engines used in industries,
such as construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that
compliance with this rule will cut NOX emissions from non-
road diesel engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. The non-road diesel
rule was fully implemented by 2010.
Control Technique Guidelines. South Carolina listed CTGs under
federal measures implemented in the York County Area. See criteria 2(a)
of section V of this action for more information.
Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards. EPA
issued this rule in January 2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule includes
standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into
effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007, which further
reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm, leading to
additional reductions in combustion NOX and VOC emissions.
This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in
NOX emissions from diesel trucks and buses.
Nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards.
This rule was effective in 2003 and will reduce NOX and
hydrocarbon emissions.
NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call created the
NOX Budget Trading Program designed to reduce the amount of
ozone that crosses state lines. By the end of 2008, ozone season
emissions dropped by 62 percent from 2000 at all sources subject to the
NOX SIP Call (EPA, NOX Budget Trading Program:
2008 Highlights, October 2009, page 3, available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/NBP_4/NBP_2008_Highlights.pdf). It follows that
the bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area (including the York County
Area) benefited from these overall reductions, since it is part of the
larger NOX SIP Call area. The NOX Budget Trading
Program also reduced local emissions. The one source subject to the
NOX SIP Call in the York County Area, AbitibiBowater Inc.--
Catawba Operations, reduced
[[Page 68095]]
ozone season NOX emissions from 36 tons in 2003, the first
year of the NOX Budget Trading Program, to 14 tons in 2008,
the final year of the NOX Budget Trading Program.
EPA has considered the relationship of the York County Area's
maintenance plan to the reductions currently required pursuant to CAIR.
Although CAIR was remanded to EPA, the remand of CAIR does not alter
the requirements of the NOX SIP Call and the State has now
demonstrated that the bi-state Charlotte Area can maintain without any
additional requirements (beyond those required by the NOX
SIP Call). Therefore, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
the State's demonstration of maintenance under sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E) remains valid based on reductions from the NOX
SIP Call.
The NOX SIP Call required states to make emissions
reductions. It also provided a mechanism, the NOX Budget
Trading Program, that states could use to achieve those reductions.
When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued (starting in 2009) the
NOX Budget Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but
established another mechanism--the CAIR ozone season trading program--
which states could use to meet their NOX SIP Call
obligations, 70 FR 25289-90. EPA notes that a number of states, when
submitting SIP revisions to require sources to participate in the CAIR
ozone season trading program, removed the SIP provisions that required
sources to participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program. In
addition, because the provisions of CAIR including the ozone season
NOX trading program have remained in place during the
remand, EPA is not currently administering the NOX Budget
Trading Program. Nonetheless, all states regardless of the current
status of their regulations that previously required participation in
the NOX Budget Trading Program, will remain subject to all
of the requirements in the NOX SIP Call even if the existing
CAIR ozone season trading program is withdrawn or altered. In addition,
the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) specifically
provide that the provisions of the NOX SIP Call, including
the statewide NOX emission budgets, continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS. Thus, for purposes of today's action,
emissions reductions associated with the NOX SIP Call are
``permanent and enforceable.''
All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that currently satisfy
their obligations under the NOX SIP Call; the NOX
SIP Call reduction requirements are being met; and EPA will continue to
enforce the requirements of the NOX SIP Call even after any
response to the CAIR remand. For these reasons, EPA believes that
regardless of the status of the CAIR program, the NOX SIP
Call requirements can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance.
Here, the State has demonstrated maintenance based in part on those
requirements.
Additionally, EPA has preliminarily determined that South Carolina
has demonstrated that attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be
maintained in the York County Area with or without the implementation
of CAIR or the Transport Rule. In addition, modeling conducted by EPA
during the Transport Rule rulemaking process also demonstrates that the
portion of York County, South Carolina that is in the Charlotte NC-SC
ozone nonattainment area will have ozone levels below the 1997 8-hour
standard in both 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emissions
reductions from CAIR or the Transport Rule. See ``Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule Technical Support Document'', App. B, B-28, B-29. This
modeling is available in the docket for this rulemaking. Moreover, in
its August 2012 decision, the Court also ordered EPA to continue
implementing CAIR. See EME Homer Generation LP v. EPA, slip op. at 60.
In sum, neither the current status of CAIR nor the current status of
the Transport Rule affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of
this redesignation request for the South Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area.
Criteria (4)--The York County Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance
Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
York County Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, SC DHEC
submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment. EPA has interpreted this as a showing of
maintenance ``for a period of ten years following redesignation.''
(September 4, 1992 Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, AQMD,
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' p. 9) where the emissions inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year
inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9-10.
As discussed in detail in the section below, the State's
maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the Area's
emissions inventories will remain below the attainment year inventories
through 2022. In addition, for the reasons set forth below, EPA
believes that the State's submission, in conjunction with additional
supporting information, further demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at least through 2023. In
summary, as discussed in under ``Criteria 3,'' the reductions that have
been realized are due to federal, state and local control measures that
are anticipated to remain in place. For example, there have been local
reductions attributable to North Carolina' CSA, the NOX SIP
Call, and from local plant closures. A review of the reductions
achieved and the projected emissions inventories as seen in Tables 2
and 3 below, it is not anticipated that emissions in the York County
Area will significantly increase between 2022 and 2023, such that these
emissions would be above the 2010 attainment level emissions. For
example, mobile NOX emissions between 2010 and 2022, are
estimated to be reduced by 63 percent, and it is not expected that
mobile NO emissions between 2022 and 2023 will increase by 63 percent.
Likewise, mobile VOC emissions between 2010 and 2022, are estimated to
be reduced by 45 percent, and it is not expected that mobile VOC
emissions between 2022 and 2023 will increase by 45 percent. Thus, if
EPA finalizes its proposed approval of the redesignation request and
maintenance plan in 2013, it is based on a showing, in accordance with
section 175A, that the State's maintenance plan provides for
maintenance for at least ten years after redesignation. Therefore, EPA
has made the preliminary determination that this maintenance plan meets
the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the
[[Page 68096]]
remainder of the 20-year period following the initial 10-year period.
To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance
plan must contain contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure
prompt correction of any future 1997 8-hour ozone violations. The
Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address
five requirements: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA proposes to
find that South Carolina's maintenance plan includes all the necessary
components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the
South Carolina SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2008-2010. South
Carolina selected 2010 as the attainment emissions inventory year. The
attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that
is sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. South Carolina
began development of the attainment inventory by first generating a
baseline emissions inventory for the York County Area. As noted above,
the year 2010 was chosen as the base year for developing a
comprehensive emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, for which
projected emissions could be developed for 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022.
All large permitted sources defined as Inventory Type A sources under
EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule are required to report emissions
annually and other title V sources are required to report every three
years to SC DHEC. Additionally, EPA requires SC DHEC to submit this
data to the EPA Emissions Inventory System (EIS) on the same schedule.
The latest year available for the Inventory Type A point source
inventory submitted to EPA is 2010. For the smaller sources that report
emissions every three years, the most recent emissions inventory
available (2008) was used as representative of 2010 emissions. The
emissions data upon which SC DHEC's maintenance plan is based were from
files maintained by the SC DHEC. In addition to comparing the final
year of the plan, 2022, to the base year, 2010, South Carolina compared
interim years to the baseline to demonstrate that these years are also
expected to show continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As
mentioned above, emissions inventory levels in 2022 are well below the
attainment year inventory levels, and it is highly improbable that they
will suddenly increase and exceed attainment year inventory levels in
2023.
The emissions inventory is composed of four major types of sources:
point, area, on-road mobile and non-road mobile. The emissions
inventory was projected to future years by utilizing EPA's Economic
Growth Analysis System (E-GAS) version 5 software. There are two major
data sources that are used as growth indicators in EGAS 5.0: the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Annual Energy Outlook and version 6.0 of
state-level economic models from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI).
In general, DOE data are expected to be used as growth indicators for
fuel combustion/production categories, while REMI data will be used for
all other source categories. The complete descriptions of how the
inventories were developed are discussed in the appendices of the June
2, 2011, SIP revision, which can be found in the docket for this
action. Non-road mobile emissions estimates were based on the EPA's
NONROAD2008a non-road mobile model, with the exception of the railroad
locomotives, commercial marine, and aircraft engine. These emissions
are estimated by taking activity data, such as landings and takeoffs,
and multiplying by an EGAS 5.0 emissions factor. On-road mobile source
emissions were calculated using EPA's MOVES2010a mobile emission
factors model. The 2010 NOX and VOC emissions for the bi-
state Charlotte Area, as well as the emissions for other years, were
developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Tables 2
through 4 of the following subsection discussing the maintenance
demonstration.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
The June 2, 2011, final SIP revision includes a maintenance plan
for the York County Area. The maintenance plan:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard by providing information to support the demonstration that
current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or
below 2010 emissions levels.
(ii) Uses 2010 as the attainment year and includes future emissions
inventory projections for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022.
(iii) Identifies an ``out year'' at least 10 years (and beyond)
after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance
plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NOX and VOC MVEB were established
for an interim year (2013) and the last year (2022) of the maintenance
plan (see section VI below).
(iv) Provides actual and projected emissions inventories, in tons
per day (tpd), for the York County Area, as shown in Tables 2 through 4
below.
Table 2--Actual and Projected Annual NOX Emissions (tpd) for the York County Area*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................... 4.54 4.64 4.91 5.19 5.48
Area............................ 1.1733 1.2219 1.2665 1.3183 1.3641
Nonroad......................... 3.209 2.686 2.174 1.817 1.595
Mobile.......................... 12.05 8.73 6.52 5.16 4.42
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 20.97 17.28 14.87 13.49 12.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Portion of York County within the nonattainment area.
Table 3--Actual and Projected Annual VOC Emissions (tpd) for the York County Area*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................... 2.07 2.06 2.2 2.34 2.49
Area............................ 7.1645 7.3870 7.5672 7.7027 7.8311
Nonroad......................... 2.149 1.776 1.541 1.438 1.407
[[Page 68097]]
Mobile.......................... 3.92 3.14 2.61 2.29 2.14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 15.30 14.36 13.92 13.77 13.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Portion of York County within the nonattainment area.
Table 4--Emission Estimates for the York County Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
Year (tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................................. 15.30 20.97
2013.................................................. 14.36 17.28
2016.................................................. 13.92 14.87
2019.................................................. 13.77 13.49
2022.................................................. 13.87 12.86
Difference from 2010 to 2022.......................... -1.43 -8.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 2 through 4 summarize the 2010 and future projected
emissions of NOX and VOC from York County. In situations
where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, the
ambient air quality standard should not be violated in the future as
long as emissions from within the nonattainment area remain at or below
the baseline with which attainment was achieved. South Carolina has
projected emissions as described previously and determined that
emissions in the York County Area will remain below those in the
attainment year inventory for the duration of the maintenance plan.
As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety
margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions
(from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is
the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS. South Carolina selected 2010 as the attainment emissions
inventory year for the York County Area. South Carolina calculated
safety margins for years 2013 and 2022 in its submittal for years 2013,
2016, 2019, and 2022. The State has decided to allocate a safety margin
to the 2013 and 2022 MVEB for the bi-state Charlotte Area. For the year
2013, the NOX safety margin was calculated as 3,348
kilograms per day (kg/day) \6\ and for VOC as 853 kg/day. For the year
2022, the safety margin was calculated as 7,357 for kg/day for
NOX and 1,297 kg/day for VOC. The State has decided to
allocate the full safety margin amounts to the MVEB for these years.
Therefore, no remaining safety margin will be available for VOC and
NOX for the years 2013 and 2022. The MVEB to be used for
transportation conformity proposes is discussed in section VI. This
allocation and the resulting available safety margin for the York
County Area are discussed further in section VI of this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Conversion factor from kilograms to tons is 0.0011023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Monitoring Network
There is currently one monitor measuring ozone in York County.
However, this monitor is not located within the nonattainment area
boundary. The State of South Carolina, through SC DHEC, has committed
to continue operation of the monitor in York County in compliance with
40 CFR part 58 and have thus addressed the requirement for monitoring.
EPA approved South Carolina's 2011 monitoring plan on October 12, 2011.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of South Carolina, through SC DHEC, has the legal
authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for the York County Area. This includes the
authority to adopt, implement and enforce any subsequent emissions
control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct
future ozone attainment problems.
South Carolina will continue to update its emissions inventory at
least once every three years. In addition to the emissions inventory
for 2010, the emissions inventory base year, and the last year of the
maintenance plan, 2022, interim years of 2013, 2016 and 2019 were
selected to show a trend analysis for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Tracking the progress of the maintenance plan also
includes performing reviews of the updated emissions inventories for
the area using the latest emissions factors, models, and methodologies.
For these periodic inventories, SC DHEC will review the assumptions
made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning
projected growth of activity levels. In addition, SC DHEC will continue
to work with local stakeholders to maintain the NAAQS as required.
f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
The contingency measures are designed to promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of
the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The
maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be
adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and
a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency
measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a
requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to
control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section
175A(d).
In the June 1, 2011, SIP revision, South Carolina affirms that all
programs instituted by the State and EPA will remain enforceable and
that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following
the redesignation of the Area. The contingency plan portion of the
maintenance determination was further clarified with a July 8, 2011,
letter. This letter can be found in the docket for today's action using
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0327.
The contingency plan included in South Carolina's June 1, 2011, SIP
revision includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency
measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing
appropriate control measures. The State of South Carolina will use
actual ambient monitoring data as the triggering event to determine
when contingency measures should be implemented.
South Carolina has identified a primary trigger as occurring when a
quality assured/quality controlled (QA/QC) design value exceeds the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at any monitor in the Area. In the event that
the trigger is activated, SC DHEC will verify the data through QA/QC
and certification;
[[Page 68098]]
analyze the data to verify monitored ozone data, meteorology,
transport, and related activities to determine the possible cause of
the violation; consult with North Carolina Department of Air Quality
\7\ to determine which state will implement a contingency measure(s)
within a time frame specified in the respective maintenance plan to
bring the Area back into attainment; if necessary, select a contingency
measure within three months after verification of an exceedance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and develop and implement necessary
regulations as soon as practicable and within the in guidelines
established in the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act or no
more than two years after selection of the appropriate measure. South
Carolina further clarified this statement in the July 8, 2011, letter
to EPA by defining the triggering event as the date of the design value
violation, and not the final QA/QC date, such that appropriate measures
would be implemented within 24 months of activating the primary
trigger. Further, the guidelines set forth in the South Carolina
Administrative Procedures Act state the selection of a measure and the
development and implementation of necessary regulations would be
expected to be completed within 24 months of activating the primary
trigger. However, if it is determined that a longer schedule is
required to implement specific contingency measures, then, upon
selection of appropriate measures, SC DHEC will notify EPA, for
approval, of the proposed schedule and provide sufficient information
to demonstrate that the proposed measures are a prompt correction of
the triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As stated earlier, there is currently one monitor measuring
ozone in York County. This monitor is not located in the bi-state
Charlotte Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least one of the following contingency measures will be adopted
and implemented upon a primary triggering event:
RACT for NOX on existing stationary sources not
subject to existing requirements;
Implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including
incentives for performing retrofits for fleet vehicle operations;
Alternative fuel programs for fleet vehicle operations;
Gas can and lawnmower replacement programs;
Voluntary engine idling reduction programs;
SC DHEC's Take a Break from the Exhaust program; and
Other measures deemed appropriate at the time as a result
of advances in control technologies.
In addition to the trigger indicated above, as a secondary trigger
South Carolina will monitor periodic emissions inventory updates and
compare to actual emissions. As stated in the June 1, 2011, SIP
revision, and further explained in the July 8, 2011, clarification
letter, if actual emissions are greater than 10 percent of the
projected emissions in the maintenance plan, SC DHEC will investigate
the differences and develop an appropriate strategy for addressing the
differences.
EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment inventory,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by the State of South Carolina for the York County Area meets
the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, and thus EPA is proposing
approval of the plan.
VI. What is EPA's analysis of South Carolina's proposed NOX
and 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 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
demonstration) 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 last
year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEB for other years as
well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the
maintenance demonstration 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 has developed MVEB for
NOX and VOC for the York County Area. South Carolina is
developing these MVEB, as required, for the last year of its
maintenance plan, 2022. Through the interagency consultation process,
MVEB were also set for the interim year 2013. The MVEB reflect the
total on-road emissions for 2013 and 2022, plus an allocation from the
available NOX and VOC safety margin. Under 40 CFR 93.101,
the term ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment
level (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to
the transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain
below the attainment level. The NOX and VOC MVEB and
allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with
the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties
in population growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled and new
emission factor models. The NOX and VOC MVEB for the York
County Area are defined in Table 5 below.
[[Page 68099]]
Table 5--York County Portion of the Bi-State Charlotte AreaX and VOC
MVEB (kg/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions.......................... 7,924 4,011
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB......... 3,348 7,357
NOX Conformity MVEB..................... 11,272 11,368
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions.......................... 2,846 1,939
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB......... 853 1,297
VOC Conformity MVEB..................... 3,699 3,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, South Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion
of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEB for
2013 and 2022 for the York County Area. This allocation is 3,348 kg/day
and 853 kg/day for NOX and VOC, respectively for 2013 and
7,357 kg/day and 1,297 kg/day for NOX and VOC, respectively
for 2022. Thus, the remaining safety margins for 2013 and 2022 are 0
kg/day for NOX and VOC.
Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEB for
NOX and VOC for 2013 and 2022 for the York County
Area because EPA has preliminarily determined that the Area maintains
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. After thorough review, EPA has preliminarily
determined that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and is proposing to approve the budgets because
they are consistent with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2022. As discussed in section V, EPA is proposing that if this
approval is finalized in 2013, the Area will continue to maintain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through at least 2023. Consistent with this
proposal, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEB submitted by the State
in its June 1, 2011, maintenance plan for the York County Area. EPA is
proposing that the submitted MVEB are consistent with maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2023.
VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the York
County area?
When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing 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 maintenance plan submission
includes NOx and VOC MVEB for the York County Area for 2013,
an interim year of the maintenance plan, and 2022, the last year of the
maintenance plan. EPA reviewed the NOx and VOC MVEB through
the adequacy process. The South Carolina SIP submission, including the
bi-state Charlotte Area NOx and VOC MVEB, was open for
public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on October 28, 2011, found
at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The
EPA public comment period on adequacy for the MVEB for 2013 and 2022
for the York County Area closed on November 28, 2011. No comments,
adverse or otherwise, were received during EPA's adequacy process for
the MVEB associated with South Carolina's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan.
The 2013 and 2022 NOx and VOC MVEB must be used for
future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional
emissions analysis years that involve 2013 through 2021, the applicable
2013 MVEB will be used and for 2022 and beyond, the applicable budgets
will be the 2022 MVEB established in the maintenance plan, as defined
in section VI of this proposed rulemaking.
VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval
of South Carolina's redesignation request would change the legal
designation of the designated portion of York County in South Carolina
(including the Catawba Indian Nation reservation lands) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment.\8\ Approval of South Carolina's request would also
incorporate a plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
York County Area through 2022 into the South Carolina SIP. This
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation
of potential violations. The maintenance plan also establishes
[[Page 68100]]
NOx and VOC MVEB for the York County Area. The
NOx MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the York County Area are
11,272 kg/day and 11,368 kg/day, respectively. The VOC MVEB for 2013
and 2022 for the York County Area are 3,699 kg/day and 3,236 kg/day,
respectively. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public of the status
of EPA's adequacy determination for the newly-established
NOx and VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 for the York County Area,
and is notifying the public that the 2022 MVEB are consistent with
maintenance in the Area through 2023 as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This proposed action does not proposed to change the Area's
designation for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
SIP Revisions Including Approval of the NOx and VOC MVEB for
2013 and 2022 for the York County Area
EPA previously determined that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area
(including the portion of York County that is a part of this Area) was
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on November 15, 2011, at 76 FR
70656. EPA is now proposing to take two separate but related actions
regarding the York County Area's redesignation and maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
First, EPA is proposing to determine, based on complete, quality-
assured and certified monitoring data for the 2009-2011 monitoring
period that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area (including the portion
of York County that is a part of this Area) is attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine that South Carolina has
met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the York County
Area for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is proposing to approve South
Carolina's redesignation request for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the York County Area.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
York County Area, including the NOx and VOC MVEB for 2013
and 2022, into the South Carolina SIP (under CAA section 175A). The
maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the budgets meet all of the adequacy
criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as part of
today's action, EPA is describing the status of its adequacy
determination for the NOx and VOC MVEB for 2013 and 2022 in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). On September 24, 2012, at 77 FR
58829, EPA announced the adequacy of the MVEB would take effect on
October 9, 2012. Within 24 months from this effective date, the
transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new
NOx and VOC MVEB pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).
As discussed in section V, EPA is proposing that if this approval
is finalized in 2013 the area will continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through at least 2023. Consistent with this proposal, EPA
is proposing to approve the MVEB submitted by the State in its June 1,
2011, maintenance plan for the York County Area. EPA is proposing that
the submitted MVEB are consistent with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2023.
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the official designation of the nonattainment portion of York County
(including the Catawba Indian Nation reservation lands) in the Area for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from
nonattainment to attainment.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For this reason, these proposed actions:
Are not ``significant regulatory action[s]'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are 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.);
Do 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);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are 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
Do 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, the redesignation for the York County Area does have
Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because it may have substantial direct effects on
the Catawba Indian Nation as the Tribe's reservation lands are within
the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As such, today's
proposal to redesignate the York County Area to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS includes the Catawba Indian Nation reservation
lands. Accordingly, EPA and the Catawba Indian Nation consulted on this
redesignation prior to today's proposed action. EPA's consultation on
this and other ozone SIP matters for the York County Area with the
Catawba Indian Nation commenced on October 14, 2011, and concluded on
October 31, 2012. EPA further notes that today's action is not
anticipated to impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 68101]]
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 6, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-27807 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
