Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses i Hickory and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Annual PM2.5 Appendix E Supplement to the Redesignation Demonstra tion and Maintenance Plan December 22, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Comment Letter: 12/7/2009, Richard A. Sc hutt, Chief of Air Planning Branch, USEPA Region 4 ................................................................................................................ .3

Letter: 12/18/2009, B. Keith Overcash, Re sponse to USEPA Region 4 comment letter, dated 12/7/2009 ............................................................................................................... .....7

The Greensboro News and Record Affidavit .................................................................................11

The Hickory Daily Record Affidavit ............................................................................................ .13

The Winston-Salem Journal Affidavit ........................................................................................... 14

Supplement Public Notice Report ............................................................................................... ...15

Comment Letter: 12/17/2010, Richard A. Sc hutt, Chief of Air Planning Branch, USEPA Region 4 ...............................................................................................................1 7

Letter: 12/22/2010, Sheila C. Holman, Response to USEPA Region 4 comment letter, dated 12/17/2010 .............................................................................................................. ..19

The Greensboro News and Record Affidavit for Supplement .......................................................20

The Hickory Daily Record Affidavit for Supplement ...................................................................22

The Winston-Salem Journal Affidavit for Supplement .................................................................23Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses ii Hickory and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Annual PM2.5 Appendix E Redesignation Demonstration and Ma intenance Plan December 18, 2009 (This page intentionally left blank)Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 15 Hickory and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Annual PM2.5 Appendix E Supplement to the Redesignation Demonstra tion and Maintenance Plan December 22, 2010 

### Public Notice Report

For Supplement to the Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Hickory and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Annual PM 2.5 

### Nonattainment Area

On November 15, 2010, a draft version of the No rth Carolina supplement to the redesignation demonstration and maintenance plan for the Hi ckory and Greensboro/Wi nston-Salem/High Point (referred to as the Triad area) annual fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) nonattainment areas was submitted to the U. S. 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 newspapers on Wednesday, November 17, 2010. The public comment period was open from November 17, 2010, through December 17, 2010. No request for public hearing was received and the public comment period elicit ed comments from the USEPA.

Background

The Hickory and Triad areas North Carolina, located in Catawba, Davidson, and Guilford counties, was designated nonattainment for the annual PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on January 5, 2005 (70 Federa l Register 944) and became effective on April 1, 2005. The nonattainment designation was an action taken by the USEPA under Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA requires that some area be designated as nonattainment if a monitor is found to be in violation of the NAAQS. The USEPA took designation action in 2005 based on the ambient data from 2001- 2003. At that time, the design values for the Hickory and Triad nonattainment areas were 15.6 μg/m 3 and 15.9 μg/m 3

, respectively.

All violating monitors we re attaining the annual PM 2.5 standard with the inclusion of the 2008 ambient data. The 2006-2008 design values for th e Hickory and Triad nonattainment areas are 14.2 μg/m 3 and 14.5 μg/m 3 , respectively. Both areas continue to attain the daily PM 2.5 standard. Therefore, the Hickory and Triad PM 2.5 nonattainment areas are in attainment of the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and eligible to be considered for re designation to attainme nt. The North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) submitted a redesignation demonstration and maintenance plan for the Hickory and Triad PM 2.5 nonattainment areas on December 18, 2009.

In March 2010, the USEPA announced in the Federal Register (FR) that the new mobile model, Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), wa s required for State Implementation Plan purposes and would be required for transporta tion conformity purposes starting March 2012 (40 FR 9411). The NCDAQ committed to the transpor tation partners to revise the motor vehicle emission budgets using the MOVES model. This supplement revises the on-road mobile source emissions used in the maintenance plan and the motor vehicle emission budgets which will be used for transportation conformity purposes.Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 16 Hickory and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Annual PM2.5 Appendix E Supplement to the Redesignation Demonstra tion and Maintenance Plan December 22, 2010 Summary of Public Notice and Comment Period

The public comment period was open from November 17, 2010 through December 17, 2010. The only comments received were from the USEPA, which are attached following this report along with the NCDAQ’s response to comments. Both comments received from the USEPA were not on the mobile source emissions, but rather information in the original plan submitted December 2009. The first comment will be addre ssed in a separate errata document while the second was a suggestion to move a rule reference from one section to another. Both comments were minor and did not impact the supplemen tal information being provided. The NCDAQ believes it has adequately addressed the conc ern in the response to comments letter.

Conclusions

The NCDAQ believes it has adequately addr essed the USEPA’s comments. The NCDAQ will be moving forward with the final submittal to the USEPA of the North Carolina supplement to the redesignation demonstration and maintenan ce plan for the Hickory and Greensboro/WinstonSalem/High Point annual PM 2.5 nonattainment areas.