Public Comment Summary and Response Document on EPA’s Recommended Area
Designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Designation Recommendations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562

December 22, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283241"  1.0.  Introduction
PAGEREF _Toc217283241 \h  v

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283242"  Table of Public Commenters	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283242 \h  vii

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283243"  2.0.  Comments on General Designation
Issues	  PAGEREF _Toc217283243 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283244"  2.1.  Health Concerns	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283244 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283245"  2.2.  Clean Air Act, EPA’s Guidance
and Actions	  PAGEREF _Toc217283245 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283246"  2.3.  EPA’s Technical Analysis
PAGEREF _Toc217283246 \h  33

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283247"  3.0.  Comments Specific To Area
PAGEREF _Toc217283247 \h  45

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283248"  3.1.  Allentown, PA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283248 \h  45

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283249"  3.2.  Baltimore, MD	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283249 \h  45

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283250"  3.3.  Birmingham, AL	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283250 \h  47

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283251"  3.4.  Canton-Massillon, OH	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283251 \h  47

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283252"  3.5.  Charleston, WV	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283252 \h  48

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283253"  3.6.  Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
PAGEREF _Toc217283253 \h  48

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283254"  3.7.  Chico, CA	  PAGEREF _Toc217283254
\h  49

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283255"  3.8.  Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN
PAGEREF _Toc217283255 \h  49

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283256"  3.9.  Clarksville, TN-KY	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283256 \h  50

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283257"  3.10.  Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH
PAGEREF _Toc217283257 \h  58

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283258"  3.11.  Columbus, OH	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283258 \h  59

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283259"  3.12.  Davenport-Moline-Rock Island,
IA-IL	  PAGEREF _Toc217283259 \h  59

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283260"  3.13.  Dayton-Springfield, OH	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283260 \h  78

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283261"  3.14.  Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283261 \h  78

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283262"  3.15.  Evansville, IN	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283262 \h  79

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283263"  3.16.  Fairbanks, AK	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283263 \h  82

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283264"  3.17.  Grand Rapids, MI	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283264 \h  94

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283265"  3.18.  Green Bay, WI	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283265 \h  95

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283266"  3.19.  Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA
PAGEREF _Toc217283266 \h  96

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283267"  3.20.  Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
PAGEREF _Toc217283267 \h  96

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283268"  3.21.  Imperial County, CA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283268 \h  97

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283269"  3.22.  Indianapolis, IN	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283269 \h  99

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283270"  3.23.  Johnstown, PA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283270 \h  99

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283271"  3.24.  Juneau, AK	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283271 \h  99

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283272"  3.25.  Klamath Falls, OR	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283272 \h  106

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283273"  3.26.  Knoxville-Sevierville-La
Follette, TN	  PAGEREF _Toc217283273 \h  114

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283274"  3.27.  Lafayette-Frankfort, IN	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283274 \h  114

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283275"  3.28.  Lancaster, PA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283275 \h  114

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283276"  3.29.  Libby, MT	  PAGEREF _Toc217283276
\h  114

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283277"  3.30.  Liberty-Clairton, PA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283277 \h  114

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283278"  3.31.  Logan, UT-ID	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283278 \h  118

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283279"  3.32.  Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin, CA	  PAGEREF _Toc217283279 \h  120

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283280"  3.33.  Louisville, KY-IN	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283280 \h  120

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283281"  3.34.  Madison-Baraboo, WI	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283281 \h  121

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283282"  3.35.  Milwaukee-Racine, WI	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283282 \h  122

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283283"  3.36.  Morgantown, WV	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283283 \h  125

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283284"  3.37.  Muscatine, IA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283284 \h  127

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283285"  3.38.  New York City-North New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT	  PAGEREF _Toc217283285 \h  136

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283286"  3.39.  Nogales, AZ	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283286 \h  136

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283287"  3.40.  Oakridge, OR	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283287 \h  136

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283288"  3.41.  Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283288 \h  141

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283289"  3.42.  Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH
PAGEREF _Toc217283289 \h  146

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283290"  3.43.  Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
  PAGEREF _Toc217283290 \h  146

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283291"  3.44.  Pinehurst, ID	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283291 \h  146

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283292"  3.45.  Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA
PAGEREF _Toc217283292 \h  147

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283293"  3.46.  Provo, UT	  PAGEREF _Toc217283293
\h  151

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283294"  3.48.  Sacramento, CA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283294 \h  152

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283295"  3.49.  Salt Lake City, UT	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283295 \h  159

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283296"  3.50.  St. Louis, MO-IL	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283296 \h  169

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283297"  3.51.  San Francisco Bay Area, CA
PAGEREF _Toc217283297 \h  175

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283298"  3.52.  San Joaquin Valley, CA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283298 \h  175

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283299"  3.53.  Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
PAGEREF _Toc217283299 \h  175

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283300"  3.54.  Tacoma, WA	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283300 \h  175

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283301"  3.55.  Vincennes, IN	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283301 \h  175

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283302"  3.56.  York, PA	  PAGEREF _Toc217283302
\h  175

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283303"  3.57.  Youngstown, OH	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283303 \h  175

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283304"  3.58.  Yuba City-Marysville, CA
PAGEREF _Toc217283304 \h  176

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283305"  4.0.  Comments Specific To Region
PAGEREF _Toc217283305 \h  177

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283306"  4.1.  Region IV	  PAGEREF _Toc217283306
\h  177

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283307"  4.1.1.  Georgia	  PAGEREF _Toc217283307
\h  177

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283308"  4.1.2.  Kentucky	  PAGEREF _Toc217283308
\h  179

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283309"  4.2.  Region VIII	  PAGEREF
_Toc217283309 \h  180

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283310"  4.2.1.  Montana	  PAGEREF _Toc217283310
\h  180

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283311"  4.2.2.  Utah	  PAGEREF _Toc217283311 \h
181

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283312"  4.3.  Region X	  PAGEREF _Toc217283312
\h  184

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217283313"  4.3.1.  Idaho	  PAGEREF _Toc217283313 \h
 184

LIST OF FIGURES

  TOC \h \z \c "Figure"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217282200"  Figure 1.
2003-2005 Speciated components at the Lawrenceville and Liberty Borough
Monitors.	  PAGEREF _Toc217282200 \h  117  , 126

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217282201"  Figure 2.  Difference between 2003-2005
speciated components at the Liberty and Lawrenceville monitors.
PAGEREF _Toc217282201 \h  117  , 126

LIST OF TABLES

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc217282216"  Table 1.  From
the MDNR 10-18-08 response.	  PAGEREF _Toc217282216 \h  172

 ACRONYMS

ALA	American Lung Association

AQS	Air Quality System

AQZ	Air Quality Zone

ARM	Approved Regional Method

CAA	Clean Air Act

CBSA	Core-Based Statistical Area

CES	Contributing Emission Score

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

CMAQ	Community Multi-scale Air Quality modeling

CO	Carbon Monoxide

CO2	Carbon Dioxide

SO2	Sulfur Dioxide

CSA	Combined Statistical Area

CMSA	Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area

CSN	Chemical Speciation Network

DOD	U.S. Department of Defense

DOE	U.S. Department of Energy

DOT	U.S. Department of Transportation

EGU	Electric Generating Unit

EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FEM	Federal Equivalent Method

FRM	Federal Reference Method

HYSPLIT	Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory

IMPROVE	Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

MSA	Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSL	Mean Sea Level

MVEB	Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

NAA	Nonattainment Area

NAAQS	National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NCAR	National Center for Atmospheric Research

NEI	National Emission Inventory

NESCAUM	Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NOAA	U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOX	Nitrogen Oxide

OMB	Office of Management and Budget

OTAQ	Office of Transportation and Air Quality

OWB	Outdoor Wood Boiler

PM	Particulate Matter

PMF	positive matrix factorization

RTC	Response to Comment

SANDWICH	Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Derived Water, Inferred Carbonaceous
mass Hybrid material balance

SIP	State Implementation Plan

SPM	Special Purpose Monitor

TSD	Technical Support Document

UGB	Urban Growth Boundary

VMT	Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC	Volatile Organic Compound

WES	Weighted Emission Score

1.0.  Introduction

On September 2, 2008 the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA or “the Agency”) published a Federal Register Notice 73 FR
51259 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Designation Recommendations.  EPA
requested comments from the public on the proposed designations from
September 2 through October 2, 2008.

The purpose of this response to comment (RTC) document is to respond to
public comments submitted to the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562: available
online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
) from interested parties other than States and Tribes on EPA’s recent
responses to the State and Tribal designation recommendations for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  EPA
is not required under Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”) Section
107(d) to seek public comment during the designation process, but
elected to do so for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in order to gather
additional information for EPA to consider before making final
designations.  CAA Section 107(d) provides a process for designations
that involves recommendations by States and Tribes to EPA and responses
from EPA to those parties, prior to EPA promulgating final designations
and boundaries.  EPA invited public comment on its responses to States
and Tribes during the 30-day comment period provided in this notice.
Due to the statutory timeframe for promulgating designations set out in
CAA Section 107(d), EPA was not able to consider any comments submitted
after October 2, 2008, notwithstanding what may have appeared in any
State-specific announcements.  Any comment submitted after October 2,
2008, is not in this document.  Also due to the statutory timeframe, EPA
was not able to accommodate any request for an extension of the public
comment period.  EPA elected to provide this public comment period, and
the October 2 deadline was necessary to allow EPA sufficient time to
review and respond to all significant comments in advance of
promulgating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 designations in December 2008.  This
opportunity for public comment does not affect any rights or obligations
of any State, Tribe or the EPA which might otherwise exist pursuant to
CAA section 107(d).

The docket gave the following instructions in providing comments to EPA:

Please consider the Agency’s charge under CAA section 107(d).  Under
this section, EPA is obligated to identify every area as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable.  Further, in establishing
nonattainment area boundaries, the Agency is required to identify the
area that does not meet the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard and any nearby
area that is contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.
If you believe that a specific geographic area that EPA is proposing to
identify as a nonattainment area should not be categorized by the
section 107(d) criteria as nonattainment, or if you believe that a
specific area not proposed by EPA to be identified as a nonattainment
area should in fact be categorized as nonattainment using the section
107(d) criteria, please be as specific as possible in supporting your
belief;

Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or
data that you used;

Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives;

Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats; and

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

This document summarizes those significant public comments EPA received
during the public comment period.  Each commenter, whose submission is
publicly available on the docket, is referred to by the last four digits
of its docket submission.  A table of the commenters and their
associated docket number(s) is presented on the following pages.

The summaries are divided into three sections.  Section 2.0 organizes
the comments according to a general designation issue.  Section 3.0
organizes the same comments by specific nonattainment area (NAA).
Section 4.0 contains comments for geographic areas that could not be
attributed to a specific nonattainment area and are organized by EPA
Region, then by State.

Seven of the commenters (0084, 0090, 0093, 0110, 0132, 0137, 0139)
submitted copyrighted material in the docket that may not be reproduced
without consent of the copyright holder.  To receive a copy of the
complete public comment in regulations.gov, the requester is instructed
to contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room.  Table of
Public Commenters

Commenter Organization	Docket Number

Anonymous	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0002

Jodi Kriebaum	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0003

John G.  Bloemer	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0004

Anonymous	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0005

Princia Benson	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0006/0012

Jeanne Leaver	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0007

Kenneth Dubinski	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0008

Wasatch Clean Air Coalition	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0010

Sierra Club – Utah Chapter	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0011/0024

Clean Air Revival	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0013

Commercial Metal Forming	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0014

Representatives for NE Ohio/US House and Senate	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0015

The Financial Concept Group, LLC	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0016

Village of Lordstown, Planning and Zoning Administrator
EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0017

Ohio House and Senate	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0018

Department of the Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base
EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0019/0084

Poland Village Mayor’s Office	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0020

City of Struthers Mayor’s Office	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0021

Vienna Township Trustees	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0022

Howland Township Board of Trustees	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0023

Hubbard Township Trustees	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0025

Trumbull County Commissioners	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0026

Eastgate Regional Council of Governments	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0027

City of Warren, OH 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0028

Village of Sebring 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0029

City of Hubbard	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0030

City of Campbell	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0031

Salt Lake City Council	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0032

Castlo Community Improvement Corporation	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0033

Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0034

Macatawa Area Coordinating Council	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0035

City of Lindon	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0036

City of Payson	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0037

Riverdale City 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0038

Joel Laws	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0039

Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0040

Ernest Grolimund	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0041

Jorge Verde	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0042

Ed Fenner	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0043

Yvette McLeod	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0044

Philip Meyer	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0045

GRM Insurance LLC	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0046

South Weber City 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0047

Regional Chamber	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0048

Mountainland Association of Governments	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0049/0062

American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0050

City of American Fork	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0051

County of El Dorado 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0052

Fairbanks North Star Borough DOT	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0053

City of Highland	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0054

Placer County 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0055

Wasatch Front Regional Council	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0056

American Lung Association of the Southeast	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0057

Dubois County Area Development Corporation	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0058

American Lung Association of Pennsylvania	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0059

Jeld-Wen, Inc.	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0060

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0063/0067

American Lung Association of the Atlantic Coast	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0064

Bear River Association of Governments	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0065

Imperial County Air Pollution Control District	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0066

American Lung Association of the Midland States	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0068

Utah Manufacturers Association	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0069

Arnold’s Body Shop	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0070

Brigham City 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0071

City of Orem	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0072/0156

Bear River Health Department	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0073

City of Pleasant Grove	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0074/0078

Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0075

Box Elder County Commissioners	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0076

Nobilus, LLC	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0077

Alcoa Mill Products	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0079

Dayton Power and Light	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0080

Willard City Corporation	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0081

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0082

Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0083

Jackson Kelly PLLC	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0085

Humphreys County 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0086

Parsons Behle & Latimer	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0087

MidAmerican Energy Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0089

ATK Launch Systems	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0090

Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago
EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0091

City of Fairbanks	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0092

Monsanto	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0093

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0094

American Lung Association, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund,
Natural Resources Defense Council	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0095

Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0096

Environmental & Laboratory Services	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0097

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0098

Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0099

Sierra Club – National Coal Campaign	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0100

Sierra Club-Georgia	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0101

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0102

Vanderburgh County Department of Health	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0103

Tennessee Valley Authority	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0104

Tooele City 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0105

Sierra Club-Indiana	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0106

American Bottom Conservancy	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0107

Ameren Corporate	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0108

Alliant Energy Corporation	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0109

DTE Energy	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0110

Lehi City, Utah County, UT 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0112

Oakland, MI 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0113

Chuck Hendricks	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0114

Utah Industry Environmental Coalition	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0115

City and Borough of Juneau	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0116

Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0117

Ohio Environmental Council, Ohioans for Health, Sierra Club-Ohio, Sierra
Club-Coal Campaign	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0118

Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign/Sierra Club	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0119

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0121

Earthjustice	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0123

Julie Burgo	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0124

Van Bakel	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0125

City of Washington Terrace, UT	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0126

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0127

Greenebaum Doll and McDonald PLLC	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0128

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment , League of Women Voters of
Utah	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0129

Michigan Manufacturers Association	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0130

MonValley Clean Air Coalition	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0131

Environmental Committee of the Ohio Electric Utility Institute
EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0132

Tom Dawson	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0133

Wisconsin Economic Development Association	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0134

Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council
EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0136

Kentucky Environmental Foundation, The Sierra Club	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0137

American Lung Association of New York	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0138

Lane Regional Air Protection Agency	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0139

Village of West Farmington, OH 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0140

Salt Lake City Corporation	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0141

Illinois Manufacturers Association	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0142

Riverton City, UT 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0143

LyonellBasell Industries	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0144

Grantsville, UT 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0145

City of Cortland, OH 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0146

Ogden, UT 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0147

American Lung Association of New England	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0148

Mayors from the Cities of Bettendorf, Davenport, East Moline, Moline,
Muscatine, Rock Island, County Chairs	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0150

Muscatine Power and Water	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0151

Deere & Company	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0152

UT Department of Transportation	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0153

City of Provo, UT	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0154

Illinois Quad City Chamber of Commerce	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0155

Box Elder Transportation Planning Group	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0157

American Lung Association of Southwest	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0158

Salt Lake City Council of Governments	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0159/0169

Perry City, UT	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0160

City of Westfir, Oregon 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0161

E.ON U.S.  LLC	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0164

The SIP Transformation Workgroup	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0165

City of Youngstown	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0167

Utah County of Commissioners	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0168

Klamath County Commissioners	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0170

Iowa Environmental Council	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0171

Eagle Mountain 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0174

Jarrett Jamison, III	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0176

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0178

2.0.  Comments on General Designation Issues

Comment:

One commenter (0002) asserts that EPA is letting the air become “dirty
as can be.”

EPA Response:

In this action, EPA is designating areas nonattainment that either
violate the PM2.5 NAAQS or contribute to areas that violate the NAAQS.
This action will ultimately lead to further air quality planning in all
areas designated nonattainment.  Consequently EPA does not agree that by
this action EPA is letting air become dirtier as alleged by the
commenter.  To the extent the commenter is making statements broader
than this designation action the comments are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking and EPA is not responding here to such comments.

Comment:

One commenter (0003) asserts that EPA should strictly enforce the 2006
air quality laws.

EPA Response:

EPA is unclear what the commenter is referring to by enforcing 2006 air
quality laws.  However, EPA believes that it is following the
requirements of CAA section 107(d) in making the final PM2.5
designations.

Comment:

One commenter (0010) had no comments but thanked EPA for having a public
comment period.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges the comment and thanks the commenter for the support of
this public comment process.

Comment:

One commenter (0042) believes when there are air quality improvements
EPA thanks “us” by writing stricter standards.  The commenter
believes that EPA ensures its budget and jobs by writing new and ever
more costly regulations.  The commenter questions the air pollution from
China, India and developing countries, the length of time it takes for
the pollution from those countries to reach “us” and how it
influences air improvements.  The commenter mentions the outsourcing of
jobs in these countries and that there are no EPA restrictions in these
countries which give them a greater cost advantage.

EPA Response:

Today’s action is directed under CAA section 107(d).  Under this
section, EPA is obligated to designate every area as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable.  Further, in establishing
nonattainment area boundaries, EPA is required to designate the area
that does not meet the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS and any nearby area that
is contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.  EPA is
not, by this action, promulgating any new designations for any other
NAAQS, nor is EPA promulgating any air quality standards by this action.
 EPA is acting as required by the Act which does not allow the Agency to
consider the costs of implementing the standards in making the area
designations.

EPA considers international transport of pollution an important issue.
Given the challenge and complexity of assessing the potential impact of
international and intercontinental emissions on domestic air quality in
the United States, EPA has been engaged in a number of activities to
improve our understanding of such transport.  For example, the Agency
has cooperative agreements with both Canada and Mexico to investigate
international border transport.  As work progresses on these activities,
EPA will be able to better address the uncertainties associated with
transboundary flows of air pollution and their impacts.  These major
uncertainties include current limitations of regional air quality
models, global air quality models, and EPA’s ability to integrate
these models.  EPA is also currently limited in its ability to quantify
transboundary impacts, including the sources, transport, and fate of
these emissions.  Because of this EPA believes that the best approach
for addressing international transport is to work on a case-by-case
basis to determine what is the best available information and the best
method for analysis that fits the unique situation for each area.

2.1.  Health Concerns

Comment:

Several commenters raised concerns about the health effects of wood
smoke and proposed solutions.  Five commenters (0005, 0006, 0007, 0012,
0124, 0133) would like outdoor wood boilers (OWBs) banned, citing
personal hardships caused by wood smoke.  One commenter (0008) would
like a ban on outdoor wood-burning fireplaces, fire pits, campfires and
OWBs, citing negative health effects.  The commenter supports a
government grant to convert indoor wood burning fireplace to gas or
electric.  Another commenter (0039) would like wood smoke more tightly
regulated, citing personal hardships caused by wood smoke and negative
health effects caused by wood smoke.  One commenter (0041) requests a
lower PM NAAQS of 24 mcg/cm, citing health studies and anecdotal
evidence of negative health effects in Maine.  The commenter noted that
the NAAQS and air regulatory system in general is designed for large
plants and auto emissions, but residential wood burning is the largest
contributor to air pollution in their region.  The commenter cites
negative health effects caused by wood smoke.  The commenter believes
that the data from a monitor in Maine should be ignored.  One commenter
(0013) asks EPA to educate the public on wood smoke.

EPA Response:

Today's action does not directly affect the emissions from wood smoke,
but could lead to emissions reductions from this source category in the
future.  Today’s action is directed under CAA section 107(d). Under
this section, EPA is obligated to identify every area as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable. Further, in establishing nonattainment
area boundaries, the Agency is required to identify the area that does
not meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and any nearby area that is
contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.

EPA recognizes there are potential health risks from breathing wood
smoke, particularly for people who have heart or lung disease, older
adults and children. Wood smoke is made up of a complex mixture of gases
and fine particles produced when wood and other organic matter burn. The
biggest health threat from smoke comes from fine particles (also called
particulate matter or PM).

The Clean Air Act requires States to develop implementation plans (SIPs)
for areas once they are designated as not attaining the NAAQS. Tribes
may develop tribal implementation plans (TIPs) and are encouraged to
collaborate with States when developing their plans. Today’s action to
designate nonattainment areas is just the first step in the planning
process. In developing implementation plans for 24-hour PM2.5
nonattainment areas, States and Tribes should fully consider public
comments and ensure the plans will attain the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  In
some areas, wood smoke emissions are one of the largest contributors to
the PM2.5 nonattainment problem that States will need to address in
their SIPs. Tribes are encouraged to collaborate with States in
developing plans to address these emissions.

The EPA has provided, and will continue to provide, technical assistance
to States, Tribes and local governments in their efforts to reduce wood
smoke emissions.  EPA is working with many partner organizations across
the country, including state, local, tribal air pollution control
officials, the American Lung Association (ALA) and the hearth industry
to reduce residential wood smoke.  For example, EPA has worked with
these organizations on a campaign to encourage homeowners to
“changeout” their old inefficient wood stoves and fireplaces to
cleaner-burning hearth technologies like gas, wood pellet, and
EPA-certified woodstoves.  Since 2005, states, local and tribal
government have implemented more than 35 wood stove and fireplace
changeout programs throughout the country.

EPA has developed fact sheets, brochures, posters and a website
(www.epa.gov/woodstoves) to help educate homeowners about ways to burn
more cleanly and efficiently, and has a website (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/whregs.html"
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/whregs.html ) that
provides information about the EPA wood heater regulation. This
regulation requires manufacturers of woodstoves to certify that, with
some exceptions, each new woodstove model complies with a PM emission
limit of 7.5 grams/hour (g/hr) for non-catalytic woodstoves and 4.1 g/hr
for catalytic woodstoves.

Additionally, EPA provided technical and financial assistance for the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop
an outdoor hydronic heater (OHH) model regulation for States, Tribes and
local governments to use in efforts to lower emissions from OHHs (also
known as outdoor wood boilers or OWBs). EPA also developed a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with manufacturers to voluntarily produce cleaner
OHHs that, under the Phase I program, emit about 70 percent less PM and,
under the Phase 2 program, emit about 90 percent less PM2.5 emissions
than many existing models. These cleaner OHHs are eligible for listing
on an EPA website (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/woodheaters/models.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/woodheaters/models.htm ).

For those areas where wood smoke is the predominate contributor to
nonattainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA will work with the State
or Tribe to identify actions to address these emissions. These actions
should be taken as early as possible and would be appropriate for
inclusion in a state’s SIP submittal.  EPA believes that wood-smoke
emissions reduction efforts, including burn management and changeout
programs, could be an effective way to reduce emissions and bring an
area back into attainment.  EPA has provided States and Tribes (and
other interested parties) with a “how-to guide” for implementing a
wood stove changeout campaign (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/Woodstoves/how-to-guide.html"
http://www.epa.gov/Woodstoves/how-to-guide.html ) and is available to
provide outreach for other programs that hold promise for reducing
wood-smoke emissions. EPA believes that areas that are currently
attaining the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as areas that are not
attaining the NAAQS, could benefit from programs to reduce emissions
from wood smoke.

In today’s action, EPA is not establishing or revising the PM NAAQS.
Therefore, comments on the need to lower that standard are beyond the
scope of this action and EPA is not responding to such comments.

Comment:

One commenter (0044) questions the boiler release requirement for
commercial and large residential complexes in the city.  The commenter
states that boilers release fine soot into the atmosphere daily, without
filtering or scrubbing the material, and the soot is deadly.  The
commenter states that if small scrubber systems are required or boiler
specifications are tightened, it would reduce the health effects and
related environmental pollution.

EPA Response:

Today’s action does not directly affect the emissions from boilers but
could lead to emissions reductions from those sources in the future.
Today’s action is directed under CAA section 107(d).  Under this
section, EPA is obligated to identify every area as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable.  Further, in establishing
nonattainment area boundaries, the Agency is required to identify the
area that does not meet the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard and any nearby
area that is contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.
Once those boundaries are established, States must develop
implementation plans (SIPs) to ensure that these "nonattainment areas"
achieve clean air standards.  (Tribes and local air-quality agencies may
collaborate in this effort.) SIPs required under the Clean Air Act must
evaluate potential actions for improving fine particle levels, such as
reducing emissions from boilers.

Although not directly related to this action, EPA directs the commenter
to two additional efforts related to boiler emissions:

EPA is developing emissions standards for industrial, commercial and
institutional boilers to control hazardous air pollutants as required
under section 112 of the Act.

Community information on reducing emissions from boilers can be found
at:   HYPERLINK
"http://epa.gov/air/community/details/boilers_addl_info.html" \l
"activity2"
http://epa.gov/air/community/details/boilers_addl_info.html#activity2 .

2.2.  Clean Air Act, EPA’s Guidance and Actions

Comment:

One commenter (0085) asserts that CAA section 107 gives states
“primary responsibility” for designations and that EPA must defer to
the initial recommended designations of the states.  Another commenter
(0113) made comparable legal arguments, and the substance of those
comments is addressed below along with those of this commenter.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s reading of the statute.  Section
107(d) charges States with the responsibility to make initial
designations and to submit these to EPA.  The statutory text makes clear
that these initial designations are, in essence, recommendations.
Section 107(d)(1)(A) directs States to submit a “list” of areas to
EPA, designating them nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable.  The
“list” of “designations” are implicitly provisional unless and
until EPA acts upon them by promulgating them, with or without
modification..  Unlike the designations that EPA ultimately promulgates,
these initial designations from the States do not trigger subsequent
actions under the CAA, such as the deadline for submission of SIPs.

Under section 107(d), EPA has the ultimate authority and responsibility
to promulgate the final designations.  After receiving the list of areas
from the State, EPA must exercise independent judgment before
promulgating the designations and the statute provides time to do so.
Section 107(d)(B)(i) provides that EPA is to promulgate designations
within one year after receiving the State’s recommendations.  Were EPA
merely to rubber stamp State recommendations, the statute would not
accord this time to the Agency.

Significantly, the statute also explicitly authorizes EPA to modify
State recommendations.  Section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) provides that EPA
“may make such modifications as the Administrator deems necessary,”
to both the recommended designations and the boundaries of the
recommended areas.  EPA would not have this authority were it merely
required to defer to State recommendations in all instances.
Thereafter, the statute contemplates a period of 120 days within which
States have the “opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed
modification is inappropriate.”  Were EPA required merely to defer to
State recommendations in all instances, Congress would not have phrased
this process as an “opportunity” for States to alter EPA’s
judgment about proposed modifications.  Taken together, these provisions
demonstrate that EPA is ultimately responsible to promulgate the
designations that it believes are most consistent with the requirements
of section 107(d), even if such designations deviate from the
preferences of the State affected by the designation.  At a minimum, EPA
believes that modifications are “necessary” for nonattainment areas
when they do not encompass both the areas that are violating, and the
areas that are contributing to those violations, based upon the facts
and circumstances of each area.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) noted that in the context of the 2004 designations
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA established a presumption regarding the
boundaries of nonattainment areas.  The commenter also noted that this
use of a presumption is currently being challenged in court, and that
EPA has not established a comparable presumption for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS as a direct result of this litigation.  In other words, the
commenter claims that EPA established no presumption for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS because it is illegal to do so.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the assertions of the commenter.  As the commenter is
aware, EPA contends that section 107(d) does not preclude EPA from
establishing a rebuttable presumption as part of the designations
process.  EPA has also previously explained the  rational basis for this
specific presumption in the context of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, i.e., that
speciated PM2.5 data indicated that the portion of ambient PM2.5
particles associated with the “urban excess” in cities across the
U.S. indicated a strong contribution from sources typically dispersed
throughout an urban area, and OMB’s independent establishment of the
MSA boundaries is a reflection of geographic areas that are economically
integrated urban areas.  As the commenter is also aware, this was a
merely rebuttable presumption to aid in the analysis for each area, as
evidenced by many areas across the country for which the final
designation was smaller or larger than the MSA for that area, based on
the facts and circumstances of each area.

EPA elected not to recommend the same rebuttable presumption for
analysis purposes for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because of the possibility
that some areas that were only violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
might require nonattainment areas with different boundaries.  For
example, because violations of a 24-hour NAAQS could involve
contribution from an area only on selected days, or during a specific
season, or from a more narrow range of source categories, EPA did not
recommend the same analytical starting point for evaluation of
contributing areas for this round of designations.  By contrast, for
areas that are already designated nonattainment based on violations of
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and are violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
anticipated that the same boundaries might be appropriate.  This was,
however, merely a result that the Agency anticipated, and EPA expected
this to be and evaluated by States and EPA during the designations
process.  Thus, in the designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
there are designated nonattainment areas that differ in some respects
from the prior designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, e.g, that for
Cleveland in which EPA concluded that a particular area is not
contributing to violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, even though
it has been designated nonattainment because of its contribution to
violations of the annual NAAQS.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) asserted that even though EPA established no
presumption for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, it is nevertheless imposing this
same presumption by stating that it “anticipates” that the same
boundaries would be appropriate for the both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for those areas already designated nonattainment
for the former.  According to the commenter, EPA is violating its own
guidance by “applying a presumption in fact.”

EPA Response:

As noted above, EPA merely stated that it anticipated that areas
contributing to violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS would likely
be contributing to violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Given that
both NAAQS use the same indicator (i.e., particles of the same size),
that typically result from direct emissions of both direct PM2.5 and the
same PM2.5 precursors, from the same types of sources, that would
potentially require the same control strategies, EPA does not consider
this outcome to be highly unlikely.  However, because of differences in
the NAAQS (such as the form of the NAAQS and their respective averaging
times) EPA expected an evaluation that would explore this based on the
facts and circumstances in each area.  For example, the CES analytical
tool utilized by EPA to inform the designations for the 2006 24 hour
PM2.5 NAAQS specifically examined impacts on individual days rather than
on an annual average basis.  EPA thus disagrees that this was a
“presumption in fact.”

Comment:

The commenter (0085) asserted that the “sole reason articulated” by
EPA for anticipating that the prior designated boundaries would remain
appropriate was “administrative convenience.”  The commenter
admonished EPA not to take regulatory action based on what the Agency
considers “fairness,” citing the recent decision by the D.C. Circuit
concerning the Clean Air Interstate Rule.  According to the commenter,
EPA should not make designations based on any factor other than monitor
data, including administrative convenience or any other reason.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees that “administrative convenience” was the sole basis
for EPA’s statement as to anticipated continuity between boundaries
for nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.  As explained above, EPA’s preliminary analysis indicated that
it is likely that similar boundaries would be appropriate for technical
reasons, including the nature of the particles, their sources, and their
potential need for controls.

The statement highlighted by the commenter in the June 8, 2007, Meyers
Memorandum, merely stated an obvious practical consideration that is
relevant to effective implementation of NAAQS that affect the same
pollutant.   EPA stated that having similar designated boundaries for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS “may more easily
facilitate overall air quality planning for attaining the suite of PM2.5
standards.”  Meyers Memo page 2 (emphasis added).  This was obviously
not a mandatory directive that boundaries must be identical, nor even an
unequivocal statement that identical boundaries would always be
appropriate even for practical reasons.  Obviously, the statutory
requirements for a nonattainment area are that it contain both the
violating areas, and the contributing areas.  EPA’s analytical
approach was intended to assure, on the facts, that each area met that
test with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5  NAAQS.  Moreover, EPA notes
that many States concurred in this analysis, and made recommendations
that reflected their own determination that comparable boundaries for
both NAAQS were the most appropriate.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) argued that section 107(d) requires EPA to make
designation decisions solely on “air quality monitoring data.”  In
particular, the commenter quotes a portion of CAA section 107(d)(6) for
the proposition that EPA can use no information other than monitoring
data for designations.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with this comment.  First, section 107(d)(6) only directs
EPA to make decisions “based on” monitoring data.  The statute thus
does not explicitly exclude consideration of other forms of relevant
data.  Because EPA must designate as nonattainment both areas that
violate the NAAQS (i.e., that have a violating monitor) and nearby areas
that contribute to those violations (i.e., that do not have a violating
monitor but nevertheless contribute), EPA must take into account
information in addition to monitoring data.

Second, the commenter quotes selectively from section 107(d)(6).  That
provision explicitly refers to designations for “the July 1997 PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards.”  By its own explicit terms,
therefore, this provision does not refer to designations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Third, other portions section 107(d) support EPA’s reading of the
statute that states and EPA should not limit their evaluation to
monitoring data in isolation.  For example, section 107(d)(1)(A)(iii)
indicates that areas should be designated “unclassifiable” if it is
not possible to ascertain whether the area is violating “on the basis
of available information.”  Similarly, section 107(d)(B)(i) provides
that EPA may defer designations for an area if the Agency “has
insufficient information to promulgate” the designation.  Neither
provision refers solely to monitoring data, and both suggest that EPA is
authorized to look at relevant information more generally.

EPA in fact has relied heavily on monitoring data, e.g., the presence of
a FRM monitor showing a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is the
starting point for each and every nonattainment area.  Evaluations of
contributing areas include analysis of impacts from nearby areas by
various appropriate means, including examination of county by county
emissions inventories, consideration of physical proximity of those
emissions, weighing of the potential for contribution through
meteorological information by means of pollution roses, etc.  By
contrast, the commenter’s narrow reading of section 107 as limited EPA
to consider only monitoring data is illogical because it would not
include those areas that are “contributing” to the monitored
violations. Moreover, this simplistic reading is at odds with the
commenters own assertions that EPA must use other forms of information,
such as modeling, to comply with section 107(d).

Comment:

The commenter (0085) also argued that EPA had exceeded its authority to
modify state recommendations.  According to the commenter, EPA is only
authorized to make modifications “as the Administrator deems
necessary,” and “as necessary” is not “carte blanche to make
whatever modifications the Agency would like to make to the States’
designations.”  The commenter further asserted that the term
“necessary” should be read to mean “‘necessary’ to achieve
attainment of the NAAQS.”

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that the term “as necessary” does not constitute “carte
blanche,” but as the commenter is aware, EPA believes that
modifications to initial State recommendations are within EPA’s
discretion when EPA determines that such recommendations are
inconsistent with the statutory directive that nonattainment areas must
include both violating areas, and nearby areas that contribute to those
violations.  In the context of these and other designations, EPA often
agrees with the recommendations of the State and proposes no
modifications.  In other instances, EPA is compelled to make
modifications in order to meet the letter and the spirit of the statute
with respect to nonattainment area boundaries.

Commenter’s assertion that “necessary” should be read as meaning
“necessary to achieve attainment of the NAAQS,” is also specious.
The purpose of nonattainment area boundary designations is to identify
that geographic area within which source of emissions are contributing
to violations of the NAAQS, to assure that such sources are given proper
evaluation in the development of the nonattainment area plan for the
area.  CAA Section 172, past EPA guidance and regulations, and many
years of EPA precedent lay out the procedural and substantive
requirements for such nonattainment area plans.  CAA section 110
likewise lays out additional procedural and substantive requirements for
all SIPs.  As a means of truncating, or sidestepping, these specific
statutory and regulatory planning requirements, the commenter implicitly
declares that EPA should preemptively draw designation boundaries that
preemptively eliminate the procedural and substantive requirements of
the CAA and applicable regulations.  EPA does not agree that section
107(d) requires EPA to preemptively devise the nonattainment area SIP
for an area in order to promulgate designations for an area.  Nor does
EPA consider such an approach consistent with the purpose and spirit of
the CAA, which is to assure full and thorough evaluation of the relevant
facts and circumstances of a given area, an updated and thorough
emissions inventory for the area, a thorough evaluation of RACM/RACT
level controls for the area, an attainment demonstration that
establishes the proper mix of control strategies to assure attainment of
the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, etc.  Ironically, the
commenter on the one hand asserts that EPA is only authorized to base
designations on monitor data, and on the other demands that EPA conduct,
in essence, an entire nonattainment plan development process to
promulgate the designation.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) argued that modifications “can only be made on
the same basis as the States’ recommendations, i.e., ‘air quality
monitoring data.’”  According to the commenter, any other
interpretation “would render the States’ designations an exercise in
futility.”

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s erroneous theory about the proper
considerations for the designations, and what information both States
and EPA may consider, as explained above. With respect to the
recommendations of the States, EPA specifically put out guidance
recommending types of information that EPA thought could be relevant to
the designations process, on a case by case basis.  In this guidance,
EPA explicitly noted various forms of information other than monitoring
data that EPA recommended States consider.  EPA has used these same
types of information for other designations, including those for ozone
and for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA intended this guidance to assist
States with the process and to assure that their recommendations were
fully developed.  By contrast, the commenter’s suggestion that States
are bound to make initial recommendations based solely on monitoring
data, and that EPA is similarly constrained, would be in contravention
of section 107(d) and illogical.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) objected to EPA’s consideration of metropolitan
area boundaries in any way, because “it resembles the statutory
mandate for ozone and carbon monoxide designations.”  Specifically,
the commenter argued that because CAA section 107(d)(4)(A) refers to the
use of such boundaries for ozone and carbon monoxide designations, EPA
is not authorized to consider such boundaries for PM2.5 designations.
Similarly, the commenter argued that Congress only authorized EPA to
consider “factors” other than monitoring data to promulgate
designations for ozone or carbon monoxide, not PM2.5, in section
107(d)(4)(A)(v).  Because Congress did not include the same language in
section 107(d)(6) or otherwise require EPA to use the MSA and factors
for PM2.5, the commenter argues that EPA is not authorized to do so.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s strained reading of the statute.
Section 107(d) does not explicitly preclude States or EPA from using any
form of information, nor any form of presumption, as part of the
designations process.  EPA contends that the forms of information and
analysis that it has recommended are rational and related to the
statutory purpose, which is to identify areas that are violating and
nearby areas that are contributing to those violations.

The reasonableness of EPA’s approach is supported by the fact that
Congress itself considered metropolitan area boundaries an appropriate
starting point for nonattainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide in
section 107(d)(4).  In section 107(d)(4)(A)(v), Congress likewise
provided relevant considerations for evaluating such boundaries, and
specifically whether areas contribute to violations, as follows:
“factors such as population density, traffic congestion, commercial
development, industrial development, meteorological conditions, and
pollution transport” (emphasis added).  It is clear on the face of the
statute that Congress considered a wide range of information relevant to
evaluating appropriate nonattainment area boundaries, and even this list
is not explicitly exclusive.

EPA considered the specific statutory provisions for ozone and carbon
monoxide to provide a suitable approach, because PM2.5 is very similar
to ozone in particular.  Like ozone, it typically results from the
emissions of many types of sources, of many different sizes, that are
dispersed most densely in urban areas.  Moreover, like ozone, much
ambient PM2.5 results from the chemical interactions of precursor
chemicals (SO2, NOx, VOCs, and Ammonia) in the atmosphere, that requires
controls for a host of sources that may not emit PM2.5 directly, but
clearly contribute to its formation by adding to the aggregate mix of
chemicals that form secondary PM2.5.

The commenter’s argument about section 107(d)(6) is plainly wrong on
its face, as that provision refers only to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  In
addition, even if it did apply to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA disagrees
with commenters assertion that section 107(d)(6) superseded the general
grant of authority in section 107(d)(1).  Indeed, section 107(d)(6)
explicitly refers to section 107(d)(1), and EPA contends that section
107(d)(1) does not preclude the use of an appropriate rebuttable
presumption or forms of information to evaluate contribution to
violations of the NAAQS.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) specifically argued that section 107(d) precludes
EPA from designating as nonattainment any area that is monitoring
attainment, or that does not have a monitor, “simply because they
contain one or more power plants.”

EPA Response:

Section 107(d) directs EPA to designate “contributing” areas.  By
definition, this means that EPA must designate areas that have a monitor
that is currently “monitoring attainment,” or areas that have no
monitor, if EPA determines based on available data that the area
nonetheless contributes to a violation in a nearby area.  Thus, the
commenter’s argument is simply inconsistent with the statute, and
would frustrate the purpose behind the designations.

The commenter is also incorrect that EPA designated areas nonattainment
“simply” because they contain a power plant.  Were this the sole
criterion, there would be far more designated nonattainment areas across
the country, and the existing areas would be larger, because EPA
obviously did not designate each and every area with a power plant
nonattainment.  EPA evaluated each violating area, and the potential
nearby contributing areas, on the facts and circumstances relevant to
that area.  Based on relevant information, such as the amount of PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursor emissions, geographic location of the plant, and
meteorological connection of the plant to the area with violations, EPA
included an area with a power plant as the Agency concluded was
necessary.  Not surprisingly, many of these plants turn out to be the
single largest contributor of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in an area
under evaluation, and those emissions are clearly related to the high
ambient levels of PM2.5 (especially sulfates and nitrates, but not
exclusively) in nearby areas.

The commenters elsewhere assert that EPA should exclude areas based on
the theory that states have the inchoate authority to regulate sources
in attainment areas in order to achieve the NAAQS.  EPA contends that if
such a source contributes to the violation in a nearby area, especially
to the extent that control of it would provide for attainment of the
NAAQS, that this merely confirms the existence of the contribution that
is supposed to be the basis for the designation in the first instance.
In addition, to the extent that emissions from power plants outside of
designated nonattainment areas participate in the formation of regional
PM2.5 levels, or significantly contribute to nonattainment through
interstate transport of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, EPA anticipates that
other provisions of the statute will address such sources, such as
section 110(a)(2)(D) or section 126, as appropriate.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) argued that EPA’s assessment of contribution is a
“black box” test that leads to “inconsistent and arbitrary”
designations.  In particular, the commenter argues that EPA’s reading
of section 107(d) is defective because the term “contribution”
requires that there must be a “causal connection” between the
contributing area and the violation.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s characterization of the evaluation
undertaken by States and EPA to ascertain which areas are violating the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and which nearby areas are contributing to such
violations.  EPA’s approach is designed to allow for full
consideration of various types of information that EPA believes are
relevant to assessing the geographic scope of violating and contributing
areas.  By investigating the full range of information, EPA is seeking
to make the decision that will best result in adherence to the statute
and to the goal of the statute, which is to assure that States will
develop nonattainment area plans that provide for attainment of the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, taking into consideration all of
the emissions that are contributing to the violation.  That the
commenter selectively disagrees with the outcome of the evaluation in
some areas (and not with the outcome in locations where EPA did not
include power plants), does not render EPA’s process a “black
box.”

In particular, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that EPA
has disregarded the need for a “causal connection.”  First, the
commenter intends this term to connote that the emissions from the
nearby area must literally “cause” the violation.  Section 107(d) is
not phrased to require that only areas that “cause” a violation
should be designated nonattainment; section 107(d) requires that areas
that “contribute” to violations must be designated nonattainment.
This is logical at the juncture of designations, because it is in the
context of the nonattainment area SIPs that States will more carefully
evaluate which sources to control, by how much, and by when, in
accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.

Second, EPA disagrees with the commenter because EPA has in fact
evaluated the “causal connection” in an appropriate way to assess
factually whether there is contribution for purposes of designations.
In each nonattainment area, EPA has evaluated a range of information,
including but not limited to, emissions inventories, speciated data,
pollution roses, and other information to confirm that the emissions in
a nearby area are contributing to violations in a nearby area.  This
information allows States and EPA to assess whether nearby areas are
likely to be contributing.  For example, a county with a very large
stationary source that emits tens of thousands of tons of PM2.5, SO2,
and NOx, geographically close to, and upwind of the violating monitor on
days with high concentrations of ambient PM2.5 in an area with speciated
data confirming the presence of sulfates, nitrates, or other particles
attributable to such a source, is contributing to the violation. Thus,
that source is one that should be evaluated for controls as part of the
nonattainment plan developed for the area.  This approach is a rational
way to reach conclusions about contribution that are appropriate for the
designations process.

The commenter demands a level of “proof” that section 107(d) does
not require in the context of designations, but will be provided in the
context of nonattainment area plans in which a source may seek to
establish that it does not significantly contribute.  For the type of
sources represented by the commenter this may be an unlikely outcome,
but nevertheless the nonattainment area SIP planning process and
attainment demonstration will provide the avenue to establish such a
lack of contribution, were it to exist.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) also asserts that EPA can conclude that there is
contribution “only if and to the extent that PM2.5 transported from
the nearby area is reaching the monitors that are measuring
nonattainment and playing a material part in causing the
nonattainment.”  Thus, according to the commenter, section 107(d)
imposes a “materiality” requirement on contribution.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that section 107(d) requires a designation of nonattainment
for areas that are contributing to violations in a nearby area; EPA
disagrees that the statute imposes a specific materiality requirement.
Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) defines “nonattainment” as an are that
“does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby
area that does not meet)” the NAAQS.  Unlike section 110(a)(2)(D) or
section 126, Congress has not specified that this contribution must be
“significant.”  Likewise, in section 107(d), Congress has not
specified a specific amount of contribution that constitutes
contribution for purposes of designations, nor required that EPA
quantify the amount of contribution as part of the process.  Instead,
EPA contends that section 107(d) authorizes the Agency to assess
contribution on the facts and circumstances of each area, and that it is
not appropriate to set a bright line test or other black and white test
that the commenter would presumably prefer, so long as the bright line
were set high enough.  In short, EPA believes that the determination of
what degree of contribution justifies inclusion of an area, and thus the
“materiality” of that contribution is best assessed on a case by
case basis.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) also argued that:  “[a] nonattainment designation
makes sense only if control measures in the ‘contributing’ area
would help to remedy the PM2.5 violation.”  In essence, the commenter
argues that EPA should predetermine which sources should be controlled,
as part of determining which nearby areas are contributing to
violations.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s belief that “contribution” only
exists, based upon what control measures in the contributing area could
accomplish.  In addition to being flatly contradictory of the
commenter’s own arguments that EPA should only base designations on
“monitoring data,” this approach would override the process of
evaluating the universe of sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors that is
required in the development of a nonattainment area SIP, and would
circumvent the very process of determining what should be required for
RACM/RACT level controls, controls to the meet the reasonable further
progress and contingency measure requirements, and other obligations
specified in CAA section 172 for nonattainment area plans.  These
requirements must be ascertained, and supported with an attainment
demonstration, that establishes the area will attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable.  By contrast, the commenter advocates a
predetermined decision that an area should be deemed contributing only
if it would “make sense” to control sources within such area.  Given
that the commenter represents the interests of some of the largest
individual sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions in the U.S.,
it is likely that it will make sense to examine such sources for
additional controls, and to require them as appropriate in the
nonattainment area SIPs developed for their respective areas.  It would
be inappropriate for EPA to predetermine the need for additional
controls in the context of the designations, once EPA has concluded that
these sources do factually contribute to violations in nearby areas.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) criticized EPA for not utilizing modeling to
establish if sources in a county contribute to a violation at a monitor
in a nearby area.  According to the commenter, EPA has failed to explain
why it does not think modeling should be used for the designations.  The
commenter asserts that modeling would be a better way to ascertain
contribution, and notes that EPA has used modeling “in virtually every
other case involving the need to establish the presence of a
contribution.”

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that contribution can be
evaluated, and thus designations can only be promulgated, based upon
modeling.  Section 107(d) does not explicitly require modeling to
evaluate what areas contribute.  EPA believes that modeling can be
useful to inform such decisions, or to confirm conceptual points such as
the fact that EGUs have the potential to contribute to violations, but
modeling is not the sine qua non of decision making for designations.
For example, some models do not use sufficiently small grids to evaluate
the contribution of an area effectively (e.g., a model that looks at
emissions only at the entire state level, or with grids of many square
miles).  Other models, or the incorrect assumptions used to construct
them, do not properly answer the question about potential contribution
(e.g., the model that starts with the assumption that PM2.5 transports
only 5 miles, and therefore attributes all ambient PM2.5 to sources in
such area).  Models designed only to evaluate the impacts of a single
source, or a small group of sources, by their nature ignore all the
other sources contributing to a violation, unless that source or group
of sources literally contribute 100 percent of the ambient PM2.5 at a
violating monitor.

The commenter alludes to EPA’s use of modeling to support the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), in which EPA did conduct modeling to assess
the interstate transport of pollution across the U.S.  EPA notes first
that this approach was more appropriate, because unlike section 107(d),
section 110(a)(2)(D) suggests that EPA must more precisely quantify
contribution because section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) directs EPA to identify the
contribution in “amounts,” thereby suggesting that quantification is
appropriate.  EPA also notes that the modeling done to support CAIR
entailed the zero out modeling of both the NOx and SO2 emissions
simultaneously, for emissions from an entire state.  This is not the
fine grain modeling that commenters imply.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) supported EPA’s decision to solicit public
comment on the designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  The commenter
implied that EPA elected to do so in response to the commenter’s
challenge to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the challenge that it was
illegal for EPA to develop the designation without notice and comment.

EPA Response:

Section 107(d) establishes a specific process for designations between
States and EPA.  Section 107(d)(2) explicitly provides that the
designations are exempt from the notice and comment provisions of the
Administrative Procedures Act.  Likewise, designations under section
107(d) are not among the list of actions that are subject to the notice
and comment procedures of section 307(d).  Thus, neither the CAA nor the
APA require notice and comment rulemaking for promulgation of the
designations for this or any other NAAQS.  Section 107(d)(2)(B)
explicitly states that notice and comment is not required, but adds that
nothing in the provision should be construed as precluding notice and
comment where possible.  That decision to take notice and comment,
however, is clearly at the election of EPA.

Section 107(d) creates a process whereby states make an initial
designation recommendation that is reviewed by EPA, EPA modifies that
recommendation if necessary and provides the state with an opportunity
to rebut that modification, and thereafter EPA is responsible for
promulgation of the final designation.  EPA believes that this statutory
process is logical because it allows interested members of the public to
consult with their own state, and to participate in any public process
that the state may elect or be required to undertake by state law, as
part of developing the state recommendation.  Through this state
process, sources or citizens affected by the designations could
participate in the development of the initial recommendation of the
state.

For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA elected to solicit direct public comment
on its responses to the designation recommendation of the states.  EPA
determined that this process would be useful to gather additional
information and to assure that the Agency was more directly aware of
issues raised by the designations.   EPA notes, however, that it has not
concluded that public comments should be accorded the same degree of
weight as the initial state recommendations or the additional
information provided by states in response to any EPA modification of
the state’s recommendation.  EPA believes that given the specific
process contemplated in section 107(d), it would be inappropriate to
treat comments of members of the public on the same footing as the
recommendations or arguments of a state, e.g., the desire of the
owner/operator of a source to be excluded from a nonattainment area to
evade compliance with mandatory statutory controls should not outweigh a
state’s determination based upon appropriate factual support that
emissions from such source are contributing to violations in the area.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) repeated its objections to the guidance issued by
EPA in connection with the designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and in
particular with the rebuttable presumption of MSA boundaries for
nonattainment area boundaries and the factors recommended by EPA for
evaluating contributing areas.  According to the commenter, EPA’s
continued use of guidance to recommend presumptions of any kind or
factors of any kind to assess contribution is a violation of notice and
comment rulemaking requirements.

EPA Response:

As noted, section 107(d) explicitly provides that designations
themselves are exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements.
The commenter seeks to circumvent that exemption for the designations by
arguing that EPA had to use notice and comment process in order to
provide any guidance to states about how to proceed with the
designations process.

The guidance merely explains and clarifies existing duties under section
107(d).  It explains the timeline that States and EPA must follow under
the statute, and provides recommended types of information for States to
consider, and for EPA to consider, in the process of developing
designations on a case by case basis.

The guidance document was nonbinding on its face and EPA applied it in a
nonbinding manner.  The commenter seeks to quibble about verb usage and
other minutia, but it is clear from the overall tone and explicit terms
of the document that EPA did not intend it to be “binding.”  Indeed,
as evidenced by the designations EPA has promulgated it is clear that
the statements about the types of information that could be relevant
were merely recommendations, and many States treated them as such by
making recommendations that utilized information as they saw fit,
including the submission of modeling, submission of alternative forms of
pollution roses, submission of source apportionment studies or other
forms of information that EPA did not recommend.  EPA considered such
information, and where appropriate, incorporated it into the Agency’s
analysis of a given area.

Finally, EPA has formally provided the commenter an opportunity to
comment on the guidance through the designations rulemaking process.
Although EPA disagrees with many of the commenters assertions with
respect to the proper interpretation of the statute, or application of
the statute to the facts, the commenter has had the opportunity to
critique the designations, including the specifics of EPA’s guidance
in the June 8, 2007, Meyers Memo.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) asserted that EPA “softened” the language it
used in the 2007 Meyers Guidance to emphasize that the Agency was merely
“recommending” that states and tribes use information relating to
the nine factors laid out in the document and any other relevant data
and stating that EPA “plans” to consider the same information.
According to the commenter, this language does not cure the alleged
defect of not undergoing public comment to develop the guidance
document.

EPA Response:

The 2007 Meyers Guidance, like the previous EPA guidance for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS designations, has always been intended and utilized by the
Agency as guidance.  To alleviate any potential misunderstanding on this
obvious point, EPA reiterated in the 2007 Meyers Guidance that EPA
merely recommended that states consider relevant information in the
designations, and suggested the “nine factors” as a way of insuring
a thorough analysis of relevant information.  The recommended process
was not mandatory, as states were free to submit alternative information
to support their designation recommendations, or indeed to submit no
information at all.  The types of information recommended in the list of
factors is not an exclusive list, as EPA requested that states provide
any other information or analyses that they considered appropriate.  The
commenter thus criticizes EPA for taking action to be clear that the
2007 Meyers Guidance was merely guidance.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) also objected to the 2007 Meyers Guidance on the
grounds that the document stated that EPA was not establishing any
presumption based upon the OMB defined MSA boundaries, yet still stated
that EPA “anticipates that the same boundaries established for the
annual PM2.5 standard may also be appropriate for implementing the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in areas where both standards are violated.”
According to the commenter, “one can only conclude” that EPA is
“trying to achieve pre-determined designations and rationalize them
after the fact.”

EPA Response:

EPA believes that one can conclude other, less absurd, reasons for EPA
to make the statement about which the commenter complains.  EPA stated
that it merely anticipated that the same boundaries may be appropriate
for an area, if it was violating both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA did not state that this conclusion was
mandatory, nor that it was the only possible outcome after appropriate
consideration of the relevant information.

EPA’s statement in the 2007 Meyers Guidance was intended to convey
that because of the different form of an annual NAAQS and a 24-hour
NAAQS that it is possible that different boundaries would be
appropriate, but that based upon EPA’s preliminary evaluation of the
urban excess and speciated data in areas that violated both the annual
and the 24-hour NAAQS, EPA had not perceived factual differences to
support the general theory that different sources were contributing to
the violations of each NAAQS.  Thus, in the interest of providing
meaningful guidance to encourage the states to evaluate potential areas
for contribution, EPA merely alerted states to this preliminary view.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) asserted that EPA has no authority to designate
“islands” of nonattainment that are not contiguous to the rest of
the nonattainment area, if those areas do not have a monitor measuring
nonattainment or do not have a monitor, “solely because they contain
power plants.”  According to the commenter, such “islands” are
contrary to the legislative history of the CAA and past practice by EPA
in connection with ozone designations.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s reading of the explicit provisions
of section 107(d).  Section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) specifically authorizes EPA
to designate “portions” of areas, where appropriate, without
specifying that such areas be contiguous.  EPA can modify state
recommendations, or portions thereof.  Under section 107(d)(3), EPA can
redesignate portions of areas.  EPA also notes that Congress directed
the Agency to designate “nearby” areas, not “adjacent” areas or
“contiguous” areas or some other phrase that the commenters would
prefer.  As a result, EPA has concluded that it has authority to
designate noncontiguous portions of counties where the facts support
such treatment.

EPA notes that the commenter represents EGU sources and that such
sources are often the single largest source of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursor
emissions in many areas.  Often, the remainder of a county where that
source is located has little or no emissions from other sources, little
population, little population density, little commuting, so that there
is often factual support for the conclusion that only a portion of that
county is contributing to the violations of the NAAQS in another nearby
area.  In such circumstances, EPA concluded that it was not necessary to
include entire counties where the actual contribution was clearly
limited to an individual source or sources.  Moreover, in many
instances, EPA designated portions of counties rather than entire
counties, following the recommendation of the State in which the area is
located.

The commenter’s assertions that EPA cannot designate partial areas, or
non-contiguous partial areas, for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA
allegedly elected not to do so in ozone designations in the past is
specious.   Under section 107(d), EPA promulgates designations for a new
or revised NAAQS based upon the facts and circumstances relevant to that
NAAQS, and to the areas under consideration.  As explained above, EPA
has a reasonable basis for electing to designate only portions of some
counties, and noncontiguous portions of counties in some instances.
Often, this was in part due to the huge amount of direct PM2.5 and SO2
emissions from a source that would have been completely irrelevant to an
ozone designation for the same area.  If the commenter believes that
States and EPA should revisit this interpretation of the statute and
revert to designations of entire counties instead, and that EPA should
also do so for other NAAQS including ozone, the commenter is entitled to
pursue that outcome separately.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) argued that “if a source in an adjacent county
contributes to air quality problems in a nearby nonattainment area, then
controls/reductions can be required of that source without designating
all or part of that county as nonattainment.”  The commenter asserted
that other mechanisms such as “orders, permit modifications, or
special rules” in a SIP could achieve the desired results.

EPA Response:

This comment reflects the commenter’s misconception of the
requirements of section 107(d).  If, as the commenter apparently
conceded, a source in an adjacent county contributes to violations in
another nearby area, then designation of that area as part of the
nonattainment area is not optional.  The commenter is correct that even
if a given source is not contributing such that it must be within the
designated nonattainment area, then the State and/or EPA may
nevertheless impose various other emissions limitations on the source,
unrelated to nonattainment area planning requirements of section 172.
For  example, even sources not located within designated nonattainment
areas may be subjected to additional controls under section 110(a)(2)(D)
or section 126 if the source interferes with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another State.  That a source may simultaneously be subject to other
limits under Title IV, NSPS, or other applicable statutory or regulatory
requirements, does not negate that the source may also be suitable for
inclusion within a nonattainment area, and subject to nonattainment area
SIP requirements, as appropriate.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) also asserted that EPA has stated in other Federal
Register notices that means other than a nonattainment designation can
be an appropriate method to achieve attainment in connection with the
promulgation of the 2006 NAAQS and the revised monitoring regulations.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees, as a general proposition, that there are means short of a
nonattainment designation to encourage attainment of a NAAQS.  EPA
contends that this is why the redesignation provisions of section
107(d)(3) are discretionary, rather than mandatory, and authorize EPA to
consider a broad range of information as part of the exercise of that
discretion.  Section 107(d)(3) states that EPA “may at any time”
redesignate a previously designated area for a NAAQS, and may do so on
the basis of “air quality data, planning and control considerations,
or any other air planning related considerations the Administrator deems
appropriate.”  Thus, in lieu of redesignating an area to
nonattainment, EPA can exercise its authority to encourage states to
develop approaches to rectify the nonattainment, at least before
determining that redesignation to nonattainment is the only effective
means to do so.

By contrast, section 107(d) is a mandatory provision that requires EPA
to promulgate a designation for all areas nationwide by a date certain
after “promulgation or revision of” a NAAQS.  Unlike section
107(d)(3), section 107(d)(1)(B)(i) provides that EPA “shall”
promulgate these designations.  As discussed above, under this provision
EPA is obligated to designate as nonattainment, both those areas that
violate the NAAQS and those nearby areas that contribute to those
violations.  Thus, the commenter is in error to assert that EPA may
excuse any violating or contributing area in initial designations, on
the theory that there may be other means to achieve the NAAQS.

Comment:

The commenter (0085) argues that “lack of a nonattainment designation
does not threaten the health of the residents in these adjacent
counties.”  According to the commenter, sources located in areas not
designated nonattainment are already subject to requirements including
state limits for SO2, NOx, and PM and subject to New Source Review under
the CAA.  Because the NAAQS are set by EPA with “an adequate margin of
safety,” there is no need for sources in areas monitoring attainment
to do more.

EPA Response:

The commenter’s argument reflects a fundamental misconception about
the purposes of designations.  The purpose of such a designation is very
much to assure that members of the public in the area receive the full
protection of the NAAQS, and are not forced to endure the adverse health
impacts caused by pollution emitted by sources of any types, including
those of the commenter.  The mere fact that the source is located in an
area that does not itself violate the NAAQS, or that does not have a
monitor, does not address whether emissions from that source are
injuring the health of the public in other nearby areas.

That such sources are also subject to controls under other provisions of
the CAA (e.g., Title IV to reduce acid deposition; rules based on
section 110(a)(2)(D) or section 126 to eliminate interstate transport;
NSPS, MACT, or any other federal or state requirements) does not obviate
their obligation to comply with nonattainment area plan requirements if
they are within designated nonattainment areas.  Implicit within the
concept of including “contributing” areas is the notion that these
areas, and the sources located within them, are part of the problem in
areas that violate the NAAQS and must be part of the solution.  Thus, it
is appropriate that they be evaluated during the nonattainment area SIP
process to ascertain what additional controls, if any, are needed and by
when, in order to provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable

Comment:

Several commenters (0050, 0057, 0059, 0064, 0068, 0095, 0138, 0148,
0158) questioned why EPA is designating only areas that are violating
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and not designating areas that are
violating the 2005 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  The commenters identify seven
additional areas that are violating the annual standard based upon
2005-2007 data.

The commenters argued that in 2006, EPA revised the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
because EPA eliminated the spatial averaging element that had previously
been part of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  Due to this revision, the
commenters argue that EPA has a mandatory duty under section 107 to
promulgate designations for areas violating this revised standard.

EPA Response:

Section 107(d)(1)(A) requires States to make an initial designation
recommendation to EPA “not later than 1 year after promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS.”  Similarly, section 107(d)(1)(B) requires EPA
to promulgate a designation based on the State recommendations “upon
promulgation or revision of a national ambient air quality standard.”

The current annual PM2.5 NAAQS was established by EPA in 1997.  As
established in 40 CFR section 50.13, the level of that NAAQS is 15 ug/m3
annual arithmetic mean.  In accordance with this annual standard, EPA
promulgated the designations required by section 107(d) nationwide in
December 2004.  In a few instances, areas also violated the
then-applicable 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well, and EPA designated those
areas nonattainment for both NAAQS.

In 2006, EPA reviewed the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, both annual and 24-hour, in
accordance with section 109(d).  In the course of this review, EPA
concluded that it was necessary to revise the previous 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to lower the concentration from 65 to 35 ug/m3.  EPA did
not, however, change the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any material way.  The
limit of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS remained at 15 ug/m3.  As the commenters
correctly state, EPA’s only revision to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS was to
eliminate a provision that would allow areas to use “spatial
averaging” to establish the correct design value for an area, by
combining the monitoring data from multiple monitors that met the
applicable regulatory criteria.

EPA concludes that elimination of this spatial averaging provision did
not constitute a “revision” of the NAAQS that requires EPA to
promulgate new designations under section 107(d), because the
elimination of spatial averaging was prospective only, and thus would
only affect areas that would later have sought to use this method to
alter the design value for nonattainment area plan development and
attainment determinations, not for designations.  The elimination of the
spatial averaging provision would thus affect the designations of areas,
only if EPA in the future were to revised the numerical limit of the
NAAQS, or make other substantive changes to the form of the NAAQS (e.g.,
the percentile or averaging time of the NAAQS), which EPA did not do in
this case.

Comment:

The commenters (0050, 0057, 0059, 0064, 0068, 0095, 0138, 0148, 0158)
argued that EPA’s approach to designations for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
will result in illogical outcomes that deprive the public in some areas
from the protections of the CAA.  As an example, the commenters argue
that EPA designated areas in 2004 that had an annual design value of
15.2 ug/m3 as nonattainment, but in the current designation action EPA
is not designating Houston Texas which currently has a design value of
15.8 ug/m3.  Commenters assert that there is no reasonable justification
for this disparate outcome.

EPA Response:

EPA contends that it met its mandatory obligation to promulgate the
initial designations under section 107(d) for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS for all areas in December 2004.  If, subsequent to that time,
areas become newly violating, EPA’s authority to change the
designation of any area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, arises under
section 107(d)(3).  The latter provision indicates that such
redesignations are discretionary, and subject to the specific
requirements of that provision instead of section 107(d)(1).

While EPA believes that redesignation is not always the best or the only
way to address areas that violate a NAAQS subsequent to the initial
round of mandatory designations, EPA agrees that this can be an
appropriate course of action where necessary.  If the commenters wish
EPA to revisit the designations for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any
specific area, the commenter may petition the Agency for a redesignation
of that area, including the facts and information that would be
appropriate to evaluate the area consistent with section 107(d)(3).

Comment:

The commenters (0050, 0057, 0059, 0064, 0068, 0095, 0138, 0148, 0158)
asserted that “at a minimum,” for any county with a monitoring
design value that does not meet the standard, EPA must designate the
entire county nonattainment.

EPA Response:

Although EPA agrees that county boundaries are often the most
appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, EPA disagrees that such
an approach should be adhered to in all instances.  For example,
counties in the western U.S. are often far larger than counties in the
eastern U.S., so a decision to use county boundaries in all instances
without recourse to the facts could result in areas too small in the
east, and too large in the west, purely as a result of the accidents of
history with respect to the size of counties established in the 18th
century versus the 19th century, and the differing levels of population
and land use that resulted in such county boundaries at that time and
since.

Equally important, is the requirement of section 107(d) that EPA
designate areas that violate and nearby areas that contribute to those
violations.  The size and location of these areas can be affected by
technical facts that have little or nothing to do with county
boundaries.  For example, there can be topographical features that
indisputably establish that only a portion of a county is within the
same airshed as the violating monitors and the sources of emissions that
contribute to those emissions.  In such a case, inclusion of the entire
county would not be logical.  In other cases, there can be reliable
evidence that the violation of the NAAQS results almost exclusively from
the emissions from a certain source category (e.g., residential
woodburning) in an area that is surrounded by areas with no sources of
emission of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors.   EPA notes that county
boundaries, municipal boundaries, zoning boundaries and similar legal
constructs are not barriers to transport of contribution to violations,
so the mere existence of such lines likewise does not answer the
question of what areas are violating or contributing

EPA agrees that designating counties with violating monitors in their
entirety is the correct approach in many locations, especially given the
connection between such boundaries and the legal jurisdiction of local
air planning organizations and the need for coordinated and
comprehensive programs to attain the NAAQS, but designations require a
more fact based inquiry in each area.

 Comment:

The commenters (0050, 0057, 0059, 0064, 0068, 0095, 0138, 0148, 0158)
strongly supported the inclusion of all of the counties within any
“metropolitan statistical area” and the “combined statistical
area” in the designated nonattainment area.   Citing U.S. Census
Bureau and OMB’s definitions for these terms, commenters argued that
each nonattainment area should encompass the entire metropolitan area
because of their contribution to violations in each area.  For this
reason, the commenters provided a list of areas that included all of the
MSA and CSA counties in 32 states.

EPA Response:

Again, EPA generally agrees that the MSA or CSA areas established by OMB
are a rational starting place for evaluating what areas violate and
contribute to violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS, but they are not outcome
determinative.  In section 107(d)(4), Congress in essence established
such a presumption for ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas,
but likewise provided a specific process by which States and EPA could
evaluate whether some smaller area was appropriate based on the facts
and circumstances of a specific area.

In the context of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA issued guidance that
recommended the MSA boundaries as a presumption, but only a rebuttable
presumption, as a starting place to assure full and thorough analysis of
areas that could be contributing to violations.  EPA analogized to the
presumptions Congress created for ozone and carbon monoxide, based upon
evidence that PM2.5 is comparable to ozone in its pervasiveness,
combination of sources, secondarily formed particles, and other
similarities.  For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA concluded that it was not
necessarily appropriate to start the analysis with the CSA boundaries
for areas that only violate the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, because of the
possibility that such violations were the result of contribution from
different, or smaller, areas based upon the 24 hour averaging period of
the NAAQS, rather than the averaging period of the annual NAAQS.

Comment:

One commenter (0104) opposed EPA’s current designations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS on the grounds that there is pending litigation over the
previous designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and that EPA’s
reliance on guidance factors and application of those guidance factors
are currently being challenged.  The commenter objected to EPA’s
current designations on the same general grounds.

EPA Response:

The commenter is the owner operator of numerous large sources of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions located throughout the Southeastern
U.S., that are probable candidates for additional emissions controls.
EPA acknowledges that the designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are
currently in litigation, and that certain litigants have challenged
EPA’s designations process.  However, EPA believes that its approach
to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was correct, as is evidenced by the Agency’s
defense of those designations and reliance on comparable principles for
the designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.   To the extent that the
commenter’s objections related to wanting a fuller explanation for the
inclusion of its sources in Tennessee and Alabama within certain
nonattainment areas, those explanations are in the TSDs for those areas
and in those sections of the RTCs that relate to each area.

Comment:

The commenter (0104) argued that EPA improperly concluded that certain
contributing areas are “nearby” for purposes of section 107(d).
Specifically, the commenter noted that Humphreys County is 39 miles from
the Clarksville area, and that Muhlenberg County is 54 miles from the
Clarksville area.

EPA Response:

Section 107(d) does not define the term “nearby.”  Accordingly, EPA
contends that what constitutes “nearby” in a given nonattainment
area must be evaluated on the facts and circumstances of each area.
Evidence that is relevant to this inquiry includes, but is not limited
to, the geographic location of the sources in relation to the violating
monitors, the amount of the emissions from the sources, the speciated
data at the violating monitors (which can shed light on what types of
sources are contributing to the ambient mix at the violating monitor),
and meteorological information (which can shed light on the degree to
which the emissions are emanating from the direction of a source towards
the violating monitor on days with high ambient levels).   EPA has used
various forms of data and analytical tools to evaluate what nearby areas
are contributing.

EPA does not believe that distance from the monitor alone provides a
means to evaluate the presence or absence of contribution of sources to
the violations.  If distance alone were the deciding factor, EPA notes
that there is strong evidence that PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors can
transport hundreds of miles from their source to contribute to
violations in downwind areas (see, e.g., EPA’s factual basis for the
Clean Air Interstate Rule).  In the context of designations under
section 107(d), however, EPA must ascertain which areas should be
included within the boundaries of the nonattainment area to assure that
the state can develop a nonattainment area SIP that provides for
attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.  Especially in
the case of large stationary sources that emit substantial amounts of
PM2.5, SO2, and NOx, in areas that are geographically near, and
meteorologically connected to, violating areas, EPA believes that its
interpretation of the term “nearby” to include such sources is
consistent with both the letter and the intent of the statute.

Comment:

One commenter (0132) asserts that because there are no monitors
violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS located in Coshocton, Gallia, and
Adams Counties Ohio, that these areas cannot be contributing to
violations in the Huntington-Ashland and Columbus areas.  The commenter
disputes EPA’s factual analysis establishing contribution, and asserts
that mere high emissions from EGU sources in these areas cannot support
their inclusion in their respective nonattainment areas.

EPA Response:

EPA notes that the absence of a violating monitor, and indeed the
absence of any monitor, does not answer the question of whether a given
area or partial area is contributing to violations in another nearby
area.  This conclusion is clear, based upon a plain reading of the
statue.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that it has provided
insufficient factual support to justify inclusion of the sources in
Coshocton, Adams, and Gallia Counties.  EPA’s reasons are explained in
more detail in the TSDs for those areas and the State RTC in the docket
for this action.

Comment:

The commenter (0132) argues that EPA is wrongly designating “distant
noncontiguous areas” nonattainment, when it should be relying on
regional control measures like the Acid Rain program and the NOx SIP
call to address such problems.  Accordingly, the commenter argues that
EPA should not designate “islands” of nonattainment, and should
return to requiring contiguity in nonattainment area boundaries.

EPA Response:

EPA believes that the commenter misconstrues the relationship between
designations and actions under section 110(a)(2)(D) or section 126 to
alleviate interstate transport.  Under section 107(d), EPA must
designate those areas that violate or nearby areas that contribute to
those violations.  Given the great distances across which emissions of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors can transport, this will in certain
circumstances require inclusion of some EGU sources.

That such sources, whether located in designated nonattainment areas or
designated attainment areas, may also be subject to control to alleviate
interstate transport is not germane to the designations process.  If a
given source is contributing both to local nonattainment, and to
interstate transport, then that source will need to be controlled
sufficiently to meet local nonattainment area needs, even if that were
to exceed the level of control that might be appropriate for some
regional reduction program.  The provisions of CAA section 172 and
applicable regulations for nonattainment areas will apply to such
sources, and they are not exempted from compliance with other applicable
programs (e.g., CAA section 403(f) explicitly provides that
participation in the Title IV acid rain program does not negate local
nonattainment area requirements).

EPA notes that its decision to promulgate “noncontiguous”
“islands” of nonattainment as part of certain nonattainment areas,
was often at the behest of the State in question in lieu of a
designation of an entire county.  EPA determined both that it has
statutory authority to designate “portions” of county nonattainment,
and to do so where the relevant facts support such a partial designation
(e.g., virtually no emissions from other portions of the county in
question).

Comment:

The commenter (0132) expresses disappointment that EPA did not
“provide source specific modeling to demonstrate that power plants in
noncontiguous areas are ‘contributing to’ nonattainment areas.  The
commenter asserts that EPA has been “chastised” in the past for not
requiring modeling to identify each source contributing to violations of
the NAAQS in a nearby area, but does not provide a citation to support
the point.

EPA Response:

As discussed above, section 107(d) does not require modeling to
establish nonattainment areas boundaries.  Although modeling can be
useful to evaluate certain issues (such as the potential for EGU sources
in general to contribute to violations in a nearby area), use of
modeling also has limitations relating to the scale of the grid of the
models, the assumptions used in the models, and other technical
complications.  By contrast, EPA contends that its consideration of
relevant forms of information recommended in its guidance provide for a
robust consideration of appropriate facts for purposes of designations.
Thereafter, in the context of the development of the nonattainment area
plan for such areas, the State and EPA will evaluate contribution more
quantitatively and more precisely in order to ascertain which sources
should be controlled to what degree, and when, in order to provide for
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS.

EPA believes it highly unlikely that such specific modeling, if properly
conducted, would indicate that the sources noted by the commenter in
Coshocton, Gallia, and Adams Counties are not contributing substantially
to the ambient PM2.5 levels at the violating monitors in
Huntington-Ashland and Columbus.  But if that proves to be the case,
then these sources may not need to be further controlled to provide for
expeditious attainment.

EPA also notes that the commenter implied that designations necessitate
a degree of proof and certainty of contribution that is not required by
section 107(d).  EPA believes that to institute such a high level of
proof of causation is antithetical to the designations process, and will
be provided in the SIP development process as appropriate.

Comment:

The commenter (0132) argues that a number of the power plants located in
Coshocton, Gallia, and Adams Counties have “installed significant
pollution control devices pursuant to federally mandated regulations,
significantly reducing power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides
(‘NOx’) and sulfur dioxide (‘SO2’).”

EPA Response:

EPA appreciates actions by these sources to reduce emissions.  However,
having concluded that these sources contribute to violations in nearby
areas, EPA must include them within the boundaries for their respective
nonattainment areas.  During the process of the nonattainment area SIP
development, the State and EPA will examine these sources more closely
to determine the necessary level of control to assure that these areas
attain the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.  It may,
in the end, be determined through the appropriate process that each unit
at each of these sources is appropriately controlled for direct PM2.5,
NOx, and SOx, emissions, so that no additional controls are required by
section 172 or other applicable statutory or regulatory requirements.

Comment:

One commenter (0125) requests that EPA review all air quality changes
and suggests that politicians should not take actions without scientific
data.  The commenter states that Alaska has local politician that are
trying to do away with auto emission testing for inappropriate reasons.
The commenter asserts that these political opponents of clean air, do
not seem to realize that to do away with a primary measure in the SIP
will have drastic effect on air quality, and may not be legal according
to the Act.

EPA Response:

Today’s action does not directly affect the auto emissions testing
regulations, but could lead to other emissions reductions from this
source category in the future.  Today’s action is directed under CAA
section 107(d).  Under this section EPA is obligated to identify every
area as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable.  Further, in
establishing nonattainment area boundaries, the Agency is required to
identify the area that does not meet the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard and
any nearby area that is contributing to the area that does not meet that
standard.  EPA is relying on all available technical information in
making these designations.  Once those boundaries are established,
States must develop implementation plans (SIPs) to ensure that these
"nonattainment areas" achieve clean air standards.  (Tribes and local
air-quality agencies may collaborate in this effort.) SIPs required
under the Clean Air Act must evaluate potential actions for improving
fine particle levels, such as reducing emissions from autos.

Anchorage, AK is currently not under consideration to be designated as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Although there are
areas in Alaska that are being designated nonattainment (see 3.0
comments specific to area below).  The commenter is correct in asserting
that for all criteria pollutants, SIP approved control strategies are
legally in effect for the duration of the SIP and will have to go
through a SIP modification to effect any changes.

Comment:

One commenter (0165) believes that the SIP process should be transformed
into a comprehensive multi-pollutant air quality planning process.  The
commenter believes that the SIP process has become a complicated, costly
and largely ineffective way to further improve air quality.  The
commenter believes that the CAA must be revised to align responsibility
for achieving NAAQS with authority to the States.  The commenter
believes the current SIP planning looks narrowly at one pollutant or a
limited period of time.

EPA Response:

Today’s action is directed under CAA section 107(d).  Under this
section, EPA is obligated to identify every area as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable.  Further, in establishing
nonattainment area boundaries, the Agency is required to identify the
area that does not meet the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard and any nearby
area that is contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.

EPA is legally bound to carry out this directive, and therefore cannot
base designation decisions for the PM2.5 NAAQS on other pollutants.  All
violating and nearby contributing areas must be designated nonattainment
consistent with the statute.  States and EPA will then address the
sources of pollution in preparing implementation plans and other
measures to address regional transport.  Although the CAA prescribes
certain planning and pollution control obligations for nonattainment and
attainment areas based on the designations established in today’s
action, Section 107(d) does not require EPA, in essence, to
“transform” the SIP process as a necessary step in promulgating the
designation for the area.  EPA does not have the authority to revise the
SIP system which Congress has mandated through the Act, and EPA and the
States must comply with the requirements of the Act unless they are
changed by Congress.

Comment:

One commenter (0004) expressed a concern that when setting environmental
regulations, the commenter believes that it should be a coordinated
effort between the EPA, Department Of Energy (DOE) and Department Of
Defense (DOD) to consider the environment, economy and national defense.

EPA Response:

Today’s action is directed under CAA section 107(d).  Under this
section EPA is obligated to identify every area as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable.  Further, in establishing
nonattainment area boundaries, the Agency is required to identify the
area that does not meet the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard and any nearby
area that is contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.

EPA does coordinate air quality planning with other federal agencies as
appropriate and permitted by the Act; however section 107 does not
provide a formal role for other agencies and EPA must act consistent
with the Act.  EPA agrees that the environment must be considered when
setting environmental regulations and EPA will consider economic and
defense issues where it can.  However, designations are required by
section 107 without regard to economic or defense issues.

Comment:

One commenter (0136) does not object to the areas proposed for
designation as nonattainment, but does object to issues in the PM2.5
designation process.

The commenter requests that EPA designate all Interstate corridors with
truck traffic greater than the truck count of 34,880/trucks/day and a
24-hour design value equal and greater than 30.5 μg/m3 as
nonattainment.  First, the commenter objects to EPA’s failure to
designate areas where primary particles emitted from on-road vehicles on
major highways are causing NAAQS violations that are not reflected in
the available monitoring data for the area because the monitor is sited
outside the high pollution zone near major highways.

Second, the commenter objects to EPA’s determination of design values
for an area without measuring or estimating the elevated concentrations
of PM2.5 near highways caused by primary particles emitted from on-road
vehicles where monitored NAAQS violations from the available monitoring
data for the area do not reflect the impact of highway emissions because
the monitor is sited outside the high pollution zone near major
highways.

Third, the commenter opines that EPA’s finalization of a
transportation conformity regulation that requires hot-spot analyses for
certain highway projects that have significant levels of diesel truck
traffic demonstrates that the incremental impact of existing highways
with significant diesel traffic needs to be considered in the PM2.5
designations and the SIP development processes.

The commenter notes that EPA has identified highways as air quality
concern and believes that EPA must designate areas with major highways
as nonattainment.  The commenter believes that design values should be
based on elevated PM2.5 concentrations found near highways.  The
commenter provides additional technical data and maps addressing the
estimated contribution of on-road emissions to PM2.5 concentrations.

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes the significant health concerns associated with exposure
to fine particles in near-roadway areas.  To address this issue, EPA has
finalized several emission standards and fuel regulations to reduce
PM-related emissions from mobile sources.  EPA continues to implement
the National Clean Diesel Campaign to encourage retrofits and other
actions to reduce pollution in the near-roadway environment.  EPA is
also participating in several research studies to further our
understanding of fine particle levels, composition, and health effects
in the near-roadway environment.

The first point raised by the commenter is that the areas designated as
nonattainment do not include certain other areas that should have been
designated nonattainment if monitors had been placed in the high
pollution zone near major roadways.  The EPA does not believe that the
designations process is the appropriate forum in which to address this
potential localized hotspot issue.  The designations process relies on
air quality data from monitoring sites that already have been in
existence and operational for at least three full years.  The
commenter’s issue is more directly associated with the design of the
PM2.5 monitoring network established by each State.  EPA’s network
design criteria (40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D) emphasize that PM2.5
monitors are to be sited to represent community-wide air quality.  This
general approach follows from the studies on which the PM2.5 NAAQS were
established and later revised.  These studies evaluated the correlation
of health effects to varying levels of community-wide fine particle
concentrations.  However, Appendix D also requires the State to
establish at least one monitoring station in a population-oriented area
of expected maximum concentration.  Each State is required to develop a
PM2.5 network design plan and make it available for public review prior
to submitting it to EPA for approval.  EPA believes that the commenter
should work with the States in the network design process to explore the
appropriateness of establishing new monitoring locations in the
near-roadway zone.  EPA does note that in analyzing potential areas for
inclusion within nonattainment areas EPA did analyze traffic, commuting,
and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and included counties and partial
counties with major highways that were considered to be contributing to
monitored violations.

The second point raised by the commenter is that the design value for an
area that is designated nonattainment would be understated if the
violating monitor is located outside the high pollution zone near a
major roadway.  Again, EPA finds that this issue more directly relates
to the design of the State monitoring network than to this current
designation process.  In general, however, the attainment plan for an
area will need to demonstrate that, based on projected emission
reductions due to the implementation of control measures, all Federal
Reference Method (FRM) and Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors
within the area will attain the standard.  Should the State add a new
monitoring site in an area after it has been designated nonattainment,
its attainment plan would need to show that this new site also would
attain the standard.  EPA recommends that the commenter work with the
State monitoring programs to consider the establishment of new
monitoring locations in the near-roadway zone.

The third point raised by the commenter is that because EPA finalized a
transportation conformity regulation that requires PM2.5 hot-spot
analyses for certain transportation projects, this demonstrates that the
impact of highways should be factored into the PM2.5 designation
process.  The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) however
applies only in areas already designated as nonattainment or maintenance
for certain criteria pollutants including PM2.5.  Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to apply specific requirements from the transportation
conformity regulation to the process of initially designating
nonattainment areas.  The transportation conformity regulation was
finalized with the specific intent of fulfilling the Act’s section
176(c) requirements that transportation plans, programs, and projects
not cause new air quality violations, make existing violations worse, or
delay timely attainment or interim emissions reductions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas.  The specific PM2.5 hot-spot requirements that
the commenter refers to (40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i)) apply only in those
areas to new highway projects with significant numbers of diesel
vehicles or new projects on existing highways that have a significant
increase in diesel vehicles, and as such, these requirements and the
associated preamble that the commenter also refers to were not intended
to be applied to existing highways nor to areas before they are
designated nonattainment.  As discussed above in the response to the
commenter’s first point however, EPA did consider the impacts of
transportation activity on PM2.5 air quality in making these
designations.

Comment:

Twelve commenters (0050, 0057, 0059, 0064, 0068, 0095, 0138, 0148, 0158)
claim that where adequate data are not available for 2005-2007, EPA must
base nonattainment designations on the most recent 3-year period for
which valid data are available.

Commenters believe that, where an area has incomplete data for
2005-2007, EPA should designate the area based on 2004-2006 data, rather
than designating the area “unclassifiable.”

Commenters also believe that EPA should base designations on 2003-2005
data, where those are the most recent complete data.

The commenters recommend specific counties that should be designated
nonattainment for PM2.5.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that designations should be based on the most recent 3-year
period for which data are available.  For the purposes of designations
for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA identified violations of the NAAQS
based on 2005-2007 data.  Where 2005-2007 data were incomplete, EPA
evaluated 2004-2006 data, as well as 2003-2005 data.

Due to the averaging period and form of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
status of areas may change more quickly, depending on meteorology and
other factors in a given year.  Unlike an annual standard, that is
statistically more stable, violations of a 24-hour NAAQS are more
related to ambient values that may fluctuate on specific days.  EPA
believes that using data prior to the 2004-2006 data years would be
inappropriate, as earlier years of data would not necessarily reflect
more recent improvements in area’s air quality.  Section
107(d)(1)(A)(iii) requires that EPA designate as “unclassifiable”
any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information
as meeting or not meeting” the NAAQS.

2.3.  EPA’s Technical Analysis

Comment:

A number of commenters believe that data for one or more of the areas
violating the 2006

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS may show attainment based on 2006-2008 air quality
data.  These commenters ask that EPA consider 2006-2008 data for
purposes of determining final area designations.

EPA Response:

EPA understands the public’s concerns with using 2005-2007 data in
lieu of the most recent data (2006-2008) for making designation
decisions.  EPA recognizes that many areas in the country are making
improvements in their air quality, and believes that it is important to
recognize such improvements.  In making decisions about whether an area
is meeting the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA also believes that it is
important to use the most recent air quality data.  EPA will be unable
to use 2008 data air quality data for the designation decisions that
will be made in December 2008 because that data will not be available at
that time.  However, all States will still have the opportunity to
benefit from improvements in air quality by using 2008 air quality data
to demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Prior to the effective date of final 24-hour PM2.5 designations, States
will have the opportunity to provide more recent data showing that an
area is attaining the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  To do so, a State must
submit its complete, quality assured, certified 2008 air quality data to
the EPA earlier than the usual June 30 deadline.  This early submittal
deadline will be February 20, 2009 – approximately 45 days prior to
the 90-day effective date of publication of the final 24-hour PM2.5
designations.  If EPA agrees that a change of designation status is
appropriate based on 2006-2008 air quality data, EPA would withdraw the
nonattainment designation prior to the 90-day effective date of final
24-hour PM2.5 designations and take a new final action designating such
areas consistent with the new 2008 data.

Comment:

One commenter (0132) disagrees with EPA’s proposed designation of
partial counties of Coshocton, Gallia and Adam’s in Ohio as
nonattainment.  The commenter believes that EPA’s Contributing
Emissions Score (CES) suffers from the same limitations as the Weighted
Emissions Score (WES).  The commenter states that EPA failed to explain
how EPA used the final score to determine contribution to nonattainment.
 The commenter believes that EPA failed to explain why a county with a
score of 3 (Ashtabula County, OH) or 16 (Coshocton County, OH)
contributes to nonattainment while a county with a score of 15 (Wayne
County, OH) or 22 (Outagamie County, WI) does not.  The commenter
believes that the CES is ineffective as a tool to measure or represent
contribution because a range of scores from 3 to 100 may indicate
contribution.  The commenter states that EPA has chosen to arbitrarily
designate townships with Title V power plants, irrespective of the CES.
The commenter believes that EPA has failed to demonstrate a nexus
between power plant source emissions and nonattainment.  The commenter
provides additional information on controls for the Conesville Plant,
Stuart Station, Killen Power Plant, Gavin Plant, and Kyger Creek Plant.
The commenter states that EPA attempts to justify its partial
designations on the relatively low scores of other factors which is
unwarranted.  The commenter believes that EPA feels compelled to address
long range transport in its CES in an attempt to designate portions of
counties possessing Title V power plants as nonattainment.

EPA Response:

EPA believes that the commenter does not fully comprehend the nature of
what was intended in the derivation of the CES.  The CES served as an
initial starting point for EPA to assess what nearby counties might be
contributing to a violating monitor, as a starting point for further
evaluation.  EPA used various forms of relevant information to help
inform its designation decisions including the nine factors and comments
from the State and local air agencies.  There was no individual factor
or analytical tool that was intended to be outcome-determinative.  As
for the interpretation of the score itself, it is true that any score
greater than zero would indicate contribution.  The CES, however, is
unique to each area and cannot be compared to counties with similar
scores in other areas.  There is also no magnitude threshold which
dictates that a particular county would be considered to be in or out of
a nonattainment area.  The CES simply highlights nearby counties that
contribute to the violation and provides information along with data and
analyses from the nine factors as well as information specific to the
individual area provided by the States served as the evidence to design
the nonattainment area boundaries.

Comment:

One commenter (0132) is concerned with EPA’s allegedly unprecedented
approach of designating as nonattainment distant noncontiguous areas.
The commenter states that EPA knows that high emissions do not support
contribution.  The commenter states that the current structure of air
pollution legislation recognizes that NAAQS address local contribution
to nonattainment while regional controls such as the Acid rain program
and the NOX SIP trading budget address long range transport.   The
commenter states EPA failed to provide source-specific modeling to
demonstrate that power plants in noncontiguous areas are “contributing
to” nonattainment in nearby areas.  The commenter believes that EPA
resorts to vague, broad statements in support of its decision when there
is no factual basis for their inclusion (e.g., power plants have
substantial emissions of precursor emissions and that winds sometimes
blow toward nonattaining monitors).  The commenter states the following:

Gallia and Adams are outside of the Huntington-Ashland MSA and there are
no monitors in these counties;

Gallia is downwind of Scioto and Cabell county;

Adams’s predominant wind direction is from the southeast, thereby
having little influence on either Scioto or Cabell;

Adams and Gallia are rural in nature with very low population, projected
growth, and traffic and commuting patterns;

There is no monitor in Coshocton and the county is downwind of Franklin
county; and

Coshocton is rural in nature with very low population, projected growth,
and traffic and commuting patterns.

EPA Response:

With regard to the commenter’s concerns about the CES a more detailed
response is provided in section 2.3 above. Please see 2.2 above for
EPA’s detailed responses to additional issues raised by the commenter.

EPA considered the individual facts and circumstances of each area in
determining whether to include a county or part of a county as
contributing to a particular nonattainment problem.  Neither the CAA nor
EPA’s designations guidance establishes thresholds for determining the
designations status of an area.  For example, the guidance does not
identify a set amount of a pollutant, or a specific level of commuting
between counties, that would automatically require a county or part of a
county to be included in a nonattainment area.  Nor does the CAA or
EPA’s guidance provide a bright line for what constitutes a nearby
area.   An assessment of what areas are nearby, for purposes of
designations requires an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of
each area.  EPA considered the geography of each area, meteorological
data, speciated data, and other information in light of the distances
across which PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors can be transported.  Mindful
that “nearby” contributing areas should be within the boundaries of
a given nonattainment area, EPA has used this process to identify those
areas with emissions that contribute to the violations and to
distinguish these emissions from more distant or regional sources that
are not appropriate for inclusion within the area.

In some cases, EPA determined that the emissions from an identified
power plant in a county were contributing to the violations in a nearby
area.  In these cases, if EPA’s assessment identified little or no
other emissions or emitting activity elsewhere in the area (based on
assessment of factors such as emissions, population, and commuting), EPA
concluded that it was appropriate to designate as nonattainment only the
portion of the county where the source is located, even if that portion
is not contiguous with the remainder of the nonattainment area.  The
Agency adopted this approach for areas where EPA determined it to be
inappropriate to include portions of a county merely because those
portions were located between, and contiguous with, the large stationary
source and the remainder of the designated nonattainment area.  In most
cases, EPA selected the boundaries for these noncontiguous portions of
nonattainment areas by relying on legally recognized governmental
boundaries (e.g., townships, tax districts, or census blocks) in which
the source is located.  EPA considered the individual facts and
circumstances of each area in determining whether to include a county or
part of a county as contributing to a particular nonattainment problem.
Neither the CAA nor EPA’s designations guidance establishes thresholds
for determining the designations status of an area.  For example, the
guidance does not identify a set amount of a pollutant, or a specific
level of commuting between counties, that would automatically require a
county or part of a county to be included in a nonattainment area.
Please refer to Section 4 Power Plant Issues and relevant area specific
sections in the State and Tribal Comment Summary and Response Document
(State and Tribal RTC) for more information.

EPA considered the individual facts and circumstances of
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area in determining whether to include
a county or part of a county as contributing to the nonattainment
problem.  Neither the CAA nor EPA’s designations guidance establishes
thresholds for determining the designations status of an area.  Nor does
the CAA or EPA’s guidance provide a bright line for what constitutes a
nearby area.  In order to assess what areas are nearby, for purposes of
designations, requires an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of
each area.

The listing of emission controls installed at Adams, Coshocton, and