5 1 5. Responses to Comments EPA Region 5 ( Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin) 5 2 Comment: 1015 1 Region: 5 State: IL Area: Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN Comment: Gov. Jim Doyle comments that Kenosha County, WI should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard. He believes that Kenosha County has little impact on the Chicago MSA for the following reasons:

1. The monitor located in Kenosha County is attaining the PM2.5 standard.

2. The monitor in Lake County Illinois, which falls in between Kenosha County and the violating monitor in urban Chicago, is also clean.

3. The predominant wind direction from Kenosha County is away from the violating counties in the Chicago MSA.

4. The area outside of Kenosha County covers 90 percent of the emissions in the Chicago CMSA. In addition, Year 2000 Census data show that approximately 75 percent of the Kenosha County commuters travel to Lake County, IL that also meets the PM2.5 standard.

5. Kenosha County has a lower urban density than the area with the monitor that violates the PM2.5 standard.

6. 97 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 78 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions in Kenosha County come from the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant that has already installed selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) on one unit.

EPA Response: EPA has reviewed the technical information found in Governor Doyle's letter and agrees with the recommendation that Kenosha County should be designated attainment. Please see the technical support document for more information regarding this decision.

Comment: 1013a 14 Region: 5 State: IL Area: Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN Comment: EPA failed to include DeKalb, Kankakee and parts of Grundy and Kendall Counties in its recommended nonattainment boundary for the Chicago CMSA. These areas, in entirety, must be included in the nonattainment area. In addition, adjacent La Salle County appears to have high emissions, while the design value for this area is 14.1 µ g/ m3. This county should be analyzed for its impact on the nonattainment problem in the Chicago area. 5 3 EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, and Vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) from DeKalb, Grundy, Kankakee, Kendall and La Salle Counties before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. The emissions from these counties are a small percentage of the total emissions in the Chicago CMSA and the population and VMT from all five counties are a small percentage of the population and VMT in the Chicago CMSA. Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County, however, were included in the nonattainment area at the State's request to maintain consistency with the 8 hour ozone designations and thereby facilitate planning.

Speciated PM2.5 weighted emissions were used in developing a weighted emission score for each county in a potential nonattainment area. In the Chicago area, only monitors in Cook County and Northwest Indiana show a violation of the PM2.5 standard. Despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated LaSalle County for contributions to these violations using the PM2.5 weighted emissions ( and scores) in the context of all the relevant factors in determining the boundary of the nonattainment area. On a weighted emissions basis, emissions in LaSalle County are 2.5 percent of the emissions in the Chicago metropolitan area. Based on this information and information for the other factors, EPA concluded that LaSalle County did not warrant being included in the Chicago nonattainment area.

Comment: 1021 1 Region: 5 State: IL Area: St. Louis, MO IL Comment: Commenter urges EPA to discard its arbitrary policy of designating adjacent counties as nonattainment simply because of their proximity and the fact they contain an electric generating station. He notes that the air quality data was not used as the basis for the intended designation. Commenter suggests that a nonattainment designation would adversely impact the growth of the county. He supports the position of Illinois EPA and the Governor in designating Randolph County attainment for PM2.5.

EPA Response: The EPA agrees that Randolph County does not have a monitor that is violating the PM2.5 standard although it is adjacent to counties in the Saint Louis area that are monitoring unhealthful air quality in excess of the national standard. The CAA defines nonattainment as an area that is violating the standard or contributing to a violation of the standard in a nearby area.

A portion of Randolph County was recommended by the state as unclassified. In EPA's June 29, 2004 letter to the State of Illinois, EPA indicated that Randolph County should be nonattainment, but invited the state to submit additional justification, based on the 9 factors, to support their original designation recommendations. The state submitted technical information pertaining to the county in September 2004, and satisfactorily demonstrated to EPA that part of the county can be designated as attainment. EPA finds 5 4 that Baldwin Township warrants being designated nonattainment because it is contributing to the violation in the Saint Louis area. The remainder of Randolph County was determined to not contribute to the air quality violations.

The Baldwin power plant, located in Baldwin Township, produces a substantial amount of the Randolph County emissions. EPA acknowledges that the Baldwin power plant has significantly reduced its emissions, however, it is unclear whether these emission reductions are enforceable and emissions are moderately high even after the reductions. These emissions are located in the portion of the county nearest to the violation and where winds would commonly blow toward the observed violations.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth.

Comment: 1020 1 Region: 5 State: IL Area: St. Louis, MO IL Comment: Commenter believes that EPA expressed intent to designate Randolph County as nonattainment simply because Randolph County has a power plant and is near to a metropolitan area that violates the PM2.5 air quality standards, an approach that the commenter finds arbitrary. Commenter reaffirms Illinois EPA's previous recommendation to designate a portion of Randolph County, specifically Baldwin Township, as unclassifiable and disagrees with EPA's intended designation of the entire county as nonattainment. However, if EPA is going to designate part/ all of Randolph County as nonattainment, then only the Baldwin Township should be nonattainment. The Baldwin power plant, located in the Baldwin Township accounts for almost all of the precursor emissions from Randolph County. Of the 2004 SO2 emissions ( 27,061 tons per year) virtually all ( 26, 267 tons per year) are emitted from the Baldwin power plant. 5 5 EPA Response: EPA did not apply the approach alleged by the commenter. That is, EPA did not simply designate all counties near violating metropolitan areas with power plants as nonattainment. Instead, EPA examined emissions data for the violating metropolitan areas and other pertinent information for the nearby areas that might be contributing to the violations. EPA expressed intent to apply a nonattainment designation to those counties or subcounty areas with high emissions judged likely to contribute to the violations, irrespective of whether those emissions arose from power plants or from other sources. Conversely, EPA expressed intent to apply an attainment designation to those counties or subcounty areas with low emissions judged unlikely to contribute to the violations, again irrespective of whether those emissions arose from power plants or from other sources.

The EPA agrees that Randolph County does not have a monitor that is violating the PM2.5 standard although it is adjacent to counties in the Saint Louis area that are monitoring unhealthful air quality in excess of the national standard. The CAA defines nonattainment as an area that is violating the standard or contributing to a violation of the standard in a nearby area.

A portion of Randolph County was recommended by the state as unclassified. In EPA's June 29, 2004 letter to the State of Illinois, EPA indicated that Randolph County should be nonattainment, but invited the state to submit additional justification, based on the 9 factors, to support their original designation recommendations. The state submitted technical information pertaining to the county in September 2004, and satisfactorily demonstrated to EPA that part of the county can be designated as attainment. EPA concludes that Baldwin Township is nonattainment because it is contributing to the violation in the Saint Louis area. The remainder of Randolph County was determined to not contribute to the air quality violations.

Comment: 1022 1 Region: 5 State: IL Area: St. Louis, MO IL Comment: The commenter objects to EPA's designation of Randolph County as nonattainment. The commenter believes that EPA erred as the designation was based solely on the presence of the Baldwin Energy Complex in the county and an arbitrary assumption that its emissions of SO2 and NOx contribute to nonattainment in the St. Louis metropolitan area. EPA did not consider the recommendations of Illinois EPA or the actual monitored PM2.5 data. The commenter states that EPA ignored key factors that EPA itself established to evaluate individual counties. A more detailed discussion of how EPA erred in its decision is attached to this letter. The commenter notes that the designation of Randolph County as nonattainment would have serious impacts on its citizens, local government and business.

The commenter offered the following evidence that EPA improperly applied its own classification criteria. 5 6 1. EPA used outdated Baldwin Energy Complex emission data and failed to analyze the relationship between recent SO2 and NOx emissions at the Baldwin Energy Complex and measured ambient PM2.5 levels in the St. Louis area.

2. PM2.5 concentrations in Randolph County have never exceeded the NAAQS notwithstanding the emissions from the Baldwin plant.

3. The Randolph County population density is significantly lower than other most areas considered attainment, and much lower that the others included in the St. Louis nonattainment area.

4. The traffic and commuting patterns of Randolph County are much lower than other areas considered attainment, and much lower that the others included in the St. Louis nonattainment area.

5. Randolph County has a negative expected growth factor significantly below the expected growth of areas considered attainment and below several of the other areas included in the St. Louis nonattainment area.

6. Meteorological characteristics of Randolph County are typical of the region. EPA provided no correlation between the measured nonattainment occurrences in St. Louis and the meteorological conditions in Randolph County. EPA provided no modeling or other analysis indicating that the surface level measurements were in any way related to the emissions from the Baldwin complex emitted from the top of a 605 foot high stack.

7. Randolph County has no geographic features that influenced its intended nonattainment designations. EPA provided no modeling of geography or topography to reject Illinois EPA's recommendation.

8. Regarding jurisdictional boundaries, EPA excluded Randolph County from the St. Louis nonattainment area and for consistency should have excluded it from the PM2.5 nonattainment area.

9. EPA ignored the level of emissions control at the Baldwin Power Complex when making its decision. Additionally, there is no correlation between emissions from the Baldwin Power Complex and PM2.5 levels in the St. Louis metropolitan area.

EPA Response: The EPA agrees that Randolph County does not have a monitor that is violating the PM2.5 standard although it is adjacent to counties in the Saint Louis area that are monitoring unhealthful air quality in excess of the national standard. The CAA defines nonattainment as an area that is violating the standard or contributing to a violation of the standard in a nearby area.

A portion of Randolph County was recommended by the state as unclassified. In EPA's June 29, 2004 letter to the State of Illinois, EPA indicated that Randolph County should be nonattainment, but invited the state to submit additional justification, based on the 9 5 7 factors, to support their original designation recommendations. The state submitted technical information pertaining to the county in September 2004, and satisfactorily demonstrated to EPA that part of the county can be designated as attainment. EPA finds that Baldwin Township warrants being designated nonattainment because it is contributing to the violation in the Saint Louis area. The remainder of Randolph County was determined to not contribute to the air quality violations.

The Baldwin power plant, located in Baldwin Township, produces a substantial amount of the Randolph County emissions. EPA acknowledges that the Baldwin power plant has significantly reduced its emissions, however, it is unclear whether these emission reductions are enforceable and emissions are moderately high even after the reductions. These emissions are located in the portion of the county nearest to the violation and where winds would commonly blow toward the observed violations.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth.

Comment: 1013a 15 Region: 5 State: IL Area: St. Louis, MO IL Comment: EPA failed to include Bond, Calhoun, Clinton, Jersey, Macoupin, Montgomery, Morgan and Sangamon Counties in its recommended St. Louis nonattainment area. EPA recommended that Randolph County be designated nonattainment as part of the St. Louis area, but is allowing for the State to submit further information documenting a justification for including only a portion of the county in the nonattainment area. Although Montgomery, Morgan and Sangamon Counties are not part of the CMSA, they all contain power plants that must be analyzed for their impacts on the nonattainment problem. In 2002, these four plants together emitted over 78,000 tons of SO2 and over 27,000 tons of NOx. 5 8 EPA Response: A portion of Randolph County was recommended by the state as unclassified. In EPA's June 29, 2004 letter to the State of Illinois, EPA indicated that Randolph County should be nonattainment, but invited the state to submit additional justification, based on the 9 factors, to support their original designation recommendations. The state submitted technical information pertaining to the county in September 2004, and satisfactorily demonstrated to EPA that part of the county can be designated as attainment. EPA finds that Baldwin Township warrants being designated nonattainment because it is contributing to the violation in the St. Louis area. The remainder of Randolph County was determined to not contribute to the air quality violations.

The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by OMB in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM\ 2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, and Vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) from Bond, Calhoun, Clinton, Jersey, Macoupin, Montgomery, Morgan and Sangamon Counties before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. Although Clinton and Jersey Counties are within the CMSA, their emissions are much lower than from Madison and St. Clair Counties, the Illinois counties in the St. Louis CMSA with violating monitors. Bond, Calhoun, Clinton, Jersey and Macoupin Counties have fairly low emissions and the emissions, population and VMT from Bond, Calhoun, Clinton, Jersey, Macoupin, Montgomery, Morgan and Sangamon Counties represent a small percentage of the total emissions, population and VMT from the St. Louis CMSA. The presence of power plants in Montgomery, Morgan and Sangamon Counties does not necessarily indicate that the counties should be judged to be contributing to the area's violations. Also, Sangamon County does have a monitor which shows that Sangamon County is attaining the PM2.5 standard.

Comment: 1020 2 Region: 5 State: IL | WI | IN Area: Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN Comment: Commenter states that Illinois EPA recommends that Kenosha County, Wisconsin, and Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana not be included in the Chicago MSA PM2.5 nonattainment area.

1. Regarding Kenohsa County, ambient data collected show this county to be in attainment. Studies indicate that due to the predominant wind direction, Kenosha County has a minimal impact on downwind monitors. This county should be designated attainment. 5 9 2. Regarding Lake and Porter Counties, commenter believes that if EPA and the State of Indiana agree that these two counties should be designated nonattainment, they should be designated as a separate nonattainment area and not a part of the Chicago MSA. Concerns stem from the EPA's policy regarding transportation conformity in multi state nonattainment areas and its impact on the need for MPOs to conduct transportation planning independently.

EPA Response: Response to Comment 1.

The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as a presumptive boundary of nonattainment areas for PM2.5. EPA guidance also provides for use of 9 factors to evaluate alternative nonattainment area boundaries to include the area that is violating the standards and the nearby areas that are contributing to these violations.

For the PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA invited States to consult and make recommendations on air quality and appropriate boundaries to EPA. When EPA first considered Kenosha County as nonattainment, EPA had received no formal recommendations from the State of Wisconsin regarding PM2.5 nonattainment areas or boundaries. On August 9, 2004, EPA received a letter from Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, that recommended Kenosha County as attainment. Many of the points raised in the letter from Illinois EPA are also raised in the Governor's letter.

Based on the justification found in Governor Doyle's letter, EPA has determined that Kenosha County should be designated as attainment for the PM2.5 standard. See the technical support document for more information regarding the rationale for this decision.

Response to Comment 2.

For several large metropolitan areas such as the Chicago Gary Kenosha Metropolitan Area, EPA expressed intent for the nonattainment area to include applicable portions of multiple states. EPA disagrees with Illinois' recommendation to split the Chicago Gary Kenosha area into multiple single state nonattainment areas. EPA is designating Kenosha County as attainment, but EPA is retaining the Illinois and the Indiana portions of the area as a single nonattainment area. The air quality in Northeast Illinois and Northwest Indiana are interconnected, and the area must be designated as a single nonattainment area in order to assure that air quality planning efforts address these interconnections.

EPA understands that EPA's conformity policy dictates that areas that included as a single nonattainment area must address conformity as a single area unless and until separate emission budgets are prepared for separate portions of the area. Further, we understand Illinois's concern that this raises the possibility that a conformity lapse could occur in Illinois as a result of problems in Indiana through no fault of Illinois. However, EPA believes that this concern does not warrant distorting the planning process to subdivide what in air quality terms is a single area. EPA also believes that this concern does not warrant modifying the conformity process to allow subdivision of the area 5 10 subject to conformity planning prior to the time that firm emission budgets for the relevant portions of the area have been established.

Comment: 1032 2 Region: 5 State: IN Area:

Comment: EPA has not proposed or finalized essential guidance or implementing the PM2.5 standards.

The PM2.5 implementation rule is critical to understanding the significance and consequences of a nonattainment designation and the planning procedures that a nonattainment designation triggers. For example, if the PM2.5 designations take effect in early 2005 and the implementation rule has not been finalized, states will be unable to apply nonattainment New Source Review requirements to new permit applications.

EPA Response: The identification of areas that are not meeting, or contributing to other areas not meeting, the PM2.5 standards is an essential first step that must occur before the development of suitable PM2.5 control strategies. EPA regrets that it has not as yet finalized its PM2.5 implementation guidance that will address these issues, including its effect on permitting. EPA recognizes the importance of this guidance and will provide this guidance as soon as feasible. Nevertheless, EPA is required by law to proceed with designations irrespective of the availability of implementation guidance.

Comment: 1032 3 Region: 5 State: IN Area:

Comment: EPA is poised to automatically impose tougher permit requirements that have not been shown to be necessary for every new nonattainment area.

Based on EPA's statements to date relative to the ozone standard, it is presumed that EPA will seek to impose nonattainment area new source review immediately for any area designated as nonattainment for PM2.5. Not only is this approach unwarranted, as discussed in Governor Kernan's letter, but at the very least nonattainment New Source Review should be deferred until the implementation rule is final.

EPA Response: The identification of areas that are not meeting, or contributing to other areas not meeting, the PM 2.5 standards is an essential first step that must occur before the development of suitable PM2.5 control strategies. The PM2.5 designations do not, by themselves, impose emission control or permitting requirements. Although EPA has not as yet finalized its PM2.5 implementation guidance that will address these issues, including its effect on permitting, EPA will take this into consideration and provide appropriate guidance as soon as feasible. 5 11 Comment: 1032 4 Region: 5 State: IN Area:

Comment: The science associated with determining the causes of and contributions to PM2.5 nonattainment is still developing.

Modeling and other technical analyses have not progressed to the point where we know with certainty which geographic areas to control, which sources to control and the quantity of pollutants to control. Significant technical work will take place to fill these gaps over the next several years. Until these analyses are conducted and more is known relative to the causes and contributions to PM2.5 nonattainment and the trends in PM2.5 air quality, any areas designated as nonattainment should be limited to those that clearly and directly influence the existing monitor readings.

EPA Response: In addition to the important contribution from long range transport, EPA believes that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) as well, not just from sources near the violating monitors. While determining the exact impact of a source on the fine particulate concentration in an area continues to be developed, EPA is proceeding using our current knowledge of the problem to protect the air quality in Indiana. This is why our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas reflect an areaspecific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources. As we learn more about what sources and pollutants to control in the future, control strategies can be update to better control fine particulates. This will expedite bring areas in attainment of the air quality standard.

Comment: 1032 5 Region: 5 State: IN Area:

Comment: There is a significant regional component to PM2.5 nonattainment.

Current scientific evidence, including EPA's modeling for the proposed Clean Air Interstate rule and the Lake Michigan Air Director's Consortium technical analysis, shows there is a regional component to PM2.5, in addition to the local component. There is widespread recognition that regional controls of SO2 and NOx will be necessary to address PM2.5 nationwide. For those counties with violations, regional controls should take them a long way toward compliance. For example, EPA's modeling shows its 5 12 proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule will bring all Indiana counties into attainment by 2015, and all but one county ( Lake) into nonattainment by 2010. Despite this regional component, Indiana's monitors do not show widespread violations of the annual standard. Many of Indiana's urban and suburban counties monitor compliance. Nonattainment designations for these urban and suburban counties would require stricter permitting of new sources, which may be unnecessary. Furthermore, such designations would impose economic hardships and encourage urban sprawl beyond the current urban boundaries without contributing to attainment in adjacent counties. Technical analysis to date is not conclusive on the issue of how local emissions decreases will affect PM2.5 concentrations downwind.

EPA Response: The CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is monitoring a violation of the standard or that is contributing to a violation of the standard in a nearby area. Thus, our designations include both areas monitoring violations of the PM2.5 standard as well as those nearby areas that are determined to be contributing to violations at the affected monitors. The issue of regional transport primarily concerns long range transport from areas that are not adjacent to the metropolitan area. EPA agrees that this is an important issue and is currently addressing the issue of regionally transported emissions via the proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR).

EPA cannot base an area's air quality designation on projected air quality or on uncertain future emission reductions. EPA agrees that it is important to have programs that address emissions on a national and regional scale. These programs would positively affect the air quality for many areas in Indiana and across the country. Similarly, EPA is not delaying designation even though knowledge of contributions may improve in the future.

The criteria in the Clean Air Act for designating nonattainment areas do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product ( GDP) of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for 5 13 designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth.

EPA recognizes that further work needs to be done to evaluate the impact of sources at various distances from monitors recording violations of the PM2.5 standards. The Clean Air Act provides for EPA to determine nonattainment area boundaries to include all of the nearby source areas which according to currently available information contribute to the violations. The Clean Air Act provides for states then to conduct an analysis of the specific sources and source areas that contribute to the problem and to adopt emission control measures as needed to achieve attainment. However, before that detailed analysis is completed, EPA must establish nonattainment area boundaries that reflect EPA's best judgment of the source areas near to the monitored violations that warrant review in the subsequent planning process.

Comment: 1032 6 Region: 5 State: IN Area:

Comment: Local contributions and source impacts should not be overlooked.

Of the 18 full counties and 1 partial county proposed as nonattainment by the EPA on June 29, 2004, only six of these counties have monitors that measure a violation of the annual standard for fine particles. Unlike ozone, background concentrations of fine particles are below the standard throughout the state. Although background concentrations are close to the standard at many monitors, IDEM believes that in certain cases the monitors that actually exceed the standard do so because of urban excess and/ or local sources. For example, suburban counties are often below the standard in areas adjacent to the urban core where there is an exceedance. Therefore, it should not be assumed that a county contributes significantly to a violation nearby, especially if the county is downwind of the violations and/ or monitors ambient air that meets the standard.

EPA Response: Once EPA determines that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard.

In addition to the impact from local sources on an area's air quality, EPA believes that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) and sometimes beyond. Fine particles include a variety of constituents. Some constituents are directly emitted, and tend to be found at highest concentrations near to the points of highest emissions. Even for these constituents, EPA believes a relatively large nonattainment area is warranted, both because a larger area facilitates addressing mobile sources that originate in other nearby counties and because the impacts 5 14 for surrounding counties can nevertheless be sufficient to be included in attainment planning. Other constituents form through atmospheric chemical reactions, such that the point of highest concentrations may be some distance from the point of highest emissions. For these constituents, the counties surrounding the violating county may have the most important emissions to be addressed.

For these reasons, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas reflects an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources. Thus, even if the county is monitoring attainment or does not have a monitor, it was evaluated for contributing to a nearby violation using the remaining eight factors. This includes reviewing the annual wind data as part of the meteorology factor. The wind direction tends to vary day to day in Indiana, so an area county will be upwind of the violating county some days and downwind on other days.

Comment: 1013a 16 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN Comment: EPA failed to include Jasper, La Porte and Newton Counties in its recommendation for the Chicago nonattainment area. These counties are all part of the CMSA and must be designated nonattainment. EPA concluded that La Porte County is adjacent to the CMSA and does not contribute to nonattainment in the Chicago area. This county is actually included in the CMSA, and contains a coal fired power plant. Jasper County also contains a coal fired power plant. Jasper and Newton Counties do not have monitors in order to determine whether these areas are attaining.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by OMB in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) from Newton, Jasper, and La Porte Counties before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. Even with the power plants in Jasper and La Porte Counties, their combined emissions represent a small percentage of the total emissions in the Chicago CMSA. Although Jasper and Newton counties do not have monitors, their emissions, 5 15 VMT and population are much less than Lake County, the only Indiana county in the Chicago CMSA that has monitored nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard.

Comment: 1032 8 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN Comment: Porter County is upwind of LaPorte County and LaPorte County's monitor values are well below the standard. Porter County does not appear to be contributing to PM2.5 violations anywhere within the region. Therefore, IDEM continues to recommend that Porter County be designated attainment.

Indiana comments that the monitoring site for which EPA identified a design value of 17.7 µ g/ m3 has been identified as a hot spot site for which concentrations should not be compared to the annual standard. Indiana states that the design value for Lake County should instead be 15.2 µ g/ m3.

EPA Response: EPA agrees with Indiana that Porter County does not have violating monitor. While westerly winds are more common in Porter County than easterly winds, the wind blows from the east sufficiently frequently that EPA believes that Porter County emissions contribute to violations in Lake County, Indiana, and Cook County, Illinois. Moreover, the Porter County emissions rank fourth out of the 13 Chicago area counties. There is also a large number of people commuting from Porter County into Lake County, Indiana.

Indiana is correct that it has identified the site recording a 3 year average concentration of 17.7 µ g/ m3 as a hot spot site for which concentrations are not to be compared to the annual average. EPA appreciates this correction.

Comment: 1013a 17 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Cincinnati Hamilton, OH KY IN Comment: EPA failed to recommend a portion of Dearborn County and Franklin and Ohio Counties for nonattainment. These counties are all part of the Cincinnati CMSA and must be included in the nonattainment area in entirety. It is of particular importance that the coal fired power plant in Dearborn County be included within the nonattainment area boundaries.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by OMB in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be 5 16 June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, and Vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) from Dearborn County outside of Lawrenceburg Township, and Ohio and Franklin Counties before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. The only coal fired power plant within these three counties is in Lawrenceburg Township, which EPA is designating as nonattainment. Outside of Lawrenceburg Township the emissions from Dearborn, Ohio and Franklin Counties are an extremely small percentage of the total emissions in the Cincinnati CMSA and the population and VMT from all three counties are a small percentage of the population and VMT in the Cincinnati CMSA.

Comment: 1032 13 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Cincinnati Hamilton, OH KY IN Comment: IDEM disagrees with EPA's intended designation of Dearborn County as nonattainment for the following reasons:

1. There is only one significant source of PM in Dearborn County, the Tanners Creek power plant, and it has reduced emissions by installing permanent combustion controls and low NOx burners. There are no monitors in Dearborn County; if there were, it is not unreasonable to assume that the values would be consistent with background values elsewhere in the state and Midwest. Therefore, IDEM does not believe that PM2.5 concentrations exceed the standard in Dearborn County.

2. Based on analysis of similar urban areas, IDEM does not believe that emissions from Dearborn County contribute significantly to PM2.5 values elsewhere in the Cincinnati CMSA. For example, this county only accounts for approximately 2% of the population with the CMSA.

IDEM recommends Dearborn County be designated attainment/ unclassifiable.

EPA Response: EPA realizes that Dearborn County does not have a monitor for the PM2.5 standard, but it is adjacent to several counties in the Cincinnati area that are monitoring unhealthful air quality in excess of the national standard. The CAA defines nonattainment areas as an area that is violating the standard or contributing to a violation of the standard in a nearby area. EPA feels that part of the county, Lawrenceburg Township, is nonattainment because it is contributing to the violation in the Cincinnati area. The remainder of the mostly rural Dearborn County was determined to not contribute to the air quality violations. The AEP Tanners Creek power plant, located in Lawrenceburg Township, produces a substantial amount of the Dearborn County emissions. Tanners Creek has reduced its emissions by improving emissions control. Even with these reductions, the emissions from Lawrenceburg Township remain significant in the Cincinnati area. EPA cannot consider potential future reductions 5 17 because of the uncertainty associated with any proposed rule. EPA evaluated all nine factors in determining that just Lawrenceburg Township should be included in the Cincinnati nonattainment area.

Comment: 1032 9 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Elkhart, IN Comment: The Elkhart monitor exceeds the standard only marginally and the three St. Joseph County monitors are well below the standard. It is reasonable to assume that regional controls such as the utility NOx rule and low sulfur fuels will reduce PM2.5 concentrations to enable Elkhart County to attain in a reasonable time. IDEM continues to recommend that St. Joseph County be designated attainment.

EPA Response: Although the CAIR rule may achieve substantial emission reductions, EPA cannot base an area's air quality designation on projected air quality or on uncertain future emission reductions. EPA agrees that it is important to have programs that address emissions on a national and regional scale. These programs would positively affect the air quality for many areas in Indiana and across the country.

The air quality in North Central Indiana continues to improve and seems likely to attain the PM2.5 standard soon. EPA has decided to provide an opportunity for states to provide complete 2004 data to allow EPA to adjust its final designations according to whether areas are violating the air quality standards based on 2002 to 2004 data. Saint Joseph County has higher emissions, population, and vehicle miles traveled than Elkhart County. There is also significant commuting between the counties. EPA continues to believe both Elkhart and Saint Joseph Counties belong in the area.

Comment: 1024 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN Comment: Commenter expresses concern over EPA's proposed designation of Spencer County, IN as nonattainment for PM2.5. He notes that the Governor of IN and IN DEM believe this county should be attainment. Their belief is based on the following:

1. Regional emissions will continue to be significantly reduced in compliance with current and proposed regulations 2. A background monitor located in Spencer County has shown the county to be in compliance 3. AEP's power plant has already made significant emission reductions since 1999, the base year used by EPA to propose nonattainment designation 5 18 4. The nonattainment designation will handicap the county's efforts to draw development to the area and expand industrial production/ jobs 5. The nonattainment designation will undercut significant infrastructure improvements that have been planned or recently completed.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided updated information on Spencer County emission reductions including information on controls added to the Indiana Michigan Power Rockport power plant. Future control requirements are not being considered because the amount and time frame of the reductions is unknown. EPA considered the new emissions information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to 5 19 markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth.

Similarly, EPA does not expect a nonattainment designation to have a negative impact on infrastructure projects. Infrastructure improvement projects may be reviewed to avoid negative impacts to the Spencer County air quality.

Comment: 1027 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: Commenter is concerned about EPA's proposed designation for Spencer County, IN as nonattainment for PM2.5. He notes that the county has had difficulty providing a sufficient tax base to fund schools and infrastructure. He doesn't agree with designating the county nonattainment simply because of its proximity to violating counties, noting that Spencer County is monitoring attainment. He also comments that the power plant in Spencer County has spent large amounts of money to reduce emissions.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries does not consider the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant local contributions. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: 5 20 air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided updated information on Spencer County emission reductions including information on controls added to the Indiana Michigan Power Rockport power plant. EPA considered this new information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth. A nonattainment designation is not expected to have a negative impact on the infrastructure improvement projects in Spencer County.

Comment: 1025 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: Commenter expresses concern over EPA's proposed designation of Spencer County, IN as nonattainment. He notes that the monitors are demonstrating the area is in attainment, and the designation is due to Spencer County's proximity to adjacent areas. He states that the AEP power plant has made significant emission reductions since 1999 and a nonattainment designation would impact the area economically. He asks EPA to reconsider its intended designation.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area 5 21 that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant local contributions. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control on emission sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided updated information on Spencer County emission reductions including information on controls added to the Indiana Michigan Power Rockport power plant. EPA considered this new information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth. A nonattainment designation is not expected to have a negative impact on the infrastructure improvement projects in Spencer County. 5 22 Comment: 1026 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: Commenter expresses concern over EPA's proposed designation of Spencer County, IN as nonattainment for PM2.5. She notes that the air in Spencer County meets EPA's guidelines, yet it is being designated as nonattainment. She offers the following arguments:

1. Regional emissions will continue to be significantly reduced in compliance with current and proposed regulations.

2. A background monitor located in Spencer County has shown the county to be in compliance.

3. AEP's power plant has already made significant emission reductions since 1999, the base year used by EPA to propose nonattainment designation.

4. The nonattainment designation will handicap the county's efforts to draw development to the area and create jobs.

5. The nonattainment designation will undercut significant infrastructure improvements that have been planned.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant 5 23 emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided updated information on Spencer County emission reductions including information on controls added to your facility, the Rockport power plant. Future control requirements are not being considered because the amount and timing of the reductions are unknown. EPA considered the new emissions information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth. A nonattainment designation is not expected to have a negative impact on Spencer County's infrastructure improvement projects.

Comment: 1023 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: Commenter writes on behalf of Spencer County, IN. He concurs with the comment letters already sent to EPA and requests EPA to reconsider its proposed designation.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to 5 24 designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant local contributions as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided updated information on Spencer County emissions including information on controls added to the Indiana Michigan Power Rockport power plant. EPA considered this new information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth.

Please also see EPA's responses to other comments on the fine particulate designation for Spencer County. 5 25 Comment: 1043 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: The commenter makes the following comments on behalf of Perry County, located adjacent to Spencer County. He agrees with Indiana DEP that Spencer County should be designated attainment/ unclassifiable.

1. More current information is available that shows significant NOx and SO2 reductions in Spencer County. Specifically, countywide NOx emissions are down by 21% since 1999 while countrywide SO2 emissions have been reduced by 30%. Point source emissions have declined by 10%. EPA should consider this more recent information.

2. Too much emphasis was placed on the fact that a power plant is located in Spencer County. This is a greater concern since the power plant has achieved significant NOx and SO2 emissions.

3. Spencer County is adjacent to but not a part of the Evansville MSA. If designated, it should be a rural nonattainment area.

The commenter is concerned about the proposed nonattainment designation because of the shared economy of the area. He believes the designation will hurt the economic development plans and opportunities of the entire area ( i. e., both Spencer and Perry Counties).

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries do not consider the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas also reflect significant local contributions. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the 5 26 area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided us the updated information mentioned on Spencer County emissions including information on controls added to the Indiana Michigan Power Rockport power plant. Even with the modest reduction, the emissions from the Rockport power plant dominate the Spencer County totals. EPA considered this new information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth. The economic outlook in Perry County is unlikely to change much from a neighboring county being designated nonattainment.

Comment: 1013a 18 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: EPA failed to recommend that Posey and Knox Counties be included in the Evansville nonattainment area. Posey County, inside the MSA, is home to a coal fired power plant and must be included in the nonattainment area. In 2002, the A. B. Brown facility emitted almost 9,000 tons of SO2 and over 7,000 tons of NOx. Knox County, adjacent to the MSA, also contains a coal fired power plant ( Edwardsport) that emitted over 8,000 tons of SO2 and almost 2,000 tons of NOx in 2002. Neither of these counties contains monitors.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Knox County was not considered because it is 5 27 not within the Evansville CMSA/ MSA and its emissions are relatively small, especially considering that EPA is intending to include Gibson, Spencer, and Pike Counties, which have coal fired power plants and much greater emissions, as nonattainment counties. Also, Knox County does have a monitor which shows that Knox County is attaining the PM 2.5 standard. Although Posey County is within the CMSA/ MSA its emissions are a small percentage of the total emissions in the metropolitan area, especially considering the emissions from Gibson, Spencer and Pike Counties. In addition, the population and VMT from Posey County are much lower than from Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties, the other Indiana counties in the Evansville Metropolitan area. Although Posey County does not have a monitor, its population and VMT are much less than from Vanderburgh County, which has monitored nonattainment and more like that of the adjacent Henderson County in Kentucky, which has similar population and VMT as Posey County and has monitored attainment of the PM2.5 standard. The presence of power plants, especially power plants with comparatively low emissions, does not necessarily indicate that the county should be judged to be contributing to an area's violations.

Comment: 1032 11 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: IDEM disagrees with EPA's intended designation of Gibson, Pike, Spencer and Warrick Counties as nonattainment.

1. Monitoring data in Spencer County and Knox County demonstrate these counties are in attainment even though these rural background monitors are impacted by air masses with high PM levels that cross the state line. These values are an indication that neighboring Warrick and Gibson Counties could be in attainment if monitors were present.

2. Power plants and industrial sources in Gibson, Warrick, Pike and Spencer counties have reduced emissions significantly since 1999. Further, there is no scientific evidence that emissions from these counties or facilities contribute to monitored violations in Vanderburgh or Dubois counties and a nonattainment designation is unnecessary.

EPA Response: The Clean Air Act requires that nonattainment areas include not only the area that is violating the standard but also any nearby areas that contribute to these violations. In Southwest Indiana, violations have been recorded in Vanderburgh and DuBois Counties. The definition of what area should be nonattainment is a function of what source areas contribute to these violations. Southwest Indiana has numerous large power plants and other large industrial sources, in rural as well as urban locations. EPA believes all of the counties it is designating as nonattainment are contributing to the violations. 5 28 EPA believes further that violations in Dubois and Vanderburgh Counties arise from a common set of sources, such that the entire area should be designated as a single nonattainment area.

With all three monitors in Vanderburgh County exceeding the standard, there is no reason to believe that the air quality in Warrick and Gibson Counties is good. Even with the monitors in Knox and Spencer Counties measuring below the standard, Warrick and Gibson Counties have emissions several times greater than the Vanderburgh County emissions. There is also a violation in Dubois County. Pike and Spencer Counties have significant emissions as well.

Comment: 1088 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: The commenter expresses concern over EPA's proposed designation of Spencer County Indiana as nonattainment. Commenter notes that the air in Spencer County meets EPA guidelines. Indiana DEP has requested EPA lift the nonattainment designation. The commenter urges EPA to consider the following:

1. Regional Emissions will continue to be significantly reduced in compliance with current proposed EPA regulations.

2. A background monitor located in Spencer County has shown Spencer County to be in compliance.

3. AEP's coal fired power plant in Spencer County has already made significant emissions reductions since 1999, the base year used by EPA to propose the nonattainment designation.

4. The nonattainment designation will handicap Spencer County efforts to expand production and jobs.

5. The nonattainment designation will undercut significant infrastructure improvements that have been planned or completed in recent years, such as the US Hwy 231 project.

The commenter closes by suggesting that the situation in Spencer County does not justify a nonattainment designation and undermines the Spencer County Regional Chamber of Commerce's long term efforts to create jobs and economic development in the area.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to 5 29 designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant local contributions. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control on emission sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided updated information on Spencer County emission reductions including information on controls added to the Indiana Michigan Power Rockport power plant. EPA considered this new information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth. A nonattainment designation is not expected to have a negative impact on the infrastructure improvement projects in Spencer County. 5 30 Comment: 1089 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY Comment: The commenters, on behalf of the Spencer County Regional Chamber of Commerce, express concern over EPA's proposed designation of Spencer County as nonattainment. Commenters note that the air in Spencer County meets EPA guidelines. Indiana DEP has requested EPA lift the nonattainment designation. The commenters urge EPA to consider Indiana DEP's comments that:

1. Regional emissions will continue to be significantly reduced in compliance with current proposed EPA regulations.

2. A background monitor located in Spencer County has shown Spencer County to be in compliance.

3. AEP's coal fired power plant in Spencer County has already made significant emissions reductions since 1999, the base year used by EPA to propose the nonattainment designation.

4. The nonattainment designation will handicap Spencer County efforts to expand production and jobs.

5. The nonattainment designation will undercut significant infrastructure improvements that have been planned or completed in recent years, such as the US Hwy 231 project.

The commenter closes by suggesting that the situation in Spencer County does not justify a nonattainment designation and undermines the Spencer County Regional Chamber of Commerce's long term efforts to create jobs and economic development in the area.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing nonattainment boundaries do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant 5 31 local contributions. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control on emission sources.

In Southwest Indiana, monitors in Vanderburgh and Dubois Counties show a violation of fine particulate matter standard. Therefore despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated Spencer County for contributions to these violations using the other eight factors. Indiana provided updated information on Spencer County emission reductions including information on controls added to the Indiana Michigan Power Rockport power plant. EPA considered this new information in making its final decision on Spencer County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth. A nonattainment designation is not expected to have a negative impact on the infrastructure improvement projects in Spencer County.

Comment: 1032 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Evansville, IN KY | Louisville, KY IN Comment: The Emission Weighting System is flawed Although EPA provided states and Regional Administrators guidance for devising nonattainment boundary recommendations that is virtually identical to that associated with the 8 hour ozone standard, it appears that the EPA placed enormous reliance on the new emissions weighting system to substantiate its proposed designations. IDEM believes that this weighting system: 5 32  Was devised after states submitted their recommendations,

 Was applied with insufficient consultation and consideration with states and within EPA,

 Places undue weight on outdated emissions data as opposed to other key considerations such as meteorology, photochemical modeling, or speciated data analysis,

 Fails to consider the true impact of emissions on actual monitor values,

 Was not applied to numerous counties that may have a greater impact on counties with a monitored violation, and  Unfairly penalizes counties in smaller urban areas since it relies on complex ratios that do not take volume of actual emissions into consideration.

One result of EPA's approach is that counties such as Jefferson, Pike and Spencer that are located adjacent to, but not within, urban areas are automatically included as nonattainment counties if they contain a power plant. This result is unjustified for several reasons:

a. There is no scientific basis to assume that these power plants are contributing to urban nonattainment but more remote plants are not. In fact, EPA has determined just the opposite to be true: in its proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR), it found that all power plants in the east and Midwest are contributing to high background PM2.5 levels.

b. EPA has used outdated emissions and emissions control information about power plants in the counties it has proposed as nonattainment.

c. EPA is poised to require substantial reductions of NOx and SO2 from the power plant sector through the CAIR from facilities in both attainment and nonattainment counties. Including these particular counties with power plants in nonattainment areas is not necessary to ensure the reductions will occur.

EPA Response: Fine particles include a variety of constituents. Therefore, EPA's evaluation of the areas that may contribute to monitored violation must consider emissions of several pollutants. EPA formulated weighted emission values as a means of compiling data on emissions of multiple pollutants into a single indicator of the level of emissions that could contribute to PM2.5 concentrations.

EPA's letter to Indiana dated June 29, 2004, describes the calculation of weighted emissions values. In brief, to give each county in an urban area the proper " weight" for their " contributing" emissions, the emissions in the county must be adjusted in two steps. In step 1, we must determine the county's percentage of the violating area's total emissions. EPA used 2001 emissions information for all counties. In step 2, we adjust this percentage by the violating area's excess urban emissions for the pertinent speciated 5 33 PM2.5 component. In doing this, we calculate the excess levels associated with sulfates, nitrates, carbonaceous matter and crustal material. These components represent the vast majority of chemicals that make up PM2.5 in urban areas.

The calculated urban excess for each of the four components is the difference between the speciated PM2.5 components for an urban area and speciated components from a near by rural area. While it may seem best to choose a " rural" FRM ( total mass) monitor and an " urban" FRM monitor for purposes of estimating the mass of the urban excess, this would not allow us to relate the air quality levels to the area's emissions. This situation is one of the main reasons for a monitoring network for speciated PM2.5. Accordingly, we are using the speciated PM2.5 data from rural and urban monitors, along with estimates of emissions within the area, to identify the pollutants with the greatest contribution to the urban excess PM2.5. The emission weighting is then extended to counties adjacent to the metropolitan area. Counties that are further removed from the metropolitan area were not given a weighted emission score. Emissions from these counties contribute to the regional background PM2.5 levels.

Indiana's comment seems to object not so much to the formulation of the composite emission value as to an alleged overuse of emissions data in general. Indiana is correct that the level of emissions in a county does not by itself establish the level of impact of that county's emissions on ambient air quality at any particular location. For that reason, EPA also examined several other factors in considering the potential of a county's emissions to contribute to observed violations. Most notably, EPA considered meteorology. Because the critical PM2.5 standard is an annual standard, and because winds blow in all directions at one time or another during a year, emissions in any direction from a violation will contribute. At the same time, winds in Indiana blow more often from the southwest than from the northeast, and so a ton of emissions to the southwest will likely have greater impact than a ton of emissions to the northeast. EPA considered these principles and considered the area specific wind information given under factor 6 for each area. Generally, EPA considered this information in a qualitative manner, but in the Indianapolis area EPA performed quantitative calculations to consider this information.

EPA recognizes that a ton of emissions will result in a higher composite emission score in a small area than in a large area. For this reason, EPA is not using composite emission scores to compare areas. EPA is instead using these scores on an area by area basis to evaluate what counties have more and less emissions and thus more and less potential impact resulting in the violation that the area has monitored.

EPA considered the additional emission information Indiana submitted for its areas. Indiana provided updated emission inventories and information on controls added to power plants that further reduce emissions. With Indiana's help, EPA used the best available emissions information in judging potential contributions to observed violations of the PM2.5 standard. 5 34 Contrary to Indiana's comment, in no cases did EPA express intent to designate a county as nonattainment simply because the county contained a power plant. EPA examined emissions data as a first indicator of a county's potential to contribute to violations, and EPA expressed intent to promulgate a nonattainment designation for those counties which had sufficient emissions and for which other factors supported the view that the counties indeed contribute to nearby violations. As a general matter, large power plants have significant emissions and commonly were found to be potential contributors not just to regional background concentrations but also to local concentrations above background levels. Conversely, EPA is promulgating a designation of attainment for counties that have small power plants and that have no other emissions or monitored violations that warrant a nonattainment designation.

Although the CAIR rule may achieve substantial emission reductions, EPA cannot base an area's air quality designation on projected air quality or on uncertain future emission reductions. EPA agrees that it is important to have programs that address emissions on a national and regional scale in addition to local control measures.

Regarding additional points that Indiana makes, EPA finds:

 The states have had the opportunity to comment on the weighted emissions calculations as part of the 120 day consultation process  EPA of course thoroughly considered how to make these calculations, and  EPA considered all counties with potential to meet Clean Air Act criteria of being a nearby area contributing to the violation Comment: 1042 1 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Indianapolis, IN Comment: Commenter is concerned about the analysis scheme that is the basis for the PM2.5 designations. He comments this scheme will result in nonattainment for many counties where air quality meets the standard and where the designation is not necessary to address sources contributing to regional air pollution levels. He is concerned that Hamilton County will be designated nonattainment which could result in economic loss for the area. He asks EPA to reconsider its policy and limit designations to areas that exceed the NAAQS.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. The criteria in the Clean Air Act for establishing 5 35 nonattainment boundaries do not include the potential economic consequences of imposing nonattainment area requirements. Including all areas that contribute to violations in the nonattainment area enhances the planning process and enhances the likelihood that the health benefits of meeting the NAAQS will be achieved.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas will reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

In the Indianapolis area, monitors in Marion County show a violation of the standard. There is no monitor in Hamilton County. Therefore, EPA evaluated Hamilton County for contributions to the Marion County violations using the other eight factors. Indiana did provide updated information on emission including information on fuel conversion of the PSI Energy power plant in Noblesville from coal to natural gas. EPA considered this updated information in making its final decision on Hamilton County.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product ( GDP) of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Focusing on nonattainment areas, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations significantly retard economic growth. 5 36 Comment: 1013a 19 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Indianapolis, IN Comment: EPA did not include 10 counties in its recommended nonattainment area for the Indianapolis CMSA. Those counties are: Bartholomew, Boone, Brown, Hancock, Henry, Jennings, Madison, Montgomery, Putnam, and Shelby. The entire CMSA must be designated as one nonattainment area.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by OMB in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM 2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) and wind frequency from Boone, Hancock, Madison and Shelby ( which are part of the 1999 Indianapolis CMSA/ MSA) and Bartholomew, Brown, Henry, Jennings, Montgomery, and Putnam Counties ( which are part of the 2003 Indianapolis CBSA/ CSA) before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. This decision was made because most of the emissions, population, and VMT are from Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, Marion and Morgan Counties, which will be designated as nonattainment for PM2.5.

Comment: 1032 10 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Indianapolis, IN Comment: The only monitored violations of the standard within the Indianapolis MSA occur in Marion County. Four of the six monitors within the MSA exceed the standard. Marion County maintains the highest concentration for employment, VMT, commerce, and recreation compared to the other counties within the MSA. Stationary sources within Marion County account for over half of the direct PM2.5 emissions from stationary sources within Central Indiana and the next closest county within the region accounts for just 11 percent. Sources within Marion County also account for 70 percent of the SO2 emissions from stationary sources within the Central Indiana Region. Unlike ozone, PM2.5 monitoring values indicate that PM2.5 values decrease away from the core of the Indianapolis urban area into the suburban area. This is represented by the lower values registered at the Mann Road monitor which is southwest of the core urban area and by the Madison County monitor which is northeast of the core urban area. Both of these monitors register values below the standard. 5 37 As a result of the weighted emission scoring system, EPA has proposed that Hamilton, Hendricks, and Johnson and Morgan counties be included in the nonattainment area due to population density and the potential impact of mobile source emissions. However, the predominant VMT concentrations and commuting patterns occur at the fringes of the county along the I 465 corridor in the northeast, northwest, and southwest corners of Marion County where monitor values are either below the standard or predicted to be below the standard. There are power plants in Hamilton and Morgan counties that have dramatically reduced emissions. The closest downwind monitor of Morgan County is the Mann Road monitor in Marion County. This monitor maintains a value below the standard. Therefore, IDEM recommends that Hamilton Hendricks, Johnson and Morgan Counties be designated attainment.

EPA Response: On April 1, 2003 and February 13, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance for States and Tribes to use in identifying nonattainment areas. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment.

Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from longrange transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated metropolitan area as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, our final set of boundaries of nonattainment areas reflects an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources.

For the Indianapolis area, monitors in Marion County showed a violation of the fine particulate matter standard. EPA evaluated the eight surrounding counties for contributions to the violation. Indiana did provide updated information on emission reductions at stationary sources in surrounding counties. This information did not include emissions from mobile sources. Information on fuel conversion of the PSI Energy power plant in Hamilton County from coal to natural gas was included. The weight emission scores did change slightly after adjusting for the updated emissions. Marion County still accounts for a just over half of the weighted emissions. The emissions score for Hamilton County dropped below the Morgan County score. None of the surrounding counties stand out individually, although they do collectively, when considering just emissions and only about half of the weighted emissions for the area are from Marion County. The Indianapolis area extends somewhat into each of the counties that EPA is designating nonattainment, and EPA concluded more than just Marion County contributes to the violations found in Marion County. After evaluating on all nine factors, EPA was able to determine the appropriate counties to include in the Indianapolis nonattainment area. 5 38 Comment: 1013a 20 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Louisville, KY IN Comment: EPA failed to recommend that Harrison, Scott and Washington Counties be included in the Louisville nonattainment area. None of these counties contain monitors in order to determine whether they are attaining, but since they are all part of the CMSA, they must be included in the nonattainment area.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by OMB in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM 2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) from Harrison and Scott Counties ( which are part of the 1999 Louisville CMSA/ MSA) and Washington County ( which is part of the 2003 Louisville CBSA/ CSA) before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. Harrison, Scott and Washington Counties have fairly low emissions and the emissions, population and VMT from these counties represent a small percentage of the total emissions, population and VMT from the Louisville CMSA. In addition, a portion of Jefferson County, Indiana, will be designated as nonattainment, thereby making the contribution from Harrison, Scott and Washington Counties even less significant. Harrison, Scott and Washington Counties do not contain monitors, EPA does not have convincing evidence that these areas exceed the air quality standard, and the emissions generated in these counties would not be expected to contribute to nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard.

Comment: 1032 12 Region: 5 State: IN Area: Louisville, KY IN Comment: IDEM believes that EPA should designate Floyd and Jefferson Counties as attainment. There are two monitors within Indiana's portion of the Louisville MSA Clark and Floyd Counties. The Clark County monitor is the only monitor violating.

1. Monitoring data suggests that the Clark County monitor may be affected by a local source/ sources within Clark County including onroad and nonroad contributions from a nearby interstate undergoing major reconstruction.

2. Jefferson County is not a part of the Louisville MSA and is downwind of Louisville, thus it is highly unlikely that it is significantly contributing to violations in the Louisville 5 39 MSA. Counties should not be singled out because they are adjacent to a MSA or because a power plant is located within it.

3. There is a power plant in Floyd County but there is no scientific evidence that it is a significant contributor to the Clark County monitor exceedance. In addition, this source will be regulated by future control requirements ( e. g., CAIR).

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with Indiana's comment. The Clark County monitor is showing a PM 2.5 design value of 16.2 micrograms/ cubic meter based on the three most current years of data, 2001 03. The design value for Jefferson County, Kentucky is 16.9 µ g/ m3 for 2001 03. So, there is no reason to believe the violation in Clark County is caused by local sources only. EPA believes that breathing unhealthy levels of PM2.5 is a serious air pollution problem and that the designation should reflect the area that is experiencing and/ or contributing to the unhealthful levels of the pollutant.

Even though some rural counties are not a part of some CMSAs, these counties are being designated as nonattainment areas because they contribute emissions to the nonattainment problem in the affected CMSAs. The CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the standard and any area that is contributing to a violation in a nearby area. Therefore, EPA is including a portion of Jefferson County, Indiana in the Louisville nonattainment area. EPA is including this area in the nonattainment area not simply due to the presence of a power plant but rather because the power plant has sufficiently large emissions to conclude that the area is a nearby source area that contributes to the Louisville area violations. While Jefferson County is more often downwind than upwind of Louisville, the wind blows from Jefferson County toward Louisville with sufficient frequency for Jefferson County sources to contribute to Louisville area violations. The technical support document defines the area within Jefferson County that is being designated nonattainment and provides further discussion of EPA's rationale for this designation.

As for Floyd County, EPA cannot base an area's air quality designation on projected air quality or on proposed legislation. EPA agrees that it is important to have programs that address emissions on a national and regional scale. These programs would improve the air quality in many areas across the country. Further, Floyd County has the highest emissions of the Indiana counties in the Louisville area. There is also substantial commuting from Floyd County into Clark County and Kentucky. EPA believes that Floyd County emissions contribute to violations found elsewhere in the Louisville nonattainment area.

Comment: 1014 1 Region: 5 State: MI Area: Detroit Ann Arbor, MI Comment: Commenter disagrees with EPA's proposal to designate 7 counties as nonattainment. MI DEQ believes that only Wayne and Monroe counties should be 5 40 designated nonattainment, and that each county should be designated a separate nonattainment area. Commenter attaches comments that he believes supports MI DEQ's position for the following reasons:

1. EPA's proposal for a 7 county nonattainment area is SW Michigan is arbitrary as it applies to PM2.5, which is clearly evident after reviewing current and historical PM2.5 data for PM.

2. Most monitors intended to gauge attainment status are measuring attainment, making a widespread nonattainment designation inappropriate from a regulatory perspective and misleading from a public health perspective.

3. The EPA proposed CAIR with the stated purpose of reducing transport of PM2.5 and precursors would include all of the CMSA. Most of the transported particulate sources that may be impacting the nonattainment area will be covered by CAIR and the NOx SIP call. These rules negate the need for widespread nonattainment designations to secure reductions in transport.

4. Even though the prevailing winds are from the south and southwest, the downwind monitors in other urban counties in the CMSA still measure attainment, further evidence that the presumptive CMSA boundary is inappropriate. Michigan provided extensive analyses of trajectories and related information, supplementing information submitted in February 2004 which it believes EPA did not consider, which lead Michigan to conclude that several of the counties that EPA expressed intent to designate as nonattainment in fact are predominantly downwind of the violations and do not contribute to these violations.

5. Michigan has the authority to adopt controls beyond the nonattainment boundary if needed for reaching attainment. Also, EPA is required to reject a SIP if it does not meet the attainment demonstration test. Nothing is gained by lumping in counties where monitors record attainment.

EPA Response: Once we determine that an area is violating the standard, the next step is to determine if there are any nearby areas that are contributing to the violation and should be included in the designated nonattainment area. In addition to the important contribution from long range transport, we believe that violations which we find in urban areas reflect significant contributions from the associated Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area/ Metropolitan Statistical Area ( CMSA/ MSA) as well. Therefore, our guidance establishes a presumption that the full metropolitan area contributes to observed violations in urban areas. Nevertheless, the boundaries of nonattainment areas reflect an area specific overall assessment of currently available technical information relating to nine specific factors: air quality monitoring information, pollutant emissions, population and growth in the area, commuting, vehicle miles traveled, meteorology, terrain, jurisdictional boundaries, and the existing level of control of emissions sources. 5 41 Once an area has a monitor violating the NAAQS, EPA uses emissions data, along with other information, to help determine which counties in the area are contributing to the violation. In identifying counties that contribute to an area's violating air quality, it is important to give more weight to emissions ( sources) that contribute to the excess PM2.5 in the urban area. To give each county in an urban area the proper " weight" for their " contributing" emissions, the emissions in the county must be adjusted in two steps. In step 1, we must determine the county's percentage of the violating area's total emissions. In step 2, we adjust this percentage by the violating area's excess urban emissions for the pertinent speciated PM2.5 component. In doing this, we calculate the excess levels associated with sulfates, nitrates, carbonaceous matter and crustal material. These components represent the vast majority of chemicals that make up PM2.5 in urban areas.

The calculated urban excess for each of the four components is the difference between the speciated PM2.5 components for an urban area and speciated components from a near by rural area. While it may seem best to choose a " rural" FRM ( total mass) monitor and an " urban" FRM monitor for purposes of estimating the mass of the urban excess, this would not allow us to relate the air quality levels to the area's emissions. This situation is one of the main reasons for a monitoring network for speciated PM2.5. Accordingly, we are using the speciated PM2.5 data from rural and urban monitors, along with estimates of emissions within the area, to identify the urban sources with the greatest contribution to the urban excess PM2.5.

It is also important to note that the PM2.5 ( air quality) weighted emissions ( and scores) are considered in the context of all the relevant factors in determining the boundary of a nonattainment area. As described above, the speciated PM2.5 weighted emissions are used in developing a ranking score ( weight) for each county in a potential nonattainment area. In developing these scores, we do not intend that they be used in " bright line" manner. Rather, they offer a basis for looking closest at the counties in an area that may contribute the most to the elevated PM2.5 in the area. For the counties with the highest score, we look at the other information as we determine the collection of counties in a nonattainment area.

The issue of regional transport primarily concerns long range transport  i. e., transport from areas that are not " nearby". EPA agrees that this is an important issue and is currently addressing the issue of regionally transported emissions via the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). Although the CAIR rule may achieve substantial emission reductions, EPA cannot base an area's air quality designation on projected air quality or on proposed legislation. Further, EPA agrees that it is important to have programs that address emissions on a national and regional scale. Although these programs would have a positive impact on many areas in Michigan and across the country, EPA must also define a nonattainment area that includes the more local sources that need consideration in air quality planning. EPA appreciates Michigan's statement that it can implement necessary control measures outside the nonattainment area, but EPA must follow the Clean Air Act's prescription to include both the violation area and all nearby areas that contribute to the violation and thereby providing for the full range of Clean Air Act 5 42 provisions ( including but not limited to the attainment planning requirement) that help address nonattainment problems.

In Southeast Michigan, monitors in Wayne and Monroe Counties show violations of the PM2.5 standard. Despite monitoring attainment, EPA evaluated the other counties in the Detroit CMSA for contributions to these violations using the nine factors including the emissions, population, and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT). EPA believes that the Detroit nonattainment area should include Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne Counties. EPA disagrees with Michigan's recommendations to split Monroe and Wayne Counties into two smaller nonattainment areas. EPA believes that Wayne County and the other nearby counties contribute to the violation in Monroe County, and EPA believes that Monroe County contributes to the violations in Wayne County. EPA seeks to maximize consistency between the PM2.5 and the 8 hour ozone designations and keeping these counties together under PM2.5 would be consistent with the designations under 8 hour ozone.

Michigan provided updated population and VMT information, in addition to PM2.5 concentration roses, to show that the downwind counties are not impacting the Wayne County PM2.5 concentrations. EPA considered this information in making its final decision on the Detroit CMSA. In fact, EPA's June 2004 letter to Michigan discusses the trajectory information provided with Michigan's February 2004 recommendations, noting that trajectory analyses and other similar analyses will often better describe the origins of regional transport rather than the origins of local contributions. EPA concludes that annual average concentrations reflect contributions from all wind directions and disagrees with the State's arguments that the nonattainment area need only reflect source areas to the south and west of the monitors recording violations.

Michigan provided information from the Michigan Economic Development Commission stating that Livingston County population grew by only 7 percent between 2000 and 2003. However, data from the U. S. Census Bureau suggest a population growth of 10 percent over this period ( from 156,951 to 172,881), similar to the growth rate for 1990 to 2000 that led EPA to identify Livingston County as a prospective part of the Detroit nonattainment area. In addition, U. S. Census Bureau data includes Livingston County in the top 100 fastest growing U. S. counties with a 13.2 percent increase in Housing Unit estimates for this same period. EPA continues to consider Livingston County a relatively high growth area, and EPA is including this county in the Detroit PM2.5 nonattainment area. 5 43 Comment: 1013a 29 Region: 5 State: MI Area: Detroit Ann Arbor, MI Comment: Detroit CMSA:

EPA failed to recommend Genesee and Lapeer Counties for nonattainment. These counties are part of the CMSA and must be designated nonattainment. EPA's letter to the state reports that NOx emissions in Genesee County are around 20,000 tons annually. EPA cites prevailing wind direction as a reason for not including Genesee County in the nonattainment area. Because the PM2.5 standard is an annual standard prevailing wind direction does not have as much impact on the elevated values as it would with the 24 hour standard. Although Lapeer County's emissions are lower, the population growth between 1990 and 2000 was 18%, which may lead to an increasing emission trend in the area. In addition, Ingham County in the Lansing East Lansing Owosso CMSA has high emissions, due to the Eckert Station power plant, which emitted over 6,500 tons of SO2 and over 3,500 tons of NOx in 2002. This county should be included in the nonattainment area as well.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) from Genesee, Ingham and Lapeer Counties before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. The emissions from these counties are small relative to the total emissions in the Detroit CMSA, and the population and VMT from the three counties are a small percentage of the population and VMT in the Detroit CMSA. The growth of Lapeer's population by 18 percent over 10 years is not high enough to lead to a high level of emissions any time soon. The commenter is correct that annual average concentrations reflect contributions from all wind directions, and indeed EPA disagrees with the State's arguments that the nonattainment area need only reflect source areas to the south and west of the monitors recording violations. Nevertheless, because winds blow less frequently from the north and east, the emissions in Genesee and Lapeer Counties will have less impact than comparable emissions located in areas that are more frequently upwind. Genesee and Lapeer Counties are also somewhat distant from the monitored violations, which also reduces the likely impact of these emissions on the violations. The presence of a power plant in Ingham County does not necessarily indicate that the county should be judged to be contributing to the area's violations. Notwithstanding the presence of the power plant, EPA concluded that the emissions from Ingham County are too small and too distant from the monitored violations to include this county in the Detroit nonattainment area. It is worth noting that Ingham County has a monitor which shows that Ingham County is attaining the PM2.5 standard. 5 44 Comment: 1013a 36 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Canton, OH Comment: EPA failed to include Carroll County in this recommended nonattainment area; this area is part of the Canton MSA and must be designated nonattainment with the rest of this area.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) and wind frequency before deciding to designate Carroll County as attainment/ unclassified. Among the reasons for the attainment/ unclassified designation are:

a. Carroll County is 96% wooded or agricultural.

b. Carroll county has a population density of 74 persons per square mile, as compared to 656 persons per square mile in Stark County.

c. The majority of the population of the Canton Massillon MSA resides in Stark County ( 29,166 for Carroll vs. 377,940 for Stark).

d. Although 40% of commuters travel from Carroll County to areas outside that county, that number is only 5,125 persons, which is a small amount. In Stark County, only 1 percent of commuters travel to other counties, which suggests that any cause of PM2.5 attributed to vehicular traffic would tend to be caused by, and reside in, Stark County.

e. Emissions emanating from Carroll County are small when compared to Stark County ( 386 tpy vs. 2,736 tpy for SO2)( 1,886 tpy vs. 14,968 tpy for NOx).

The majority of emissions and population are located in Stark County. Carroll County is rural, with low population density, and does not significantly contribute to the CMSA. 5 45 Comment: 1013a 37 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Cincinnati Hamilton, OH KY IN Comment: Brown and Clinton Counties are not recommended for nonattainment despite their being part of the Cincinnati CMSA. The entire CMSA must be designated nonattainment.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM 2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) and wind frequency before deciding to designate Brown and Clinton counties as attainment/ unclassified. Among the reasons for the attainment/ unclassified designations for Brown and Clinton Counties are:

a. The population of Brown and Clinton Counties are small when compared to the rest of the Ohio portion of the CMSA* ( 84,554 ( Brown and Clinton) vs. 1,532,749)

b. SO2 emissions from Brown and Clinton Counties are small when compared to the rest of the Ohio portion of the CMSA ( for Brown: 395 tpy vs. 186,751 tpy) ( for Clinton: 375 tpy vs. 186,751 tpy)

c. NOx emissions from Brown and Clinton Counties are small when compared to the rest of the Ohio portion of the CMSA ( for Brown: 2,927 tpy vs. 131,316 tpy) ( for Clinton: 2,490 tpy vs. 131,316 tpy)

d. The population density of Brown County is only 88 persons per square mile.

e. The growth rates for the years 1990 2000 for Brown and Clinton Counties are 21% and 14%, respectively. As noted in point a, above, the populations of these counties are small when compared to the remainder of the Ohio portion of the CMSA, and the growth experienced did not have a significant impact on the population of the CMSA.