# Appendix C

Public Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses(This page intentionally left blank)Public Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses 1

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Appendix C Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan November 2, 2011 

### Public Notice Report

For the Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan

for The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock H ill, North Carolina –South Carolina

1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Introduction

On May 18, 2011, a draft version of the “Redesig nation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina –South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area” was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). A request for public hearing, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102, and the public comment period were noticed in the local ne wspaper on Thursday, May 19, 2011. The public comment period was open from May 20, 2011 through June 23, 2011. No requests for a public hearing were received, so the hearing that ha d been scheduled for June 23, 2011, was cancelled

and noticed on the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) website on June 21, 2011. The public comment period elicited comments fr om the USEPA, Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO) and the Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO).



### Background

The area surrounding Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina (i.e. the Metrolina area) was designate d nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on April 30, 2004 (69 Federal Register 23858). The Metrolina

nonattainment area includes the North Caro lina counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union; Coddle Creek and Davidson Townships in Iredell County, North Carolina; and the Rock Hill Metropolit an Planning Organization boundary in York County, South Carolina. The nonattainment de signation was an action taken by the USEPA under Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (C AA). The CAA requires that some area be designated as nonattainment if a monitor is found to be in violation of a NAAQS. The USEPA took designation action in 2004 based on the ambient data fro m 2001-2003. At that time, the regional design value, the highest monitor’s design value, was 0.100 parts per million (ppm).

There are currently seven ozone monitors located throughout th e Metrolina nonattainment area and one monitor located in York County, South Caro lina, just outside of the nonattainment area. The latest design value for th e nonattainment area is 0.082 ppm based on the data from 2008- 2010, and is therefore in attainme nt of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the area is eligible to be considered for redesignation to attainment.

The State of North Carolina has implemented permanent and enforceable reductions in ozone precursor emissions in the Metrolina area. Th ese actions include implementing the on-board diagnostic vehicle inspection and maintenance pr ogram that was phased- in in the Metrolina nonattainment area from July 1, 2002 through January 1, 2004, and an open burning ban duringPublic Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses 2

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Appendix C Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan November 2, 2011 ozone action days. In addition, there have been several State rules th at have resulted in reductions in emissions in nearby areas that have re sulted in lower ozone levels at the monitor.

These State actions include the NOx SIP Call rules and the Clean Smokestacks legislation. Finally, several actions at the Federal level by the USEPA have resulted in lower emissions throughout the eastern portion of the country. Th ese Federal actions include the Tier II engine standards for light and medium duty vehicles, heavy-duty engine standa rds, the low sulfur gasoline and diesel requirements, off-road engine standards, the NOx SIP Call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). CAIR was remanded by the court and although North Carolina did not rely on the emission reductions from CAIR for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, CAIR will result in additional reductions in NOx emissions regionally.

North Carolina is requesting that the USEPA rede signate the Metrolina nonattainment area to attainment. The monitoring data clearly show s that the region has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the maintenance demonstrati on shows that the future emission inventories are expected to be lower than the base year i nventory through the implementation of the various

control measures listed above.



### Summary of Public Comment Period

The public notice comment period was open from May 20, 2011 through June 23, 2011. There were no requests for a public hearing so the hearing scheduled for June 23, 2011, was cancelled. Comments were received from the USEPA, th e CRMPO and the MUMPO, which are attached following this report along with the NCDAQ’s response to commen ts letter to the USEPA.

The following is a summary of the pertinent co mments raised during the public comment period, along with the NCDAQ’s response. A number of the comments received by the USEPA were minor, mostly requesting clarifying language be added to the SIP documentation. The NCDAQ has added the clarifying language to address the minor comments therefore, these comments are

not discussed below.

CRMPO comment: The Cabarrus-Rowan Transportation Advisory Committee voted unanimously on June 22, 2011 to endorse options B and C for setting the geographic extent of the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets as pa rt of the recently released Metrolina Redesignation/Maintenance Plan.

NCDAQ response: The NCDAQ will take this comment into consideration along with the other comments received regarding MVEBs. The final documentation will outline the comments

received and how these comments were us ed to make the final option selection.

MUMPO comment: Select a motor vehicle emissi on budget strategy that does not treat Mecklenburg County as a planning entity separate from the rest of the Metrolina Region. Mecklenburg County should be treated in a manner c onsistent with that of the rest of the region with regard to MVEB.

NCDAQ response: The NCDAQ will take this comment into consideration along with the other comments received regarding MVEBs. The final documentation will outline the comments

received and how these comments were us ed to make the final option selection.Public Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses 3

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Appendix C Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan November 2, 2011 MUMPO comment: Consider an alterna tive “Option E” which consists of one budget for the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO and one budget for the rest of the Metrolina region. While a true regional budget is the preferred option, “Option E” is iden tical to the geographic distribution agreed upon in writing by all of the Metrolina MPOs [Met ropolitan Planning Organizations], RPOs [Rural Planning Organizations] and NCDOT [North Caro lina Department of Transportation] in 2006.

NCDAQ response: In 2006, the NCDAQ asked transporta tion partners to provide feedback with regards to either county le vel budgets or regiona l budgets, and the response referred to in MUMPO’s comment were in response to that re quest. The draft maintenance plan provided a number of options that addressed the concer ns the NCDAQ had in 2006 as well as addressing concerns provided by the transportation partners at that time. The NCDAQ did not receive feedback from the other transportation partners during this public commen t process stating that a regional budget is still th e preferred approach or if one of the other options provided addressed their concerns sufficiently. Additionally, the NCDAQ asked transportatio n partners during the interagency consultation process, prior to develo ping the maintenance plan, to provide feedback about alternative ways to es tablish MVEBs and only two MPOs responded. CRMPO requested a single MVEB for its MPO and MUMPO requested a single budget for its MPO. Therefore, the NCDAQ will not be establishing MVEBs c onsistent with MUMPO’s “Option E”.

MUMPO comment: Do not apply county-level MVEBs to those portions of the Metrolina regions not requesting them. MUMPO is aware th at Cabarrus and Rowan Counties have stated (and may still have) a preference for county-level MVEBs, but th e remainder of the Metrolina region has not expressed such a preference. MUMPO based this recommendation, in part, on

their belief that MVEB is a tool for conform ity, not a tool for attainment. They stated “Attainment of the ozone standard is independe nt of our transportati on conformity status. Though the MVEB is part of the SIP [State Impl ementation Plan], and the MVEB will be used for transportation conformity, the MVEB are not c onsidered a tool to at taining the air quality

standard.”

NCDAQ response: Although the NCDAQ will take this comment, along with the other comments received regarding MVEBs, into consid eration when establishing the MVEBs for the Metrolina area, the NCDAQ does not agree wi th MUMPO’s assertion that MVEBs are independent of attainment/maintenance of the ai r quality standards. The whole purpose of transportation conformity is to ensure that fede ral actions (such as tran sportation funding) will not hinder an area from attaining and/or maintaining an air qualit y standard. Therefore, it would be appropriate to treat a pla nning entity separate from the rest if doing so would provide

additional assurance that the area would not violate the standard due to motor vehicle emissions increases due to transportation projects in that area.

MUMPO comment: Allocate the same percentage for MVEBs to Mecklenburg County as allocated to Cabarrus, Gaston, Union and Ro wan Counties. NCDAQ’s treatment of an “emissions dominant” county appears to be inco nsistent with how NCDAQ treated Wake County in the Triangle Region’s 2007 ozone maintenance SI P. Also, the percentages of safety margin assigned to each county appear in the draft SIP summary table to be 5% less than they should be. Finally, the draft SIP is not clea r how much of the total safety margin may be allocated in practice if the need arises.Public Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses 4

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Appendix C Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan November 2, 2011 NCDAQ response: The NCDAQ does not believe that it is appropriate to compare the percent used to determine the amount of safety margin allocated to the MVEB for Wake County with the percent used for Mecklenburg County. Meck lenburg County’s 2013 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions are 52.05 tons per day, which are a sign ificantly higher than any other county’s onroad mobile source emissions in the State, incl uding Wake County. Additionally, the air quality was cleaner in Wake County when the MVEBs were established than it currently is in Mecklenburg County. The region al design value for Triangle area in 2007 was 0.080 parts per million (ppm) with the fourth highest maximu m 8-hour ozone value of 0.078 ppm in Wake County. The regional design value for the Metr olina area is 0.082 ppm a nd the fourth highest

maximum 8-hour ozone concentration in Meckle nburg County is 0.082 ppm. Furthermore, in the 2011 ozone season thus far, a total of eight exceedances of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard have occurred in the Metrolina region, six of which have occurred in Mecklenburg County. So although the Metrolina has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standar d, there are still exceedances of the standard in this area, more than any other area in the State a nd on-road mobile source emissions are a significant cont ributor to the NOx emissions. Finally, the current air quality

situation is different now than when the MVEB s were established for Wake County in 2007. In 2007, the 8-hour ozone standard was 0.08 ppm. Curre ntly the 8-hour ozone standard, established in 2008, is 0.075 ppm. The USEPA is reconsidering this standard and is e xpected to promulgate

a new standard in 2011 that will most like be ev en lower. The NCDAQ took all of this into consideration when establishing how much safety margin was allocated to the MVEBs.

USEPA comment: Reasonable Available Control Techno logy [RACT] – Sec tion 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires RACT controls for a ll sources addressed by CTGs in areas classified

moderate and above. For the Charlotte 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment ar ea, these rules would have to be submitted and approved in order for the redesignation to be approved. Not addressing

RACT for sources with emissions less than 100 t ons per year is not consistent with this requirement.

NCDAQ response: The NCDAQ learned recently that the USEPA had concerns with North Carolina’s applicability rule for RACT (15A North Carolina Administ rative Code (NCAC) 2D.0902) which was submitted to the USEPA for adopt ion in to the North Carolina SIP in April 2007 and again in January 2008. The NCDAQ will work with the USEPA to address their concerns with the Metrolina RACT SIP as quickly as possible.

USEPA comment: The plan states that several ru les addressing volatil e organic compounds have been adopted for toxics purposes and have been submitted for inclusion in the SIP. However, the redesignation request states that applicability for th e Charlotte Area is only state effective and has not been submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for federal approval and is not federally enforceable. Ha ving RACT for several CTG categories be only

state enforceable is inconsistent with the st atutory RACT requirement for CTG sources cited previously. Please make the clarification that the rules have been or will be submitted for federal approval.

NCDAQ response: The wording in the draft redesi gnation request was incorrect. The applicability of the rules the USEPA is referri ng to were federally approved into the SIP in August 2001. Additionally, the applicability rule mentioned above (15A NCAC 2D .0902) wasPublic Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses 5

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Appendix C Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan November 2, 2011 submitted to the USEPA for adoption into the SIP in April 2007 and in January 2008. These

submissions include the statewide applicability of the rules referre d to by the USEPA. This error

has been corrected.

USEPA comment : – Contingency Plan – The contingenc y plan section should be strengthened to meet the requirements of Clean Air Ac t section 175A and the September 4, 1992, EPA Redesignation Guidance (Procedures for Pro cessing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment, aka, the Calcagni memo). The Calca gni Memo states that “The plan should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedul e and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State. ” EPA has consistently required that adoption and implementation of contingency measures be completed within 18 to 24 months from a trigger. ... ... ... The plan only states that North Carolina commits to implement within 24

months at least one of the measures. Please ensure that the contingency measure adoption schedule is abundantly clear that the state commits to adopt one of the measures indicated in the plan within 24 months of a trigger, regardless of whether or not legisla tive review is required.

NCDAQ response: The wording has been changed to state “The NCDAQ commits to implement within 24 months of a primary or secondary trigger , or as expeditiously as practicable, at least one of the control measures listed above or other contingency measures that may be determined to be more approp riate based on the analyses performed.”

USEPA comment: Page 3-12, Section 3.3.2 - There is no discussion whether or not the 2010 emissions inventory represents actual point sour ce emissions as required for a redesignation. From Appendix B.1, it appears that the 2009 actua l point source emissions were projected to 2010 for the base year inventories. The point source inventory for the 2010 baseline inventory should represent actual emissions for 2010. Pleas e clarify that the 2010 point source emissions in the redesignation meet this requirement and that actual 2010 emissions were used where available, particularly for significant point sources.

NCDAQ response: The actual 2010 point source emissions inventory will not be available until December 2011. However, for the facilities th at report to the USEPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD), significant poi nt sources for NOx emissions , the NCDAQ used the actual

2010 data from the CAMD database. For the remain ing major sources, the latest available data from 2009 was used and grown to 2010 using the USEPA’s EGAS (Economic Growth Analysis System) growth projection model. The NC DAQ believes this inventory used for the maintenance plan is representative of 2010 emissions.

USEPA Comment: Page 4-2, Section 4.3 – Of the four motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEBs) options presented in the prehearing, EP A prefers option A which sets separate budgets for each county. If Option B or D is ultimately c hosen, it should be clarified that the additional Mecklenburg County budgets are sub-budgets of the overall MPO/RPO budget which also includes Mecklenburg County. Currently, it could appear that the additional Mecklenburg budget is a separate budget. The final rede signation submittal should indicate how public

comments were used to ma ke the option selection.

NCDAQ response: The NCDAQ appreciates the USEPA comments regarding the establishment of MVEBs. The NCDAQ will take this comment into consideration along withPublic Notice Report, Comments Received and Responses 6

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Appendix C Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan November 2, 2011 the other comments received by transportation partners. The final documentation will outline the

comments received and how these comments were used to make the final option selection.



### Conclusion

After considering the comments received, the NCDAQ has chosen to establish MVEBs based on Option C. This option set MVEBs as groupe d counties based on counties that contain a Metropolitan Planning Organizatio n (MPO) and/or Rural Planning Organization (RPO). This option is consistent with the CRMPO request an d takes into considerat ion two of the comments from MUMPO. The NCDAQ believes that this option is a good compromise between how MVEBs have been established in the past, addressing the NCDAQ’s concern with Mecklenburg County’s on-road mobile source emissions and the preferences of the tran sportation partners. Further, the NCDAQ believes this approach provides additional flexibility to the transportation partners while providing adequate assurance that the ozone standa rd will be maintained in the region. Therefore, MVEBs will be set for the CRMPO (Cabarrus and Rowan Counties), for the Gaston Urban Area MPO and Lake Norman RPO (G aston, Iredell, and Lincoln Counties), and for the MUMPO and Rocky River RP O (Mecklenburg and Union Counties).



### Attachments to Pub lic Notice Report

1) Written comments received from Phil Conrad on behalf of the Cabarrus Rowan MPO dated
June 23, 2011.

2) Written comments received from William S. Coxe, Chair of the Mecklenburg Union MPO Technical Coordinating Co mmittee dated June 22, 2011.

3) Written comments from Richard A. Schutt, Chief of the Air Planning Branch, USEPA, dated June 23, 2011.

4) NCDAQ’s written response to the USEPA’s comments, dated June 29, 2011.

5) Public notice language dated May 17, 2011.

6) The Charlotte Observer Publishing Compa ny publication affidav it of public notice.Boothe, Laura

From: Phil Conrad [pconrad@mblsolution.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:19 AM

To: SVC_DENR.DAQ.publiccomments
Cc: Boothe, Laura; Joe Wilson; Connie Cunningham Subject: Metrolina Redesignation

The Cabarrus-Rowan Transportation Advisory Committee voted unanimously on June 22, 2011 to endorse options B and C for setting the geographic extent of the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets as part of the recently released Metrolina Redesignation/Maintenance Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important state decision and look forward to participating as a
stakeholder in future discussions on the SIP.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,

Phil Conrad
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO
135 Cabarrus Avenue East Concord, North Carolina 28025

704-795-7528
704-795-7529 fax

www.crmpo.org

From: Boothe, Laura [mailto:laura.boothe@ncdenr.gov]

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:17 AM Subject: Metrolina Redesignation Demonstration out for comment

Good Morning everyone

The Metrolina Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan is out for public comment. The

notice was published in the Charlotte Observer either Thursday or Friday last week. The comment period goes through June 23 rd

. Requests for a public hearing must be received by June 20 th (see public

notice on website below for information about requesting public hearing). If no request for a public
hearing is received then the public hearing scheduled for June 23 rd will be cancelled and noticed on the

DAQ website.

http://ncair.org/planning/Metrolina_Redesignation_Maintenance.shtml

Please let me know if you have any questions

Laura

Please notice my e

‐ mail address has changed to: Laura.Boothe@ncdenr.gov

Laura Boothe

Attainment Planning Branch Supervisor

NCDENR, Division of Air Quality

1641 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699

‐ 1641 (919) 733

‐ 1488 (919) 715

‐ 7476 FAX

### ATTACHMENT

Data and Detailed Discussion Supporting Comments on the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area PreHearing Draft Redesignation Demo nstration and Maintenance Plan

On behalf of The Mecklenburg-Union Metr opolitan Planning Orga nization (MUMPO) I want to thank the Division of Air Quality for allowing this opportunity to comment on the Ozone SIP draft document dated May 18, 2011 (hence identified as the “draft SIP”). Getting to this point has been a regional effort. Industries, municipalities, and regional planning organizations, worked toward a comm on goal of cleaner air based on the SIP.

The ozone air quality, and the emissions of anthropogenic precursors to ozone, have all

trended downward since 2000. MUMPO believes the mechanism has been – and will remain -- in place to continue those trends. Of particular note, d ecreasing emissions of NOx from the transportation sector have b een the result of technological advances

mandated on the federal level. NOx and VOC em issions have been projected to decrease in every county in the region, including M ecklenburg County, in spite of projected increases in population and vehicle miles trav eled (VMT). This has been documented not only in all of MUMPO’s Transportation Conf ormity Documents since 2002, but is also reflected in the emissions NCDAQ projected in the draft SIP for every county of the Metrolina region, includi ng Mecklenburg County.

Because MUMPO is one of three Metropolit an Planning Organizations charged with developing regional transporta tion planning documents which must conform to the limits in the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVE Bs) contained in the SIP, our comments are largely related to those MVEBs.

The detailed comments in this attachment are divided into four sect ions, corresponding to the comments in the cover letter. Also, for the sake of brevity, our comments are largely limited to NOx emissions, but our comments woul d also apply to VOC emissions. To that end, we believe the following comments are in the best interest of MUMPO, and the Metrolina region as a whole, for sustainable regional growth, for transportation planning, and for enabling the region to continue to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS over the next decade. All referenced figures are sh own at the end of this attachment.Page 2 of 18



## Comment #1 Separate Trea tment of Mecklenburg County

MUMPO is concerned that the NCDAQ finds it n ecessary to create a separate MVEB for Mecklenburg County. The geographic distribu tion options in the dr aft SIP send a clear message that somehow Mecklenburg County has the potential to cause or contribute to air quality problems in the future. In discussing Option B, and also Option D, the rationale given in the draft SIP is:

“Since Mecklenburg County’s motor vehicl e emissions are almost five times larger than the next closest county’s em issions and the monitors in and downwind of Mecklenburg County tend to have the highest ambient ozone concentrations, the NCDAQ is recommending these em issions be managed differently.”

MUMPO does not believe these reasons for such management to be either significant or

relevant. It is not clear from the SIP narra tive exactly what NCDAQ hopes to accomplish by managing Mecklenburg County emissions differe ntly from the rest of the region. The fact that Mecklenburg County’s motor vehicle em issions are almost five times larger than the next closest county’s emissions does not in itself constitute a threat to air quality. Mecklenburg County motor vehicle emissions ar e decreasing, and thus is not a potential hindrance to possible future growth in su rrounding counties. Regarding the monitors, NCDAQ intended 5 of the region’s 7 ozone monitors to be downwind of Mecklenburg County, so it is no surprise that these monitors would generally record the highest ozone. But of more significance is th at all of the monitors are now attaining the ozone NAAQS. NCDAQ’s own data in the draft SIP strongly suggests that an y threat to maintaining the

1997 ozone standard will decrease in the futu re because emissions of NOx and VOC will

continue to decrease in the future. Theref ore, there is no reason for Mecklenburg County motor vehicle emissions to be “managed differently.”

Regarding the magnitude of Mecklenburg County’s motor vehicle NOx emissions, MUMPO presents the following to clearly s how that Mecklenburg County motor vehicle NOx emissions do not pose now, and will continue to not pose a threat to either the 1997 ozone NAAQS, or to the economic developmen t of the other countie s in the Metrolina region:

1. Conformity analyses between 2002 and 2011 consistently show motor vehicle emissions within Mecklenburg County decreasing for the foreseeable future.

2. Mecklenburg County population, househol ds, and employment are projected to become a smaller percentage of the Metrolina totals between 2011 and

2035.

3. NCDAQ’s own data show that moto r vehicle emissions in Mecklenburg County will decrease from 2011 to at leas t 2022, in spite of an increase in VMT during that same period.

For these reasons, discussed in greater detail below, M ecklenburg County motor vehicle emissions should not be managed differently.Page 3 of 18

1. Conformity analyses between 2002 and 2011 consistently show motor vehicle emissions within Mecklenburg County d ecreasing for the foreseeable future. The projected NOx emissions for Mecklenburg County from conformity analyses from 2002 through 2011 are displayed in Figure 1. Each symbol on the graph represents the projected NOx emissions for a specific horiz on year. Some horizon years have been evaluated in multiple conformity analyses. All of the projected VMT had been reviewed vigorously by NCDAQ. All of the projected emissions have been calculated by NCDAQ. All of the projections excep t for the 2011 conformity analysis are from conformity documents approved by USDOT and by EPA. (T he 2011 conformity analysis is still in public review until June 30). It is worth noting that this period includes conformity analyses made while Mecklenburg County wa s a maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone standard, and before the 8-hour non-attain ment area was established. While over the years the assumptions and procedures have e volved, the aggregated historical trend is evident. Mecklenburg County motor vehicle NOx emissions have been decreasing and are projected to continue to decrease.

Figure 2 is a graph of Mecklenburg Count y VMT and projected motor vehicle NOx emissions from 2000 to 2035. Again, the projected VMT had been reviewed by NCDAQ, and the NOx emissions calculated by NCDAQ. There is no evidence that somehow Mecklenburg County motor vehicle NOx emissions may increase, even though VMT is projected to increase.

Figure 3 is a graph of the Mecklenburg County projected NOx for horizon years 2000, 2005, and 2010 (as the dashed line) from Figure 2, overlaid with the annual 4 th -highest ozone in the Metrolina region during the same period. Figure 3 shows that decreases in motor vehicle NOx appear to coincide with th e downward trend in ozone concentrations.

The size of Mecklenburg County has not pr evented a steady trend of improving air quality and decreasing motor vehicle emissi ons. MUMPO believes information provided in Figures 1-3 provide strong evidence ag ainst NCDAQ’s perception that Mecklenburg County mobile NOx emissions need to be managed differently.

2. Mecklenburg County population, househol ds, and employment are projected to become a smaller percentage of the Metrolina totals between 2011 and

2035. Although Mecklenburg County dominates the Metrolina region in terms of population, VMT, and motor vehicle NOx emissions, its do minance relative to the rest of the region is not projected to increase, but rather to decrease slightly. To support this comment, MUMPO presents the projected trends in percentage populat ion (figure 4), percentage number of households (fi gure 5) and percentage empl oyment (figure 6), in each Metrolina county between 2000 and 2035. Thes e data were used in the Metrolina Regional Model (MRM) to generate the VMT a nd speed data which was in turn used by NCDAQ to produce the motor vehicle emissions projections appearing in the draft SIP. The VMT and speed data, and ultimately the motor vehicle emissions, are determined by population, number of house holds, and employment.Page 4 of 18

The table below shows the absolute (not rela tive to the region as a whole) percentage growth rate for Mecklenburg County during the 2000-2035 period. (Sim ilar data exists

for the other counties in the Me trolina region.) For each 3-year period in the table, it is clear that after 2005, the growth rates of population, households, and employment are nearly constant or slightly decreasing. Again, these data are used to generate the projected VMT in Mecklenburg County, and thus the motor vehicle emissions projections appearing in the draft SIP.

Mecklenburg County Annual Growth Rate

2000 to

2002 2002 to

2005 2005 to

2008 2008 to

2015 2015 to

2025 2025 to

2035 Population 2.7% 4.5% 2.3% 1.9% 1.6% 1.2%

Households 2.8% 6.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.5% 1.2%
Employment 2.1% 3.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.6%

The draft SIP does not suggest a need for a plan to limit the growth of Mecklenburg County population or households or empl oyment beyond current projections which support the region’s continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. . In addition, the rate of growth in Mecklenburg County will hol d steady or slightly decrease. Therefore MUMPO believes neither an explicit nor imp licit program to restrict county growth is necessary. Mecklenburg County’s size w ith respect to popula tion, households, and employment will not be a deterrent to growth in the rest of the Metrolina region. As a result, MUMPO has serious concerns with NCDAQ’s assertion that Mecklenburg County motor vehicle emissions need to be manage d any differently from the rest of the Metrolina region.

3. NCDAQ’s own data show that moto r vehicle emissions in Mecklenburg County will decrease from 2011 to at leas t 2022, in spite of an increase in VMT during that same period.

The combination of State and Federal actions , including those requiring the production of lower-polluting motor vehicles, have resulted in cleaner air in the Me trolina area, and are expected to result in continued maintena nce of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this region. But in no instance has NCDAQ me ntioned a special program to control Mecklenburg County motor vehicle emissions, and there is no reference concerning the rationale or value of such a special program.

With input from MUMPO and other partners in this process, NCD AQ developed future year emissions inventories for th e years 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022. Without any specific plan in the draft SIP to “manag e” Mecklenburg County moto r vehicle emissions differently, NCDAQ still concluded in its Executive Summary for the SIP narrative,Page 5 of 18

“The future year emissions were lower than the 2010 emissions in all cases. ...in no future year are the emissions expected to be greater than they were in the baseline year.”

And, below that,

“The monitoring data clearly shows that the region has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the maintenance de monstration shows that the future emission inventories are expect ed to be lower than the attainment year inventory through the implementation of the various control measures discussed above.”

MUMPO agrees with these conclusions reach ed by NCDAQ, and these conclusions are clearly supported by factual data contained in the draft SIP submittal. MUMPO adds as emphasis that every county in the Metrolina region, including Mecklenburg County, has emission inventories in each future year decreasing, according to Table 3-7 and Table 3- 15 in the draft SIP narrative. However, MU MPO is unclear as to how or why NCDAQ singles out Mecklenburg C ounty with regards to moto r vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs).

Under the Transportation Conformity rules, transportation plans must be fiscally constrained, and it is well es tablished in our approved L ong-Range Transportation Plan and conformity document that there are no surplus funds for MUMPO to build more projects than are currently funded. It is si mply not possible to pay for enough new roads, and somehow incent enough people to move in to or near Mecklenburg County to support the idea that Mecklenburg County need s some kind of special management.

MUMPO perceives that NCDAQ has some c oncern that with a multi-county MVEB Mecklenburg County would somehow grow fa ster and effectively usurp any MVEB surplus in the region. But NCDAQ fails to pr esent any data to support such a notion.

There is no realistic scenario under which this is possible. In contrast, MUMPO believes it has presented three types of data whic h show Mecklenburg County motor vehicle

emissions have not and will not increase in the future.

Based on the data presented above, MUMPO recommends that NCDAQ remove from the

final version of the SIP narrative and associ ated appendices, all references to NCDAQ recommending Mecklenburg County emissions be managed differently.Page 6 of 18



## Comment #2 -- Geographic Distribution of MVEBs

NCDAQ has provided four opti ons pertaining to the geograp hic distribution of NOx and VOC MVEBs. On the basis of the comments and data provided in Comment #1, MUMPO requests that NCDAQ seriously r econsider its position on any separate treatment or management of Mecklenburg C ounty motor vehicle emissions. It is clear that Mecklenburg County motor ve hicle emissions are not now, nor anticipated to be, a threat to maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS . Since there is no reason for NCDAQ to single out Mecklenbur g, “Option D” and “Option B” should not be considered for

inclusion in the final SIP document.

MUMPO has concluded the most suitable opti on for the Metrolina re gion is not any of the four options in the draft SIP document. MUMPO does recognize “Option D” to be very similar to a choice endorsed by the MPOs, and RPOs and by NCDOT in 2006. At that time, the aforementioned parties s ubmitted to NCDAQ a geographic distribution

which included Cabarrus and Rowan Counties as separate MVEBs, and the remainder of

the Metrolina with a comm on MVEB. MUMPO therefore calls on NCDAQ to create an “Option E” as illustrated in figure 7, fo r both 2013 and 2022. “Option E” should be the only geographic distribution included in th e final version of the SIP document.

An additional consideration of the Options provided in the draft It is a distinct possibility that when the 2010 census data is fully evaluated, new MPO boundaries may be created. It is very possibl e that the southern por tion of Iredell County could become part of MUMPO. In that ev ent, “Option B” and “Option C” would not work. However, MPO boundary changes would be less of an issue if “Option E” was

chosen.Page 7 of 18



## Comment #3 -- Comments on County-level MVEBs

County-level MVEBs (Option A) should not be applied to the Metrolina region in the

final version of the SIP. Our reasons are given below.

MPOs, not counties, responsible for Transportation Conformity The establishment of county- level MVEBs, while well-int entioned, marginalizes the responsibility of the MPOs in the transporta tion conformity process. When an MPO is larger than a single county, such as the Mecklenburg-Union MPO (MUMPO), the TIP and the LRTP are adopted for the entire MPO, and the fiscal constraint condition is met

MPO-wide. MPOs decide the contents of th eir TIPs and LRTPs, and are responsible for showing that those plans conform to the SIP’s air quality goals by comparing the

calculated emissions to the MVEB. Counties in North Carolina have no transportation planning representative.

If a county were to have a problem mee ting its MVEB, there is no county-level organization that could address the problem. The transportation problem would have to be addressed by either the MPO or the NCDOT.

No documentation that county level budgets are critical DAQ has given MUMPO the impression that any deviation from the county-level MVEBs they prescribe would be detrimen tal to air quality. However, DAQ has not quantified by how much county level MVEBs are a better choice for meeting the ozone NAAQS than “Option E” or even “Option C.” NCDAQ has not evaluated the impact of

a redistribution of the total of MVEBs within the Metrolina area. MUMPO believes that without any such technical documentation NCDAQ lacks support for county-level MVEBs as necessary to preserve air quality.

Growth crosses county boundaries. Output from the Metrolina Regional Model (M RM) used for our conformity analyses and for this draft SIP document show that projected VMT growth is not restricted to the county with the increase in jobs or other attractions. County- level projections of jobs or other attractions impact growth in VMT through a wide geographic area, and thusincrease motor vehicle emissions in multiple counties. Therefore, utilizing a multicounty budget would be more consistent with the correct relation between growth and emissions. NCDAQ’s county-level MVEBs have the potential to re strict population or economic growth in one or more counties, much more readily than would a multi-county MVEB. This may not only be unfair, but unnecessary.

MVEB is a tool for conformit y, not a tool for attainment. Attainment of the ozone standard is independe nt of our transportati on conformity status. Though the MVEB is part of the SIP, and the MVEB will be used for transportation conformity, the MVEB are not considered a t ool to attaining the air quality standard. MUMPO is hopeful that NCDAQ can avoid e quating conformity with attainment by attempting to use the MVEB as such a tool.Page 8 of 18

County level MVEBs rare outside of NC MUMPO found no other comparable area in the nation that utilizes county-level MVEBs. We found that multi-county MVEBs are comm on practice in EPA Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9. Multi-county MVEBs appear to be the norm, generally broken only by state boundaries. Multi-county MVEBs are being applied for multi-county, multi-MPO

maintenance areas and areas across the nati on whose nonattainment status ranges from marginal to severe. Some examples of ar eas with multi-county MVEBs are: Dallas-Fort Worth; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria; St. Louis MO-IL; NY-NJ-CT; Baltimore; Washington DC-MD-VA; Philadelphia-Wilmi ngton-Atlantic City; Clarksville TN - Hopkinsville KY; and Atlanta. An excepti on is the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, which has 8 county budgets, but each coun ty is also an MPO. MUMPO contends

that the Metrolina area wants to be – and should be – given the same regional flexibility to manage its transportation planning decisions that pertain to conformity.Page 9 of 18



### Comment #4 -- Safety Margins

NCDAQ’s analysis shows Metrolina NOx a nd VOC emissions decreasing from 2010 to 2022. As a result, their respective safety ma rgins increase over the same period. The NCDAQ says it decided to allocate up to 50% of the safety margin to the MVEB. However, the total allocation added to th e 2013 amounted to only 26% of the total NOx safety margin available and 27% of the total VOC safety margin available. Furthermore,

the total allocation added to the 2022 MVEBs amounted to on ly 14% of the total NOx safety margin available and 17% of the to tal VOC safety margin available. While MUMPO is hopeful that none of the safety marg in is ever needed in the Metrolina region, NCDAQ has plenty more safety margin it c ould set aside for MVEBs and still be well

below the 50% limit

.

The NCDAQ has developed and implemented a five-step approach for determining a

factor to use to calculate the amount of safety margin to add to what is effectively the baseline MVEB. Having evaluated DAQ’s pr ocedure for calculating safety margins available for the baseline MVEBs, MUMPO makes the following comments:

The percentages chosen for steps 1-4 are arbitrary. NCDAQ’s procedure is serviceable without need ing to be technically justified. A range of different percentages or cr iteria could have been use d, and be equally serviceable.

Mecklenburg County was given no added safety margin for unexpected rapid growth (step 3) because it is already the largest county in the region. MUMPO sees this as another example of singling out Mecklenburg County to be managed differently. Earlier in our comments we provided data and commentary as to why this singling out is unn ecessary. MUMPO applies thos e same comments along with figure 1 through figure 6. Furthermore, NCDAQ’s treatment of an “emissions dominant” county appears to be inconsistent with how NC DAQ treated Wake County in the Triangle Region’s 2007 ozone maintenan ce SIP. The process NCDAQ used to allocate a “safety margin” to th e MVEBs in the Triangle Region 1 is very similar to the process NCDAQ employed for the Metrolina Region. Wake County was estimated to

emit 45% of all the on-road mobile NOx in the Triangle Region for the 2008 MVEB. NCDAQ wrote the following in aw arding safety margins:

“Step 2 Account for continued rapid growth and provide flexibility for counties that are small contributors to on-road mobile NOx emissions inventory

“Chatham, Granville and Person get 10% additional safety margin in 2008

“Durham, Franklin, Johnston, Orange and Wake get 5% additional safety margin in

2008

1 Source: Mobile Source Inventory Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 8-Hour Ozone Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan June 7, 2007 Appendix C.3, page 4-40Page 10 of 18

“ Additional safety margin increases of 5-10% ar e applied to all counties. This is simply to account for continued rapid growth in the Triangle area.”

Compare that to Mecklenburg County, which was estimated to emit 49% of all the onroad mobile NOx in the Metrolina Region for the 2013 MVEB, yet received 0% safety margin credit. MUMPO hopes that NCDAQ does not see Mecklenburg County’s 49% as more significant than Wake County’s 45% in this case. Also, because surrounding counties, but not Mecklenburg, would get adde d safety margin for unexpected growth, it could be viewed as DAQ promoting spra wl. Therefore, MUMPO requests NCDAQ add at an additional 8% (the minimum for step 3) of Mecklenburg County’s emissions to be

allocated to the 2013 MVEBs.

The sum of the safety margins provided in table 4-1 in th e narrative and ta ble 4.4.2-1 in Appendix B.3 should add up to either 15% or 17% (instead of 10% or 12%) in the 2013 column. The allocation for step 2 (5%) may not have been app lied. If so, then the safety margins allocated in 2022 for t hose counties should also be increased to either 25% or

27%.

DAQ is unclear as to whether a larger fraction of the safety margin initially assumed for a specific reason -- and yet sti ll within the allotted safety margin -- would be provided if needed. For example, if the unanticipated input model data changes (step 2) turned out to be 6% inst ead of 5%, would DAQ allow use of 6% of the total (perhaps 15%) safety margin, or onl y 5%? MUMPO believes that the amount of safety margin used for a given area should be limited by that area’s need, and not by what was initially assumed in the draft SIP for a specific reason (step 1 or 2 or 3 or 4).

Concluding request

. MUMPO requests that NCDAQ choose a modified version of “Option D,” which MUMPO has depicted in Figure 7 as “Opti on E” for the geographic distribution of MVEBs. “Option E” is identical to the ge ographic distribution agreed upon in writing by the MPOs, RPOs, and NCDOT in 2006. Meck lenburg County should be treated in a

manner consistent with that of the rest of th e Metrolina region with regard to MVEB and safety margin.

“Option C,” while not singling out Mecklenburg County for special treatment, is flawed because it did not consider the possibility that Iredell County may become a part of

MUMPO.

NCDAQ should not apply c ounty-level MVEBs to th e Metrolina region.Page 12 of 18Page 13 of 18Page 14 of 18Page 15 of 18Page 16 of 18Page 17 of 18Figure 7.Page 18 of 18Attachment November 2, 2011 Page 1



### Attachment: Response to General Co mments provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

The following are general comments that the US EPA feels would strengthen North Carolina’s redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North

Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.

1. Page 2-7, Section 2.3 – For clarity and completeness, pl ease add the pollutants that are

reduced as a result of the local programs listed in this section.

Response: The pollutants that are reduced as a resu lt of the local program’ s measures listed in

Section 2.3 were added.

2. Page 3-12, Section 3.3.2 - There is no discussion wh ether or not the 2010 emissions inventory represents actual point source emi ssions as required for a redesignation. From Appendix B.1, it appears that the 2009 actual point source em issions were projected to 2010 for the base year inventories. The point source inventory for the 2010 baseline inventory should represent actual emissions for 2010. Please clarif y that the 2010 point

source emissions in the rede signation meet this requi rement and that actual 2010 emissions were used where available, particularly for significa nt point sources.

Response: The actual 2010 point source emission s inventory will not be available until December 2011. However, for the facilities th at report to the USEPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD), significant point sources for nitrogen oxide s (NOx) emissions, the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) used the actual 2010 data from the CAMD database. For the remaining major sources, the latest avai lable data from 2009 was used and grown to 2010 using the USEPA’s EGAS (Economic Growth Anal ysis System) growth pr ojection model. The NCDAQ believes this inventory used for the maintenance plan is representative of 2010

emissions.

3. Page 2-8, Table 2-5 – The table presents emissions from EGUs [Electric Generating Units] in and near the nonattainment area for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2002-2010. The submittal makes the assertion that the 50 percent reduction in NOx emissions since 2002 from these facilities are permanent and enfo rceable. However, emissions for 2010 were nearly 23% higher than 2009. A list of cont rols installed, dates of installation, and expected reductions would strengthen the argumen t. It would be more accurate to change the wording of the last senten ce of the first paragraph on page 2-8 to indicate that the NOx SIP [State Implementation Plan] call re ductions are permanent and enforceable.

Response: The last sentence has been changed to read “The NOx SIP Call emission reductions are permanent and enforceable.”Attachment November 2, 2011 Page 2

4. Page 3-2, Section 3.2 - It states that “Each component of the State’s foundation control program is essential in demonstrating maintena nce of the air quality standards.” And then goes on to list the federal and state measures that are included in the foundation control program. The state measures listed incl ude, among others, the I/M [Inspection and Maintenance] program, the Clean Smokestacks Ac t, heavy duty diesel engine gap filling requirements and an open burning regulation. a. The Clean Smokestacks Act was submitted to EPA for approval into the federally approved SIP and the proposed rule no tice was published on June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36468).

b. A note should be added to the narrative to indicate that the I/M program and open burning regulations have been submitted for federal approval.

Response: The following language was added to the three programs listed in comment 4a and

4b.

Clean Smokestacks Act: This State law was submitted to the USEPA for adoption into the SIP in August 2009, however, the USEPA has not yet approved it into the SIP. These emission reductions are currently state enforceable, however, once the USEPA has federally approved the law into the SIP, these emission reductions will be federally

enforceable as well.

I/M rule: The rule for the I/M program was submitt ed to the USEPA for adoption into the SIP in August 2002 and was federally approve d in October 2002. Therefore, these

emission reductions are both stat e and federally enforceable.

Open burning rule: The open burning rule was submitted to the USEPA for adoption into the SIP in March 2006, however, the USEPA has not yet approved the adoption of this

rule into the SIP. These emission reducti ons are currently state enforceable, however, once the USEPA has federally approved the ru le into the SIP, these emission reductions will be federally enforceable as well.

5. Page 4-2, Section 4.3 – Of the four motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEBs) options presented in the prehearing, EP A prefers option A which sets separate budgets for each county. If Option B or D is ultimately chose n, it should be clarifie d that the additional Mecklenburg County budgets are sub-budgets of the overall MPO/RPO budget which also includes Mecklenburg County. Currentl y, it could appear that the additional Mecklenburg budget is a separate budget. The final redesignation submittal should indicate how public comments were us ed to make the option selection.

Response: The NCDAQ appreciates the USEPA comments regarding the establishment of MVEBs. The NCDAQ will take this comment into consideration along with the other comments received by transportation partners. The final documentation will outline the comments received

and how these comments were used to make the final option selection.Attachment November 2, 2011 Page 3

6. Please include the conversion factor or proces s used to convert between tons per day and kg [kilograms] per day when calculating MVEBs. EPA cannot make this interpretation

for the State.

Response: The following language has been added to Appendix B.3 On-road Mobile Source

Documentation:

The MOVES model reports emissions out seve ral decimal places and for this plan the

emissions have been rounded to the second d ecimal place. The conversion to kilograms used the actual emissions reported in th e MOVES model. The conversion was done utilizing the “CONVERT” functi on in an EXCEL spreadsheet.

Other Comments – Comments such as typographical or editorial errors and may also include suggestions for clarification.

7. Page 3-1 - It states that “...NCDAQ has implemented programs that will remain enforceable...” and goes on to say “Sources ar e prohibited from reducing emission controls (anti-backsliding) following the redesignation of the area unless such a ch ange is first approved by the USEPA as a revision to the NC SIP that is consistent with Section 110(l) of the CAA.” But this section does not specify what those cont rols are. So, it appear s that even state only approved measures will fall into this category when in fact they won’t.

Response: The above mentioned paragr aph was changed as follows:

The NCDAQ has implemented programs and submitted rules and laws to be adopted into

the SIP. Once these rules and laws have b een approved into the SIP by the USEPA, these

programs will remain enforceable and are hereby submitted as the plan to ensure that

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will continue. Sources are prohibited from reducing emission controls (anti-backsliding), for controls due to rules or laws that have been submitted to the USEPA for adoption into the SIP , following the redesignation of the area unless such a change is first approved by the USEPA as a revision to the

North Carolina SIP that is consistent with Section 110( l) of the Clean Air Act.

8. Appendix B clearly states th at the emissions inventories were calculated on a ton per summer day basis. NC should consider making this distinction in the narrative as well.

Response: Language has been added to Section 3 of th e narrative that makes the distinction that the emissions inventory is for a summer day.