# Appendix F Public Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses

### (This page intentionally left blank)Public Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses i Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for the Appendix F Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area April 5, 2010 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public Notice Report .......................................................................................................... ..............1

Comment Letter: 3/17/2010, Richard A. Sc hutt, Chief of Air Planning Branch, USEPA Region 4 ................................................................................................................ .3

Comment Letter: 3/22/2010, J. David Farren and Thomas Gremillion, Southern Environmental Law Center .................................................................................................................... .......7

The Charlotte Observer Affidavit .............................................................................................. ....11Public Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses ii Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for the Appendix F Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area April 5, 2010 

### (This page intentionally left blank)Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 1 Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for the Appendix F Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area April 5, 2010 

## Public Notice Report

Supplement to the North Carolina 8-Hour Oz one Attainment Demonstration for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozon e Nonattainment Area

(Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Meckle nburg, Rowan, Uni on Counties and Coddle Creek and Davidson To wnships in Iredell County)

On February 12, 2010, a pre-hearing draft version of the Supplement to the North Carolina 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the Charlotte-Gastonia- Rock Hill, NC-SC (referr ed to as the Metrolina area), 8-hour ozone nonattainment area was submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). A request for public hearing, in acco rdance with 40 CFR 51.102, and the public comment period were noticed in the local newspaper on Frid ay, February 12, 2010. The public comment period was open from February 12, 2010, through March 22, 2010, with a tentative hearing scheduled for Monday, March 22, 2010. No request for public hear ing was received and the hearing was cancelled. A hearing cancellation notice was posted on the North Ca rolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) website on Tuesday, March 16, 2010. The public comment pe riod elicited comment letters from the USEPA and the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC).



### Background

In July 1997, the USEPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), setting a standard at 0.08 parts per m illion (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period. On April 15, 2004, the USEPA designated areas as nona ttainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data measured dur ing the 2001, 2002 and 2003 ozone seasons. These designations became effective on June 15, 2004. The Metrolina area was designated as a Moderate nonattainment area.

The attainment date for a Moderate area is June 15, 2010, with an attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal date of June 15, 2007. The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) submitted an attainment demonstration SIP on June 15, 2007, which demonstrated that the Metrolina nonattainment area would attain the standard by the end of 2009.

The USEPA notified North Carolina in a letter dated N ovember 17, 2008, that they planned to disapprove the Metrolina attainment demonstration SIP unless North Carolina requested a voluntary reclassification to Serious. In that letter, the USEPA stated: “Because we are now so close to the attainment date, we now believe that attainment will not be achieved by th e required moderate area deadline based on the air quality measurements from the summers of 2007 and 2 008 that exceed the standard by a sizable amount. Furthermore, we believe that the area will not meet the requirements for a one-year extension of the attainment date.”

Before responding to the November 17, 2008, letter, North Carolina thoroughly considered the two most apparent options: the proposed disapproval of the attainment demonstration SIP and the voluntary reclassification to Serious. Both options presented rath er negative consequences for the State. While the USEPA believed that it was unlikely that the Metrolin a area would attain the 1997 ozone standard by its attainment date, North Carolina believed that the re gion could meet the requirement for requesting a one-Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 2 Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for the Appendix F Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area April 5, 2010 year extension if the attainment date was not me t and believed that disapproval of the attainment demonstration SIP was premature.

Many of the control requirements in the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) for a Serious nonattainment area focus on reducing Volatile Organic Compound (VOC ) emissions. For example, stationary sources with potential annual VOC emissions greater than 50 t ons per year must implement reasonably available control technology or RACT. The Metrolina region is nitrogen oxide (NOx) limited, so reductions in VOC emissions will not result in the reductions in oz one needed to meet the standard. Therefore, the NCDAQ did not wish to request a voluntary reclassifica tion of the Metrolina area to Serious when there was still a chance that the area would be eligible to re quest a one-year extension of the attainment date. North Carolina believed that in these difficult economic times, it was unreasonable for the State to require business and industry to go through a resource intens ive and burdensome process and implement costly VOC controls when lower ozone levels would not be achieved as a result of that exercise.

Therefore, on December 19, 2008, North Carolina responded to the USEPA letter by withdrawing the attainment demonstration SIP s ubmitted in 2007 and by committing to submit a revised SIP by November 30, 2009. In August 2009, the NCDAQ shar ed an internal draft of the revised attainment demonstration with the USEPA and the transportation partners for comment. The NCDAQ learned at the end of the comment period that the USEPA had issues w ith the attainment year as proposed in the revised SIP being 2011.

By the time the NCDAQ learned of the USEPA’s con cerns, the majority of the ozone season was over. Although the Metrolina area did not have a design va lue below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the three-year period including the 2009 data, the area did have clean data for 2009; i.e., the fourth highest values at all of the monitors were below the 199 7 ozone standard. The CAAA allows the USEPA to extend the attainment date for one year even if the area has a 3-year design value above the standard for the attainment year, provided certain other conditions ex ist. The conditions for the extension are that an area has clean data in the designated attainment year and that the State has complied with all requirements and commitments in its implementation plan. With clean data for 2009, the area qualifies for a one-year extension of the attainment date once the attainment demonstration is deemed complete by the USEPA.

The USEPA discussed internally various options of what the NCDAQ could submit that would address their concerns with the 2011 attainment date. On November 4, 2009, the NCDAQ was given two options to consider:

• Option 1 - The State could re-submit the origin al attainment demonstration and then submit supplemental information. The supplemental in formation would include the 2009 ambient air quality data showing the area qualifies for a one-y ear extension and the 2011 modeling as weight of evidence that the Metrolina region would attain the standard by June 15, 2011.

• Option 2 - The State could use the original 2009 modeling and the revised 2011 modeling to develop a plan to demonstrate the area would attain the standard by June 15, 2011.

The NCDAQ chose Option 1, and on November 12, 2009, the agency re-submitted the attainment demonstration SIP for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to the USEPA.Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 3 Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for the Appendix F Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area April 5, 2010 This Public Notice Report addresses the comments received on the Supplement to the Metrolina attainment demonstration. The Supplement contai ns the information requested by the USEPA, which includes the 2009 ambient air quality data showing the area qualifies for a one-year extension and the 2011 modeling as weight of evidence that the Metrolina region will attain the standard by June 15, 2011.



### Summary of Public Notice and Comment Period

The public comment period was open from February 12 , 2010 through March 22, 2010. Comment letters were received from the USEPA and SELC, which are att ached at the end of this Appendix. The USEPA letter stated that they had no comments at this time on the Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration. The comments from the SELC focused on their belief that the Metrolina region should be reclassified to a “Serious” nonattainment area and that the region does not qualify for a one-year extension of the attainment date. Below is a summary of pertinen t comments from the SELC and the NCDAQ’s response. Some of the SELC’s comments received were extens ive and touched on a number of somewhat related issues. This report does not attempt to address comments that are not applicable to the Supplement to the Metrolina attainment demonstration SIP.

SELC: SELC incorporated by reference their comment s submitted with regards to the North Carolina 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (referred to as the RFP SIP).

NCDAQ’s Response: These comments were addressed in the RFP SIP that was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2009.

SELC: The Metrolina region does not qualify for a 1-year extension of the attainment date and should be reclassified to Serious nonattainment status.

NCDAQ’s Response: The NCDAQ disagrees that the region should be reclassified to Serious. Although the region’s 3-year design value is slightly over th e 1997 8-hour ozone standar d, the region has clean data for 2009 and the NCDAQ believes that the area meets the requirements necessary to request a 1- year extension of the attainment date. Please se e the preceding “Background” section for an explanation of the USEPA’s clean data policy.

SELC: The NCDAQ should develop prospective strate gies for controlling emissions, particularly from motor vehicles and ensure both short term and long te rm attainment of health-based air quality standards.

NCDAQ’s Response: The NCDAQ had submitted an attainment demonstration for the Metrolina region in June 2007 that was a prospective plan for attainment of the health-based 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The purpose of this supplemental SIP is to add ress additional information that was requested by the USEPA that would further supplement the original attainment demonstration.

SELC: SELC stated that NCDAQ has simultaneously relaxed important controls on emissions and declined to adopt any new measures, even those which the Clean Air Act requires.

NCDAQ’s Response: When the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was promulgated, North Carolina was proactive in developing control measures to meet th is standards long before areas were designated. InPublic Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 4 Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for the Appendix F Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area April 5, 2010 1999 the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) passed the Clean Air Bill that expanded the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program from nine to 48 counties, which is well beyond what is required through the CAAA. In 2002, the NCGA pa ssed the Clean Smokestacks Act that required the larger coal-fired power plants to control to meet set emission caps that could not be met through purchasing credits. Additionally, the NCDAQ has an open burning regulation that prohibits burning of trash and, on air quality action days, the burning of ve getative materials as well. This past year, the NCDAQ developed an Idle Reduction Rule to reduce emissions from idling heavy duty motor vehicles, which we believe will become effective in 2010 a fter it passes through the NCGA review. None of these controls on emissions have been relaxed and the NCDAQ believes that all controls required by the CAAA have been adopted.

SELC: The resubmission and SIP supplement continue to omit any valid contingency measures that would take effect “without further action by the State or the Administrator.”

NCDAQ’s Response: In accordance with the guidance from the USEPA, the contingency measures should equal approximately three percent of the baseline emission and these measures could include Federal programs that are already in place. The estimated amount of emission reductions expected from the fleet turnover of highway and off-road mobile so urces provided approximately three percent of the baseline emission reductions. These emission reductions would take effect without further action by the State or the Administrator. The NCDAQ believes North Carolina has met th e contingency measure requirement of the CAAA.

SELC: The Supplemental SIP does not establish moto r vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 2010.

NCDAQ’s Response: In preparing the supplement to the at tainment demonstration SIP, the USEPA guidance was that the motor vehicle emission budgets needed to be for 2009 and budgets needed to be established for NOx and VOC. Therefore, MVEBs have been established for 2009.

SELC: The SIP Supplement and its accompanying revisions and resubmissions are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act statutory scheme and its emphasis on attainment deadlines.

NCDAQ’s Response: The NCDAQ has coordinated with the USEPA to ensure that the attainment demonstration and this supplement fulfill the requirements of the CAAA.

SELC: North Carolina officials should prepare a new SI P revision consistent with the Metrolina area’s legally required bump-up to “serious” status, and th e state should focus efforts on actually achieving the tough new standards on the horizon.

NCDAQ’s Response: The NCDAQ has already started the m odeling work that will be needed to determine what additional controls will be needed to meet the “tough new standards on the horizon.” Additionally, the NCDAQ believes that our focus and energy should be on the modeling and rule development work to attain the new 2 010 ozone standard when it is prom ulgate, as opposed to preparing a new SIP for the Metrolina area to meet the 1997 8- hour ozone standard, especially since we believe the region will attain this standard with the conclusion of the 2010 ozone season.

SELC: The SELC incorporated by reference their co mments submitted to the Metrolina transportation planners on their draft conformity analysis and dete rmination report for their long range transportationPublic Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 5 Supplement to the Attainment Demonstration for the Appendix F Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area April 5, 2010 plans. Many of the comments in this referenced letter are similar to those addressed above. Comments on the conformity analysis do no t pertain to the Supplemental SIP and will not be addressed. One comment in the referenced lette r discussed the various MVEBs for Mecklenburg County and questioned the descrepancies.

NCDAQ’s Response: The MVEBs that were established in the redesignation demonstration and maintenance SIP for the Charlotte-Gastonia 1-hour nonattainment area submitted in 1995 were calculated using the current USEPA mobile model at that time (MOBILE5b) and highway performance monitoring system (HPMS) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data. HPMS data was used since it was the only VMT data available at the time of the SIP development. Since that time, the USEPA has developed another mobile model (MOBILE6.2) which estimat es higher emission facto rs than its predecessor MOBILE5b. Additionally, the Metrolina region devel oped a travel demand model (TDM) that provides a better estimate of the VMT than HPMS data. Therefore, it is to be expected that emission estimates made with the new mobile model and the better TDM data would be higher than what was estimated in the 1-hour ozone SIP.

The difference between the 2008 RFP MVEBs and the 2009 MVEBs in the attainme nt demonstration can be attributed to a couple of factors. First, th e USEPA’s mobile model estimates a 10.5% reduction in emissions due to fleet turnover be tween 2008 and 2009 in Mecklenbur g County. Additionally, the data used to estimate the 2009 MVEBs were TDM predicti ons developed in the 2005-2006 timeframe. Since that time, the region has developed a newer and more refin ed TDM. It was with this newer model’s data that the 2008 MVEBs were developed. Furthermo re, the 2008 MVEBs were developed in 2009 when there was a better understanding of what the actual VMT was, as opposed to the 2009 MVEBs which were a three or four year forecast into the future. Th e combination of fleet turnover and the use of newer more refined data accounts for th e differences between the 2008 RFP MVEBs and the 2009 MVEBs from the attainment demonstration.

Conclusions

The NCDAQ believes it has adequately addressed th e SELC’s comments. The NCDAQ will be moving forward with the final submittal to the USEPA of the Supplement to the North Carolina 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the Charlotte-Gastoni a-Rock Hill, NC-SC 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.