Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562-0458
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-11-13T05:00Z

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

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562

December 22, 2008



TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

 

LIST OF TABLES

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

 ACRONYMS

ALA	American Lung Association

AQS	Air Quality System

AQZ	Air Quality Zone

ARM	Approved Regional Method

CAA	Clean Air Act

CBSA	Core-Based Statistical Area

CES	Contributing Emission Score

CFR	Code of Federal Regulations

CMAQ	Community Multi-scale Air Quality modeling 

CO	Carbon Monoxide

CO2	Carbon Dioxide

SO2	Sulfur Dioxide

CSA	Combined Statistical Area

CMSA	Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area

CSN	Chemical Speciation Network

DOD	U.S. Department of Defense

DOE	U.S. Department of Energy

DOT	U.S. Department of Transportation

EGU	Electric Generating Unit

EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FEM	Federal Equivalent Method

FRM	Federal Reference Method

HYSPLIT	Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory

IMPROVE	Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

MSA	Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSL	Mean Sea Level

MVEB	Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

NAA	Nonattainment Area

NAAQS	National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NCAR	National Center for Atmospheric Research

NEI	National Emission Inventory

NESCAUM	Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NOAA	U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOX	Nitrogen Oxide

OMB	Office of Management and Budget

OTAQ	Office of Transportation and Air Quality

OWB	Outdoor Wood Boiler

PM	Particulate Matter

PMF	positive matrix factorization 

RTC	Response to Comment

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

SIP	State Implementation Plan

SPM	Special Purpose Monitor

TSD	Technical Support Document

UGB	Urban Growth Boundary

VMT	Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC	Volatile Organic Compound

WES	Weighted Emission Score

1.0.  Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenter Organization	Docket Number

Anonymous	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0002

Jodi Kriebaum	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0003

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

Anonymous	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0005

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

Jeanne Leaver	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0007

Kenneth Dubinski	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riverdale City 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0038

Joel Laws	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0039

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

Ernest Grolimund	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0041

Jorge Verde	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0042

Ed Fenner	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0043

Yvette McLeod	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0044

Philip Meyer	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0045

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

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

Regional Chamber	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0048

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

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

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

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

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

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

Placer County 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0055

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brigham City 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0071

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humphreys County 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0086

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0093

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tooele City 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0105

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

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

Ameren Corporate	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0108

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

DTE Energy	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0110

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

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

Chuck Hendricks	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0114

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earthjustice	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0123

Julie Burgo	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0124

Van Bakel	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0125

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Dawson	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0133

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LyonellBasell Industries	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0144

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eagle Mountain 	EPA-HQ-OAR-0562-0174

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

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

2.0.  Comments on General Designation Issues

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

2.1.  Health Concerns

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

 Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

 

EPA Response:

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

	

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

2.3.  EPA’s Technical Analysis

Comment:

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comment:

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

EPA Response:

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

Comment:

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

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

Gallia is downwind of Scioto and Cabell county;

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

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

The listing of emission controls installed at Adams, Coshocton, and
Gallia Counties facilities in Ohio provided EPA with information used in
our final designations.  Updates on emission controls added since the
last emissions inventory are helpful.  Knowing the latest reductions
allows EPA to make a more informed decision on whether a county or
partial county is contributing to violations.  

After considering the controls being added, EPA determined that the
partial county areas in Adams and Gallia Counties, Ohio still contribute
to the violations in the Huntington-Ashland area and that in Coshocton
County, Ohio still contributes to the Columbus area violations.  The
partial counties were designated nonattainment because they contribute
to violations.  Ohio needs to determine if additional measures are
required beyond the planned emission controls to bring the areas into
attainment.  EPA has provided a detailed response to these issues in
full in the State and Tribal RTC and/or the relevant area specific TSDs;
please refer to these documents for additional related information.

Comment:

One commenter (0104) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designations. 

The commenter requests that EPA designate Clarksville, TN-KY and
McCracken County, KY as unclassifiable or in attainment.  The commenter
believes that if the most recent data from 2008 is used, Evansville, IN,
and McCracken County, KY, are likely to be able to be in compliance. 

The commenter notes the current pending litigation and believes that
many of EPA’s proposals fail to articulate how the 9 factors apply to
each designation and the relationship among the factors. Because the
commenter believes that the EPA failed to articulate this relation the
commenter disagrees to all the proposed designations for non-violating
counties in Alabama, Tennessee, and Muhlenberg County, KY.  

The commenter disagrees with EPA’s proposed designation for Humphreys
County, TN and Muhlenberg County, KY because neither is “nearby” the
violating monitor. The commenter notes the pending litigation of EPA’s
designation of counties that are not adjacent to violating counties. 

The commenter believes that Roane County, TN is not contributing to the
violating monitor in Knox County, TN. The commenter states that
contribution is not supported by EPA’s CES or the speciation of
emissions.

The commenter notes that EPA’s description of controls in Muhlenberg,
Stewart and Humphreys counties are incorrect and provides information on
the level of control from the Clean Air Markets Division. 

EPA Response:

In the specific case of the Clarksville area, there is a violating
monitor in Montgomery County, TN that does not meet the standard.  
Further, EPA has made the determination (through its analysis and the
information provided by the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of
Tennessee as fully explained in the TSD that a portion of Muhlenberg,
Humphreys and Stewart Counties are contributing to the violations at the
Montgomery County monitor.  EPA acknowledges that updated information on
controls for Muhlenberg, Stewart and Humphreys Counties became available
and has considered this updated information for designation purposes for
this area.  EPA believes its technical analysis of the nine factors and
other analysis tools was appropriate in general, clearly explained in
the TSDs, and applied accurately in Clarksville.  EPA concluded that
even with this additional control data the facilities in the partial
counties were still contributing to the monitored violations.  It is
important to note that air quality data and level of emissions (not
necessarily level of controls) are important considerations for whether
an area is violating or contributing to a violation.  EPA’s approach
of including noncontiguous partial counties to capture sources that
contribute emissions to a downwind area which has violations is
consistent with the approach used for the nonattainment designations for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and with the statute.  Please refer to
the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s
decisions.  

Regarding Knoxville, the commenter disagrees with the inclusion of a
portion of Roane County, TN, in the Knoxville nonattainment area for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  Speciation data from the Knoxville region
indicates that the days with the highest PM2.5 concentrations typically
occur in the warm season, with sulfate accounting for about 65 percent
of the PM2.5 mass and carbon accounting for about 32 percent of the
PM2.5 mass.  The Kingston power plant in this portion of Roane County
has high annual emissions (51,000 tons SO2, 12,000 tons NOx), and this
factor combined with supporting meteorological data indicates a
contribution from the Kingston plant to exceedances in Knoxville.  In
addition, this portion of Roane County also was included in the boundary
for the 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area as well.  The Knoxville area, with
an annual design value of 15.7 ug/m3 for 2005-2007, still has not
attained the annual standard.  The partial county area in Roane County
was designated as part of the original nonattainment area on the basis
of its contribution to annual average fine particle concentrations in
nearby Knoxville.  The major component of fine particle mass on an
annual average basis and on the highest days is sulfate.  EPA
understands that scrubbers are to be installed on the nine units at the
Kingston power plant in 2010.  EPA applauds these steps toward cleaner
air, and the resulting emission reductions can be accounted for in the
State’s future attainment plan for the 24-hour standard.  However,
since the reductions occur after December 2008, they cannot be factored
into the current designation decision by EPA.  For all of the above
reasons, EPA finds that it is reasonable and consistent to maintain the
partial county area of Roane County as part of the Knoxville
nonattainment area for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

With regard to decisions on nonattainment boundaries in other parts of
the country, EPA’s designations guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard states that the criteria for determining appropriate boundaries
is to be made on a case-by-case basis considering the recommended nine
factors and other relevant information, including information submitted
in State recommendations.  Not every factor was equally relevant in each
area (e.g., in many eastern locations topography is not an issue), nor
was every factor equally important to each area.  Due to the complex and
variable nature of PM2.5, the important factors varied from one area to
another based on local circumstances.  EPA considered the individual
facts and circumstances of each area in determining whether to include a
county or part of a county as contributing to a particular nonattainment
problem.  Neither the CAA nor EPA’s designations guidance establishes
thresholds for determining the designations status of an area.  For
example, the guidance does not identify a set amount of a pollutant, or
a specific level of commuting between counties, that would automatically
require a county or part of a county to be included in a nonattainment
area.  While the commenter attempts to make a comparison between carbon
emissions in Roane County and nine other counties in the area with less
carbon emissions, EPA notes that the determination of a county’s (or
portion thereof) contribution is based on the totality of the analysis
and not based on this individual factor alone. Roane County has a large
point source (i.e., Kingston Power Plant) and high level of sulfate
contribution.  

The CAA defines a nonattainment area as any area that does not meet an
ambient air quality standard or that is contributing to ambient air
quality in a nearby area that does not meet the standard.  If an area
meets either prong of this definition, then EPA is obligated to
designate the area as nonattainment.  EPA identifies violations of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on the basis of three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data from an eligible air
quality monitor.  The design value for the monitor in McCracken County
is 36 μg/m3 which is above the standard and makes this county an
automatic candidate for nonattainment.  

Please see 2.3 above regarding the submission of 2008 data and 2.2 above
for EPA’s detailed responses to additional issues raised by the
commenter.  EPA has provided a detailed response to these issues in full
in the State and Tribal RTC and/or the relevant area specific TSDs;
please refer to these documents for additional related information. 

Comment:

One commenter (0108) is concerned about the weight of the CES because of
the following assumptions:

Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC) emissions are not included in the
calculation of CES; 

The SANDWICH algorithm was applied to FRM sites but not to the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites
used in the analysis in the Technical Support Document (Derivation of
the Contributing Emissions Score, August 20, 2008) describing the
generation of CES values.

EPA Response:

While EPA would have liked to have incorporated VOC emissions into the
CES to provide a better indication of the impact those emissions have on
the violating monitor, the science behind the chemistry of PM2.5
formation from VOC emissions is not as advanced to the point where the
relationship between secondary organic particle concentrations and VOC
emissions could be reliably quantified.  EPA also believes that the
uncertainty about what proportion of VOC emissions in a particular
county might participate in PM formation directly also precluded VOC
emissions from being considered for use in the CES.  Counties with
predominant primary carbon emitters were more of a concern with the CES
in the western United States where there was also a large wood smoke
contribution.  This potential problem was not as important an issue in
the eastern US. However, VOC emissions were directly considered in
making designations through the emissions data charts for all areas.  

EPA acknowledges some ambiguity in the CES Technical Support Document
(TSD) regarding the comparison between the IMPROVE and SANDWICH
processed CSN data.  The urban increment calculation in the CES involved
using both IMPROVE and CSN data.  The CSN data were processed using the
SANDWICH technique to account for the loss of nitrate from the Teflon
filter and the retention of water mostly among hydrated ammonium
sulfate.  The IMPROVE nitrate and sulfate data were also adjusted in a
similar fashion so that the data from the two networks could be used
together to calculate the urban increment at each CSN site within the
violating area.  The CES TSD has been updated to better clarify this
part of the CES methodology.

Comment:

One commenter (0085) is concerned with the following technical data in
EPA’s CES:

The definition of “high” PM2.5 days;

The calculation of Area-normalized High Day Emissions; identification of
the Urban Increment and usage of the SANDWICH algorithm;

Implementation of trajectory and distance weighing; and

Uncertainties associated with VOC assumptions, the SANDWICH algorithm,
and back trajectories.

EPA Response:

The commenter made several comments regarding the ambiguity of
explanation given in the CES technical support document regarding
several aspects of the calculation of the CES.  For clarification, the
CES TSD has been updated to better describe how “high” days were
chosen for the various components of the CES.  The commenter’s
greatest concern is over how the high days were chosen for the urban
increment calculation.  To clarify this, the high days for the urban
increment calculation were chosen from the highest 5 percent of days
measured at each CSN site for each season and year.   

In regard to how the area-normalized high day emissions were calculated,
the commenter drew the correct conclusion in that the total seasonal
high day emissions in an individual county were normalized to the total
seasonal high days emissions from the CBSA/CSA.

The CES TSD has been updated to better clarify the comparability between
the IMPROVE and SANDWICH adjusted CSN data.  As the commenter indicates
elsewhere, two different methods were used to calculate the crustal
component.  Since the crustal component itself was very small, the
approximate 10 percent difference between the between the two methods
for computing crustal material is also small typically on the order of a
few tenths of a microgram and, therefore, does not greatly affect the
urban increment for crustal material or the carbon concentrations which
depend upon the non-carbon estimates.  

Regarding the trajectory weighting algorithm used in the CES, the
commenter has asked EPA to better clarify some of the associated
details.  The trajectories were run for the 10 percent highest measured
PM2.5 days for each year and season.  For the calculation of the
probability field of the likelihood of a trajectory passing through an
individual county, all of the trajectories from each starting height
level were analyzed as an entire group.  For determining the individual
county weights, a probability density field was calculated using Kernel
Density Estimation and the results of this analysis are spread over a
grid.  The fraction of an individual county’s average probability
density to the total across all counties was used as the weight applied
to the emissions data.  The sum of all of the individual county
fractions is equal to one.  The values presented in Table A-7 are scaled
between 1 and 100 for display purposes only.  

The commenter expressed confusion over how the distance weighting factor
was calculated.  The CES TSD states that the factor was calculated as
1/distance between the centroid of the violating county to the centroids
of surrounding nearby counties.

The commenter also mentioned the absence of VOC emissions from the
calculation.  While the commenter admitted that “the scientific basis
for developing a simple relationship between VOC emissions and organic
particle concentration is limited, some sort of approximation of aerosol
yields from VOC emissions would help” the CES distortion in organic
carbon attribution.  While EPA would have liked to have incorporated VOC
emissions into the CES to provide a better indication of the impact
those emissions have on the violating monitor, the science behind the
chemistry of PM2.5 formation due to VOC emissions is not as advanced to
the point where the relationship between secondary organic particle
concentrations and VOC emissions could be reliably quantified.  EPA also
believes that the uncertainty about what proportion of VOC emissions in
a particular county might participate in PM formation directly also
precluded VOC emissions from being considered for use in the CES. 
Counties with predominant primary carbon emitters were more of a concern
with the CES in the western United States where there is also a large
wood smoke contribution.  This potential problem is not an important
issue in the eastern US. However, VOC emissions were directly considered
in making designations through the emissions data charts for all areas.

The commenter also cited a publication regarding the error associated
with using trajectories.  The paper does not specifically critique the
HYSPLIT model utilized by EPA in the CES.  EPA assumes that the
conclusion drawn by the paper applies specifically to the models and
studies assessed.  In that case, the paper was published ten years ago
so that advances in trajectory modeling could not have been accounted
for.  EPA recognizes that every data source has some of level of
uncertainty associated with it and that one cannot solely rely on any
one piece of information in making a regulatory decision.  EPA has
recommended through guidance that the CES is but one of many analytical
tools and data sources that could be used as a starting point for the
designation process to help inform the final decision.  

Comment:

One commenter (0085) believes that there was inconsistent and arbitrary
application of the CES as follows:

CES values vary enormously: nonattainment CES numbers range from 100-5
and attainment CES numbers are as high as 33 and go down to zero.

EPA uses counties from other Consolidated/MSAs (C/MSAs) while
calculating CES calculations for a given C/MSA:

e.g.  Kanawha County, WV has CES value of 100 when calculated with the
Charlestown MSA and the value of 15 when calculated with the
Huntington-Ashland MSA.

e.g.  in the Huntington-Ashland MSA, counties with CES values of 33 and
higher in the MSA are all nonattainment and those below are attainment
the exception to this Kanawha County which is nonattainment even though
its CES as it relates to Huntington-Ashland is 15.  It seems safe to
assume that the Kanawha nonattainment designation is based upon its
contribution to the Charleston C/MSA, but its presence in the
Huntington-Ashland CES calculations makes CES values difficult to
interpret in light of their relationship to nonattainment.

In the Cleveland-Akron MSA, Portage has a CES of 15 and is recommended
nonattainment by both Ohio and EPA.  Wayne County has a CES of 15 and is
recommended attainment by both Ohio and EPA.  Portage County is
currently monitoring attainment.  Lorrain County, which received a
relatively high CES of 60, has been recommended by both Ohio and EPA,
but is monitoring attainment.

In the Columbus MSA, Franklin County has a CES of 100 and is recommended
nonattainment.  Pickaway, Adams and Ross Counties are respectively
scored 19, 18 and 18 and are recommended attainment by both Ohio and
EPA.  Delaware, Licking and Fairfield Counties are respectively scored
11, 10, and 9 and are all recommended nonattainment by both Ohio and
EPA.

In the Dayton-Springfield MSA, all three MSA counties listed are
nonattainment and their scores are 95 for Montgomery County, 14 for
Greene County, and 5 for Clark County.  Clark County is monitoring
attainment.

In the Cleveland-Akron MSA, Lorain and Portage Counties are monitoring
attainment, are recommended for nonattainment, and have CES values
differing by 45 points.

EPA Response:

The commenter has made a point with several examples stating that EPA
applied the CES inconsistently and arbitrarily in its nonattainment area
designations.  As noted in responses to other commenters, the CES was a
screening tool to provide a list of counties to be considered for
inclusion into the nonattainment area of a violating monitor.  It was
not considered outcome-determinative but one measure using information
from some of the factors recommended through EPA guidance to serve as a
starting point in determining nonattainment area boundaries.  Additional
data from a variety of different sources were then considered to better
refine the designation areas to include counties which had evidence of
contributing to the violating monitor.  EPA does not agree that the
manner in which the CES was utilized was either inconsistent or
arbitrary.  The CES served its purpose to highlight possible nearby
contributing counties that could then be further examined to better
determine the overall contribution based the data EPA had on hand.  

A particular county’s CES is unique to the area being evaluated even
if the county has multiple scores from being included in the evaluations
of multiple violating areas.  Therefore, the score for a particular
county in one area cannot be compared to the score for the same county
when its contribution is being assessed for another violating area.
 Also, it is important to realize that the CES is not outcome
determinative.  The CES is one analytical tool that attempts to provide
an initial starting point to which additional information from the
recommended factors in EPA guidance as well as data from the State and
Local air agencies can be applied to inform the final decision.  

Kanawha County, WV's CES value is only 15 which is low relative to the
scores of the other counties included in the Huntington-Ashland area
analysis because it is a greater distance from the violating monitor in
Cabell County, and meteorological data indicates that its has a lesser
impact on Cabell County.  Prevailing winds at the Cabell County air
quality monitor are north-northeast, as well as southwest and south.
 Only occasional winds are from the east, the direction of Kanawha
County.  In EPA's technical analysis for the Huntington-Ashland area,
EPA determined that Kanawha County should not be included in the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.

Kanawha County, WV's CES value is 100 which is very high relative to
other counties included in the Charleston area analysis, which is
comprised of Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV.  Kanawha County has two
air quality monitors showing violations of 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
considering 2005-2007 data.  Meteorological data indicates that days
with low wind speeds are more likely to record high PM2.5 levels at the
Kanawha County air quality monitors.  This indicates that local
emissions from Kanawha County contribute to the Charleston area’s
nonattainment, including emissions from the Kanawha River electric
generating unit and Bayer Cropscience.  In EPA's technical analysis for
the Charleston area, EPA determined that Kanawha County should be
included in the Charleston nonattainment area.

Counties such as Lorrain and Porter Counties, which have air quality
data meeting the standards, can still contribute to violations in other
counties.  These contributing counties are included in the nonattainment
area.  Examining factors such as commuting and jurisdictional boundaries
show differences between Portage and Wayne Counties.  Ohio’s
recommendations were also considered. 

In the Columbus area specifically, EPA determined that Pickaway and Ross
Counties should be designated attainment based on the analysis detailed
in the TSD.  The analysis indicated that Delaware, Fairfield, and
Licking Counties should be included in the Columbus nonattainment area. 
EPA used information relevant to the recommended factors, not just the
emissions inventory, to determine which counties to designate as
nonattainment.  Factors including population and commuting supported
including Delaware, Fairfield, and Licking Counties and not including
Pickaway and Ross Counties in the nonattainment area.  Adams County was
included in the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.   

 

Clark County is monitoring a violation of the 2006 fine particulate
standards based on 2005 to 2007 data.  Therefore, Clark County was
included in the Dayton-Springfield nonattainment area.  

3.0.  Comments Specific To Area

3.1.  Allentown, PA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.2.  Baltimore, MD

Comment:

Four commenters (0095) comment that, according to EPA’s AirData
database, a monitor in Prince Georges County, Maryland (Prince Georges
Equestrian Center monitor 2) is violating the 24-hour PM2.5 standard
based on 2005-2007 data.  

EPA Response:  

The monitor in question is a collocated monitor in place for quality
assurance purposes only.  The Maryland Department of the Environment
operates this and other collocated monitors to comply with Federal
regulations to quantify PM2.5 measurement precision at 15 percent of its
sites Statewide.  The primary monitor, and not the collocated monitor,
is used to determining compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS.  (See 40 CFR
Part 50 Appendix N, 3(d)(1).)  The primary monitor at this site operates
every third day.  The collocated monitor operated every sixth day in
2005 and 2006, and every twelfth day starting in 2007.  

PM2.5 design values are calculated by site, not by monitor.  According
to 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N, 1(c)(2), the 3-year average of annual 98th
percentile 24-hour average values recorded at each monitoring site
(referred to as the “24-hour standard design value”).  Therefore,
there is no design value for the collocated monitor.  

Data from the collocated monitor is used to substitute for missing data
from the primary monitor, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N,
3(d)(2):

Data for the primary monitor shall be augmented as much as possible with
data from collocated FRM, FEM, or Approved Regional Method (ARM)
monitors.  If a valid 24-hour measurement is not produced from the
primary monitor for a particular day (scheduled or otherwise), but a
valid sample is generated by a collocated FRM/FEM/ARM instrument (and
recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System Air Quality
System (AQS) database), then that collocated value shall be considered
part of the site data record (i.e., that site's daily value).  If more
than one valid collocated FRM/FEM/ARM value is available, the average of
those valid collocated values shall be used as the daily value.

2007 data would be 30.7 μg/m3 for the primary monitor and 37.2 μg/m3
for the collocated monitor.  This value for the collocated monitor is
unrepresentatively high due to the small number of monitored samples
which gives more weight to high values when the 98th percentile 24-hour
average values are determined.  The proper design value for the site is
32.0 μg/m3 when missing data from the primary monitor is supplemented
with data from the collocated monitor.

Comment:

Four commenters (0095) comment that data in the AirData database shows
consistently high 24-hour PM2.5 levels at the two monitors at 34th and
Dix NE.  The commenters state that, “[t]aking the higher of the values
at the two monitors in each year, the site is in violation for
2005-2007.”

EPA Response:  

The monitors referenced above are the primary and collocated monitors at
34th and Dix Streets in Washington, D.C.  It is not appropriate to
simply pick the highest values at each site to determine compliance with
the PM2.5 NAAQS.  As described in the response to the above comment,
data from the collocated monitor is only used in design value
calculations when valid data is missing at the primary monitor.  The
correct design value for this site is 35 μg/m3 for 2005-2007. 
Therefore, this site meets the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Comment:

Four commenters (0095) comment that because the Washington, D.C. area is
violating the PM2.5 NAAQS and is consistently recording elevated PM2.5
levels, EPA must designate the entire metropolitan area as
nonattainment.  

EPA Response:  

As explained above, the Washington, D.C. area is not violating the 2006
PM2.5 standard.  It should also be noted that the PM2.5 data referenced
by the commenters was obtained from EPA's “AIRNOW/AirData” website
and not the Aerometric Information Retrieval System AQS database.  AQS
is the database that contains all State and local agency submitted and
EPA certified air monitored data and is used for determining compliance
with the NAAQS.

Comment:

Four commenters (0095) comments that even if the Washington area were
not itself violating the 2006 NAAQS, EPA would have to designate the
area nonattainment as part of a greater Washington-Baltimore-Northern
Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA nonattainment area, because Congress intended
that nonattainment areas encompass the entirety of combined statistical
urban areas.

EPA Response:

See section 2.2 comments regarding designating entire CSAs
nonattainment.

Comment:

Four commenters (0095) comment that EPA’s data and analysis show that
the Washington, D.C. area contributes to PM2.5 levels in the Baltimore
area.  The commenters assert that:

The Washington, D.C.  area generates substantial emissions of PM2.5 and
precursors;

EPA’s analysis shows that regional wind patterns are often southwest
to northeast;

EPA’s data indicate that PM2.5 emissions in both Montgomery and Prince
Georges Counties are higher than in any county in the proposed Baltimore
nonattainment area;

Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, combined, emit more sulfur
dioxide (SO2) than any county in the proposed Baltimore area; and

Collectively, the Maryland counties currently in the Washington
nonattainment area emit about as much PM2.5 as and far more SO2 than all
the counties in the proposed Baltimore area, combined.

EPA Response:

Based upon public comment received, EPA determined that it was
appropriate to further analyze the technical information used to support
EPA’s boundary recommendation for the Baltimore area.  Based on
EPA’s further analysis of that technical information, EPA has informed
Maryland that it proposes to modify the boundary of the Baltimore
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard to include
Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland.  

EPA is taking final action on the remaining areas  (the City of
Baltimore and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard
Counties) in December 2008.  On December 5, 2008, EPA gave notice that
it is proposing  to add Prince George's and Montgomery Counties,
Maryland to the Baltimore nonattainment area.  EPA is giving the State
the benefit of the statutory opportunity to respond to this proposal,
and will not finalize the designation of these counties as part of the
Baltimore area for the 120-day period provided in the statute.  EPA will
thus make a final designation determination whether Montgomery and
Prince George’s Counties should be included in the Baltimore
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in April 2009.  

3.3.  Birmingham, AL

See section 2.3 for comments regarding this particular nonattainment
area.

3.4.  Canton-Massillon, OH

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for the State of Ohio.
 The commenter requests that EPA designation Stark County as
nonattainment.  This is the same county that EPA has proposed as a
candidate for a designation of nonattainment.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional
haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the final determination that
Stark County should be within the boundary for the designated
Canton-Massillon area as nonattainment.  

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.5.  Charleston, WV

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.6.  Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN

Comment:

One commenter (0091) supports EPA recommendations that the Counties of
Cook, Will, DuPage, Lake, Kane, McHenry and portions of Kendall and
Grundy Counties in Illinois; and Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana be
designated as nonattainment in the Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL-IN area.  The
commenter is concerned the modernization and expansion of the BP
refinery in Whiting, IN due to be completed in 2011 or 2012.  The
commenter disagrees with EPA’s recommended designations of a partial
for Kendall County.  The commenter recommends that EPA to designate the
remainder of Kendall County, IL as nonattainment due to commuting and
growth patterns.

EPA Response:

EPA is aware of the growth that Kendall County has experienced.  Still,
the emissions from Kendall County remain a small amount of the Chicago
area emissions.  EPA agreed with Illinois to include a portion of
Kendall County in the Chicago nonattainment area.  This also retains the
same nonattainment area as for the 1997 fine particulate standards and
the ozone area which aids in the planning process.

EPA is also designating Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana as
nonattainment.  Changes at a Lake County, Indiana refinery will follow
the permitting process.  The impact of the planned expansion on fine
particulate pollution in the area will be analyzed as part of the
permitting process.  Illinois and Indiana will also need to include
planned expansions and the resulting from the loss of CAIR as the States
develops plans to bring the Chicago area into attainment.

Comment:

One commenter (0100) supports EPA’s recommendation and request that
EPA designate Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, Kendall, and
Grundy (partial) counties in Illinois as nonattainment.  The commenter
cites negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to
regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the final determination that
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, Kendall (partial), and Grundy
(partial) counties should be included in the nonattainment boundary for
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County area for the designations for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standard.  

	

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.7.  Chico, CA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.8.  Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN

Comment:

One commenter (0114) requests that EPA deny the exceptional events
request from Kentucky Division of Air Quality, citing negative health
impacts from PM2.5.  The commenter requests that EPA designate Kenton
and Warren Counties as nonattainment.

EPA Response:

EPA has reviewed the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s request for
consideration of exceptional events and has made a determination for
these requests on an individual basis depending on the event and the
supporting document.  As explained in EPA’s June 08, 2007, guidance
entitled Air Designations for the Revised 24-hour Fine Particulate
Matter Standard,

“Air quality monitoring data affected by exceptional events may be
excluded from use in identifying a violation if they meet the criteria
for such an exclusion, as specified in the Final Rule on the Treatment
of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events (72 FR 13560).”

 Attached to the TSD in support of EPA’s final designations for the
revised daily PM2.5 standard
(http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards) is a very detailed
analysis all of the exceptional events requests for Kenton County,
Kentucky.  (See Enclosure 3 of TSD).  While EPA did concur with this
exceptional events request and thus the Kenton monitor is not shown as
violating based on 2005-2007 monitoring data, EPA is designating Kenton
County, KY and Warren County, OH as part of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
nonattainment area because these counties have been shown through
EPA’s analysis as contributing to the violations in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area.  This conclusion is further supported by the
conclusion that was reached for this same area when EPA finalized the
nonattainment designation for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area in 2005 for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.   The Cincinnati-Hamilton area
(consisting of the same boundaries as outlined in the designations for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard) is still in violation of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.  Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal
RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for the State of Ohio.
 The commenter requests that EPA designate Butler, Clermont, Hamilton,
Knox and Warren counties as nonattainment.  These are the same counties
that EPA has proposed as candidates for a designation of nonattainment. 
The commenter cites negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its
contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the final determination that
Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, Knox and Warren Counties in Ohio should be
included in the nonattainment boundary for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
for the designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

One commenter (0137) supports EPA’s recommendations and requests that
EPA designate Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties in Kentucky as
nonattainment.  The commenter cites negative health impacts from PM2.5
and its contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the final determination that
Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties in Kentucky should be included in
the nonattainment boundary for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area for the
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  

3.9.  Clarksville, TN-KY

Comment:

One commenter (0137) supports EPA’s recommendations and requests that
EPA designate Muhlenberg County, KY, as nonattainment.  The commenter
cites negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to
regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the final determination that
a portion of Muhlenberg County, KY should be included in the
nonattainment boundary for the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area for the
designations for the 2006 revised daily PM2.5 standard.  While it was
announced in the August 19th letter from EPA to Governor Beshear, that
EPA was considering the entire county of Muhlenberg for nonattainment,
the Commonwealth of Kentucky has provided EPA with sufficient
information regarding the source of emissions in the county to justify a
partial boundary versus the entire county.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains the additional data and
EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

One commenter (0086) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designation that
Humphreys County, TN be designated nonattainment as a contributor to the
violating monitor in Montgomery County, TN.  The commenter believes that
EPA based the nonattainment designation solely on presence of a power
plant and believes this is inappropriate under the criteria set forth in
section 107(d) of the CAA.  The commenter believes that EPA’s approach
to designations fails to articulate a technical basis for each
designation.  The commenter cites the factors used in the CAIR rule for
determining contribution, and implies that the same approach should be
used for purposes of designations.  The commenter believes that
Humphreys County should be in attainment since no monitor shows a
violation and the county is not contiguous to Clarksville MSA.  The
commenter believes that EPA improperly evaluated its own 9-factor
analysis and that, at a minimum, the nonattainment area can be narrowed
to the census block(s) encompassing the power plant, if it remains the
cause of EPA’s concern.  The commenter generally endorses the comments
submitted by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in response to EPA’s
proposed determination with respect to designating a partial county in
the Clarksville KY-TN nonattainment area.  

EPA Response:

EPA has evaluated additional information obtained after the announcement
of EPA’s initial intended recommendations as outlined in the August
19, 2008 letter from EPA to Governor Bredesen regarding designations for
the 2006 PM2.5 standard.  The review of this additional information
provides EPA with sufficient information to justify a partial county
boundary for Humphreys County as recommended by this commenter.

Further, EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern with the
consideration of emissions due to the power plant and also acknowledges
the commenter’s concern with the use of the factors as outlined in
EPA’s June 08, 2008 boundary guidance versus factors used in the CAIR.
  EPA believes that it is most appropriate to use the recommended nine
factors that States and EPA would take into consideration, in addition
to other relevant factors or circumstances specific to a particular
area, in determining appropriate nonattainment area boundaries and would
also note that the CAIR was recently vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court.
EPA does not believe that modeling is required by section 107(d), or
necessary to make a determination for nonattainment area boundaries. 
EPA use relevant information such as monitoring data, emissions data,
meteorological data, and other relevant information to make the
determination on boundaries.  Please see responses in section 2.2 above
relating to inclusion of non-contiguous counties including power plant
sources, relevance of litigation on prior designations, and relevance of
modeling done to support CAIR.  In addition, please see the TSD for this
area which outlines the technical determination that based on the size
of the contributing sources, location in relation to the violating
monitors, meteorology, and lack of other sources, population or
commuting within the county, EPA concluded that the partial county only
was appropriate for inclusion within the nonattainment area. 

With regard to the commenter’s statement that Humphreys County should
not be designated nonattainment because the county does not have a
violating monitor and is not contiguous to the Clarksville MSA, EPA
notes that the Act requires that EPA consider areas that contribute to
violations in addition to areas that have violating monitors.  EPA
determined that the emissions from an identified power plant in
Humphreys County were contributing to the violations in a nearby area. 
In this case, EPA’s assessment identified that source as the most
significant emissions source in the area (i.e., little or no mobile
source or other human activity-based emissions), and EPA concluded that
it was appropriate to designate as nonattainment only the portion of the
county where the source is located, even if that portion is not
contiguous with the remainder of the nonattainment area.  EPA selected
the boundaries for this noncontiguous portion of the nonattainment area
by relying on legally recognized governmental boundaries (e.g.,
townships, tax districts, or census blocks) in which the source is
located.  EPA’s 2006 PM2.5 designation boundary guidance states that
the criteria for determining appropriate boundaries is to be made on a
case-by-case basis, considering the recommended nine factors in addition
to other relevant factors or circumstances specific to a particular
area.  

EPA recognizes that many areas in the country are making improvements in
their air quality, and believes that it is important to recognize such
improvements.  In making decisions about whether an area is meeting the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA also believes that it is important to use the
most recent air quality data.  EPA will be unable to use 2008 data air
quality data for the designation decisions that will be made in December
2008 as that data will not be available at that time.  However, all
States will still have the opportunity to benefit from their efforts to
improve air quality by using 2008 air quality data to demonstrate
attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Please see section 2.3 regarding
the submission of 2008 data.

Comment:

Factor 1 - The commenter (0086) believes that the CES does not represent
emissions of Humphreys County.  The commenter provides additional
information on the emissions after 2005 in the county.

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes that the distance weighting factor used in the CES
affects an individual county’s score.  However, the difference between
the weighting factor associated with a distance of 39 miles versus 50
miles is only 0.005, which is too small to make a substantial difference
in the contribution from Humphrey’s County.  Even though the commenter
recalculated the Humphreys County CES to be 84, that value is still high
relative to the other CES values of the surrounding counties to warrant
considering its inclusion in a nonattainment area boundary for
Clarksville.  

Comment:

Factor 2 - The commenter (0086) believes that if the most recent data
from 2008 is used, the violating monitor is likely to be in compliance;

Factor 6 – The commenter cites there were only two high days according
to EPA’s pollution rose and on those days the average wind speed is
very low, indicative of days.  The commenter states that Davidson County
has higher VOC, NOX, NH3 and carbon emissions and is closer to the
violating monitor.  The commenter provided additional information;

Factor 8 – Humphreys County is not in the MSA; and

Factor 9 – The commenter provides additional information on the
controls in the county.

EPA Response:

EPA considered the individual facts and circumstances in the Clarksville
nonattainment area in determining whether to include a county or part of
a county as contributing to a particular nonattainment problem.  Neither
the CAA nor EPA’s designations guidance establishes thresholds for
determining the designations status of an area.  For example, the
guidance does not identify a set amount of a pollutant, or a specific
level of commuting between counties, that would automatically require a
county or part of a county to be included in a nonattainment area.

EPA acknowledges the commenters concern with EPA’s use of the CES, the
contribution based on meteorology and the commenter’s attempt to make
a direct comparison of emissions for this area and Davidson County. As
EPA conducted its analysis, Davidson County was considered but a
determination was made that this county is not contributing to
violations in Montgomery County.  Further, after review and
consideration of all pertinent information as described in the TSD for
this area, EPA has made the determination that only a portion of
Humphreys County should be included in the Clarksville nonattainment
area.   It is important to note that EPA makes a case-by-case
determination in considering the nine factors.   Based on the emissions
from Humphreys County, location in relation to the violating monitor,
and meteorology, EPA concluded that the stationary source emissions did
contribute to the violating monitor even with consideration of current
controls.   Not every factor was relevant in each area (e.g., in many
eastern locations topography is not an issue), nor was every factor
equally important to each area.   Due to the complex and variable nature
of PM2.5, the important factors varied from one area to another based on
local circumstances.  While Humphreys County is not within the MSA, EPA
has made a determination that it is contributing to the violations for
the Montgomery County monitor.  EPA has included non-MSA counties as
part of other nonattainment areas when a determination has been made
that these counties, or a portion thereof, are contributing to a
violation.  See section 2.2 above fro general responses on 2008 data,
MSA boundaries, and consideration of emissions controls.

Comment:

One of commenters (0128) disagrees with EPA’s proposed designation for
Muhlenberg County, KY as nonattainment.  The commenter does not believe
that Muhlenberg County, KY is contributing to the violating monitor in
Montgomery County, TN.  The commenter believes that Tennessee should be
given additional time to address a Clarksville violation, referring to
the State’s letter.  The commenter believes the CES was incorrectly
applied for Muhlenberg County because the score is 100 and the commenter
believes that Muhlenberg does not contribute 100 percent of the excess
urban PM2.5 emission in Clarksville, TN.  The comment believes that it
is improper for the EPA to use the CES because there was no public
notice and comment period prior to using the metric.  The commenter
noted that Muhlenberg is not contiguous and is separated by Montgomery
County which shows attainment.  The commenter states that factors 1 and
9 are flawed because EPA does not consider controls.  The commenter
believes that EPA’s proposal is based on MSA boundaries.  The
commenter notes pending litigation challenging EPA’s 1997 PM2.5
designations (e.g., nonattainment designation of isolated areas that
show attainment because they contain power plants).

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the application of
the 9-factor analysis and how it applies to the designation decision was
inappropriate.  The technical support document in association with the
designation rulemaking clearly articulates EPA’s analysis of each
factor in relation to this area.  EPA has evaluated additional
information obtained after the announcement of EPA’s initial intended
recommendations as outlined in the August 19, 2008 letter from EPA to
Governor Beshear and Governor Bresdsen regarding designations for the
2006 PM2.5 standard.   The review of this additional information
provides EPA with sufficient information to justify a partial county
boundary for Muhlenberg County as recommended by this commenter.   EPA
believes it has sufficient data to make a designation for this area and
thus can not delay the designation.

Further, EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern with the
consideration of emissions due to the power plant and also acknowledges
the commenter’s concern with the use of the recommended factors as
outlined in EPA’s June 08, 2008 guidance.  Power plant emissions in
this area account for a large amount of the emissions in this area.  EPA
used the nine factors to make a determination on whether this area is
contributing to the violation in Montgomery County.  EPA believes that
it is most appropriate to use the recommended nine factors that States
and EPA would take into consideration, in addition to other relevant
factors or circumstances specific to a particular area, in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.   

With regard to the commenter’s statement that Muhlenberg County should
not be designated nonattainment because the commenter believes that
Muhlenberg is not contributing to monitored violations in the
Clarksville nonattainment area, EPA notes that the Act requires that EPA
consider areas that contribute violations in addition to areas that have
violating monitors.  EPA determined that the emissions from an
identified power plant in Muhlenberg County were contributing to the
violations in a nearby area.  In making this determination EPA did
consider controls currently in place at this facility.  In this case,
EPA’s assessment identified that source as the most significant
emissions source in the area (i.e., little or no mobile source or other
human activity-based emissions) and thus concluded that it was
appropriate to designate as nonattainment only the portion of the county
where the source is located, even if that portion is not contiguous with
the remainder of the nonattainment area.  EPA selected the boundaries
for this noncontiguous portion of the nonattainment area by relying on
legally recognized governmental boundaries (e.g., townships, tax
districts, or census blocks) in which the source is located.  EPA’s
2006 PM2.5 Designation Boundary Guidance states that the criteria for
determining appropriate boundaries is to be made on a case-by-case
basis, considering the recommended nine factors in addition to other
relevant factors or circumstances specific to a particular area.  Please
refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which explains
EPA’s decisions.

The commenter is mistaken about the interpretation of the CES.  The CES
TSD states the total score a county receives is normalized to the
highest scoring county.  This means that a particular county’s score
is relative to the score from the county with the largest contribution. 
So a county with a score of 100 means that county had the highest
contribution on the violating county, while a county with a score of 34
means that particular county’s contribution was 34 percent of the
contribution belonging to the county with the score of 100.  The CES
does not in any way attempt to quantify the total contribution to the
violating monitor across all counties, or indicate that the county with
a score of 100 is contributing all of the pollution in a given
nonattainment area.  Rather, it attempts to quantify the contribution
any one county has on the violating county based on the largest
contribution across all of the counties. Muhlenberg’s score of 100
clearly supports the inclusion within the nonattainment area in
conjunction with other information. 

Comment:

Another commenter (0164) believes the CES was incorrectly applied in the
instance of determining nonattainment for Muhlenberg County. 
Specifically the commenter notes the following:

Emissions data from the 2005 NEI referenced by EPA are not
representative of current emissions from Muhlenberg County;

Insufficient information is provided by EPA to review the wind
trajectory weighting factor in the CES equation; and

The centroid method for determining distance in CES equation is not
appropriate because the location of primary emission sources and taller
stacks at large distances.

EPA Response:

With respect to the concern about accuracy of the 2005 NEI emissions
inventory, EPA invited States to provide supplemental information to the
Agency if it would indicate significant changes in emissions since 2005,
and where submitted EPA took such information into consideration for the
final designations decisions.

EPA believes that the pollution roses it provided illustrate the pattern
of contribution to ambient high PM2.5 concentration days in this area. 
The trajectories that the State of Kentucky submitted have limitations
in their interpretation.  First, all of the trajectories are backward
trajectories that start on the sixth hour of the day following the day
with the exceedance.  This can lead to misleading results since the air
impacting the violating site arrives at the site during the day of the
exceedance not following it.  Thus, air patterns on the day of the
exceedance can be very different than those seen even six hours after
the 24-hour exceedance is captured.  Another issue with Kentucky’s
trajectory analysis is that only State boundaries are plotted to orient
the viewer as to where the trajectory paths are traversing over.  There
are no county boundaries to give a good indication of whether or not the
trajectories are over or near Muhlenberg County.  

EPA relied on more than surface wind patterns in assessing the
contribution of Muhlenberg County on Clarksville, TN.  HYSPLIT back
trajectories were used to determine which counties’ air parcels were
passing through on their way to the violating monitor.  Those
trajectories played an essential role in the calculation of the CES. 
EPA used several trajectories that started from four heights at three
hour intervals on the day of the exceedance.  All start heights were at
or below the mixing height.  The commenter has questioned the
methodology of how EPA calculated the mixing heights.  The mixing
heights were calculated directly through the HYSPLIT model at the
initial starting time and then at each point the model outputted along
the trajectory path.  EPA also plotted the trajectories from days where
the PM2.5 concentrations were greater than the 98th percentile to see
where the air parcels were traversing on their way to the violating
monitor.  On several of those days, air passes over Muhlenberg County on
its way to the violating monitor in Clarksville, TN.  In fact, the days
when air passed over Muhlenberg County from 2005-2007, the Clarksville
monitor measured higher concentrations than when the winds were from the
south.

Although the Brode memo concluded that a 1/D1.5 weighting factor is
appropriate for low-level sources and for all source types for long-term
averages, the results appeared to support using the 1/D screening
technique as a conservative approach to screening out sources.  Since
the CES is foremost a screening tool to provide an initial set of
counties to be assessed for inclusion in a nonattainment area, the use
of 1/D to conservatively filter out counties appearing to contribute to
the violation is appropriate for the general application of the CES
across the entire country.  Information specific to an individual area
would then have been used to further refine which counties would remain
within a nonattainment area’s boundaries.

With respect to the commenter’s concerns about the “centroid”
approach EPA adopted in the CES methodology, EPA has explained the basis
for this approach in the TSD for the CES.

Comment:

The commenter (0164) also believes that the TSD does not support the
inclusion of Muhlenberg County.  The commenter believes the monitor
placement is flawed.  The commenter states that monitor #47-125-1009 is
sited in an area that could result in elevated air contamination due to
localized influences, and thus concentrations at this monitor would not
be representative of the wider region.  

EPA Response:

EPA conducted a site evaluation on the Clarksville monitor on July 9 -
10, 2008 and concluded that the site meets siting criteria of 40 CFR 58
Appendix E.  A second PM2.5 monitoring site has been established in
order to verify the accuracy of data collected at the initial site and
to identify any potential local influence.

Comment:

One commenter (0164) specifically notes the following:

Factor 1 – The commenter believes the CES is inappropriate because
controls were installed at one of the power plants in the county in 2006
and the data used to calculate the CES is from 2005;

Factor 2 – There is no PM2.5 ambient monitor in Muhlenberg County and
thus no violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS have been shown.  Moreover, the
monitor located between Muhlenberg County and Clarksville, TN shows
compliance;

Factor 3 – The commenter believes this factor does not support
including Muhlenberg County in the designation;

Factor 4 – The commenter believes this factor does not support
including Muhlenberg County in the designation;

Factor 5 – The commenter believes this factor does not support
including Muhlenberg County in the designation;

Factor 6 – The commenter suggests that EPA should re-evaluate the use
of only surface meteorological wind speeds and directions and consider
back trajectories at all atmospheric levels to determine whether or not
Muhlenberg County emissions are truly in the mixed boundary layer
arriving in Montgomery County.  The commenter cited back trajectories
submitted by Kentucky; and

Factor 8 – The commenter believes this factor does not support
including Muhlenberg County in the designation because Muhlenberg County
is not included in the Clarksville MSA.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the application of
the 9-factor analysis (including the CES, see response above) and how it
applies to the designation decision was inappropriate.  The TSD in
association with the designation rulemaking clearly articulates EPA’s
analysis of each factor in relation to this area.  The Act specifically
prescribes that EPA designate any area that does not meet the standard
or that contributes to an area’s inability to meet the standard for a
newly established or revised standard.  EPA has made the determination
as described in the TSD (through its analysis and the information
provided by the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of Tennessee)
that a portion of Muhlenberg County is contributing to the violations at
the Montgomery County monitor.  Further, EPA acknowledges that updated
information on controls for Muhlenberg County became available and has
considered this updated information for designation purposes for this
area.  It is important to note that air quality data and level of
emissions (not necessarily level of controls) are important
considerations for whether an area is violating or contributing to a
violation.  EPA concludes, as explained in the TSD, that even with
additional controls on the facility in Muhlenberg the plant is still
contributing to the monitored violations.  EPA’s approach of including
non-MSA, noncontiguous partial counties to capture sources that
contribute emissions to a downwind area which has violations is
consistent with the approach used for the nonattainment designations for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.  In this case, EPA’s assessment
identified that source as the most significant emissions source in the
area (i.e., little or no mobile source or other human activity-based
emissions), and thus concluded that it was appropriate to designate as
nonattainment only the portion of the county where the source is
located, even if that portion is not contiguous with the remainder of
the nonattainment area.  

3.10.  Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for the State of Ohio.
 The commenter requests that EPA designate Ashtabula (partial),
Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit Counties as
nonattainment.  These are the same counties that EPA has proposed as
candidates for a designation of nonattainment.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional
haze.

EPA Response:

Ohio supplied additional information on a power plant in Ashtabula
County.  The facility has permanently shut down most of its operations
resulting in large decrease in emissions.  Ohio has shown that the
facility cannot increase emissions without obtaining a new permit.  EPA
initially recommended designating a partial county area of Ashtabula
County as nonattainment because its emissions contributed to the
violations in the Cleveland area.  Based on the new data, EPA concludes
that the county has lowered emissions to such an extent that the area no
longer can be considered contributing to the monitored violations. 
Thus, EPA is designating all of Ashtabula County as
unclassifiable/attainment because of the emission reductions.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.11.  Columbus, OH

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for the State of Ohio.
 The commenter requests that EPA designate Coshocton (partial),
Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin and Licking Counties as nonattainment. 
These are the same counties that EPA has proposed as candidates for a
designation of nonattainment.  The commenter cites negative health
impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges the supporting comment and made the final designations
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using an evaluation of the recommended
nine factors described in the June 2007 guidance as well as other
relevant information in determining appropriate nonattainment area
boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC
document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.12.  Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL

Comment:

One commenter (0171) supports EPA’s recommendations for all of Scott
County, IA, and Rock Island County, IL, to be designated as
nonattainment.  The commenter states that high background concentrations
of fine particulate matter indicate sources outside the cities of
Muscatine and Davenport are the sources are contributing to the fine
particulate matter concentrations recorded.

EPA Response:

EPA recommended designating the whole county of Scott County as
nonattainment due to monitored violations and an initial review of the
9-factor analysis.  In October 2008, Iowa provided additional
information on the area in response to EPA’s 120-day letter.  Based on
an analysis of the data provided by the State, in conjunction with the
9-factor analysis, EPA determined that it could not support the
State’s recommended boundary, but that a partial county designation
was appropriate.  

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer the TSD and the
State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

Please refer to the TSD for long range transport discussion.

Comment:

One commenter (0100) supports EPA’s recommendation and requests that
EPA designate Rock Island County, IL, as nonattainment.  The commenter
cites negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to
regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA recommended designating the whole county of Rock Island County as
nonattainment due to its contributions in Scott County, Iowa and an
initial review of the 9-factor analysis. In October 2008, Illinois and
Iowa provided additional information on this bi-state area in response
to EPA’s 120-day letters.  Based on a analysis of the data provided by
the States, in conjunction with the 9-factor analysis, EPA determined
that it could not support the State’s recommendation to exclude Rock
Island County from the designation, but that a partial county
designation was appropriate.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

One commenter (0091) agrees with EPA’s recommendations for the
proposed Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and for including Rock Island
and Scott Counties based on measured nonattainment with the standard
within that combined urbanized area.  

EPA Response:

EPA recommended designating the whole county of Rock Island County, IL
and Scott County, IA as nonattainment due monitored violations,
contributions to those monitored violations, and an initial review of
the 9-factor analysis. In October 2008, Illinois and Iowa provided
additional information on this bi-state area in response to EPA’s
120-day letters.  Based on an analysis of the data provided by the
States, in conjunction with the 9-factor analysis, EPA determined that
it could not support the State’s recommendation to exclude Rock Island
County from the designation, or designate a very small portion of Scott
County, but that a partial county designations for both counties was
appropriate.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer the TSDs and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explain EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

One commenter (0142) disagrees with EPA’s designations.  The commenter
requests that Rock Island County, IL, be designated as attainment.  The
commenter requests a 1-year delay from the EPA for the designation of
Scott County, IA.  

EPA Response:

EPA noted that there was sufficient monitoring data to designate the
violating area as nonattainment, and a 1-year extension to obtain
additional monitoring information is not justified.  EPA must designate
an area as nonattainment if the area is monitoring, or contributing to,
a violation of the standard based on the most recent three years of
monitoring data. There is sufficient monitoring data available to make
the designation.   

Comment:

One commenter (0142) cites the following issues with the technical
analysis:

Factor 1 – The commenter believes EPA’s Regions 5 and 7 do not
provide criteria (i.e., the CES) that concludes to Rock Island
contributing to Scott County.  The commenter cites that the 2005
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Rock County are higher that the
values published by the Illinois EPA.

EPA Response:

There is no specific level or value of the CES that determines whether
or not a county contributes enough to a PM problem at a violating
monitor.  Rather, the CES provides an indication of the magnitude of a
county’s contribution in relation to the county with the largest
contribution.  Any county with a CES larger than zero can be viewed as
contributing something to the violation.  However, the information from
the CES needs to be used in conjunction with data from other sources
such as the nine factors recommended in EPA guidance to fully consider a
range of factors that could possibly be contributing to the violation. 

The CES suggests that Rock Island County contributes about 27 percent of
the contribution that Scott County contributes to the violation.  The
quantities of emissions for individual particulate matter-related
pollutants present a similar perspective.  For two examples, for SO2,
Rock Island County versus Scott County estimated emissions are 2,169
versus 9,173 tons per year, or 24 percent, and for NOx, Rock Island
County versus Scott County estimated emissions are 6,140 versus 11,317
tons per year, or 54 percent.  Examination of trajectory information
also suggests that emissions in various parts of Rock Island County
contribute to the violation in Davenport with a very similar frequency
as do the emissions in various parts of Scott County.  EPA considers
these indicators of impact from Rock Island County to signify
sufficiently large impact to conclude that Rock Island County
contributes to violations in Scott County. 

EPA utilized 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data in its
technical analysis.  EPA used the NEI because it is the most recent
quality assured data maintenance system available nationally.  The EPA
promulgated nonattainment area boundary (Rock Island County and Scott
County) captures 98 percent of the total SO2 emissions, 91 percent of
the total NOX emissions and 63 percent of the total PM2.5 emissions.

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenter (0142) believes that the background 24-hour
PM2.5 value for the state is approximately 30 μg/m3.  This is the same
value measured in Rock Island County.  This conclusion is supported by
the monitoring data which shows that the two other monitoring sites in
Scott County report very similar air quality results as the Rock Island
monitor.  These values are at or near the typical regional background
level.

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

The monitored values at the Rock Island County monitor and some of the
Scott County monitors show values consistent with other monitors in
Illinois.  The commenter seems to attribute the Scott County violation
solely to emissions from local sources.  EPA feels that emissions from
throughout the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline area also contribute to the
Scott County violation.  Local sources may add the “last increment”
to cause the Scott County violation, but they are not responsible for
the entire concentration.  Source throughout the area also contribute to
the violations.  It is not surprising that monitors in other moderately
sized Illinois areas show similar concentrations to the Rock Island
County value.  These are areas would likely have similar emissions and
thus add a similar urban increment to the regional background
concentration.        

Comment:

The commenter (0142) cites that Iowa DNR modeling demonstrates that the
nonattainment site in Scott County is significantly influenced by local
sources.

EPA Response:

As stated previously, nonattainment area designations are to include the
area in violation and areas shown to contribute to the violation. 
Although modeling data provided by the state demonstrates that the two
named local sources influence the violation at the 300 Wellman monitor,
the modeling did not demonstrate that other point sources in the
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area do not contribute to the violation as
well.  For the reasons detailed in the TSDs for the
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA has determined that
other point sources in the area contribute to violations of the NAAQS. 
Thus, EPA is establishing a nonattainment area boundary to include these
sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and Illinois which address
these issues in greater detail.

Comment:

Factors 4, 6 and 8 – The commenter ( 0142) cites EPA’s statement
from the Technical Support Document stating, “Population data give an
indication of whether it is likely that population-based emissions might
contribute to violations” and believes EPA did not provide any
additional analysis.

EPA Response: 

The urbanized portions of Scott and Rock Island counties are
geographically located close to each other, i.e. the area is commonly
known as the Quad Cities area.  The Quad Cities area of Iowa includes
the cities of Davenport and Bettendorf on the Iowa side, and Moline and
Rock Island on the Illinois side.  The populations in the counties
evaluated are predominantly concentrated in the urbanized portions of
the counties in near proximity to the 300 Wellman monitor.  The EPA
designated nonattainment area is focused primarily on the urbanized area
of Scott County, and captures approximately 89 percent of the county
population.

Rural Scott County, which comprises a relatively small portion of the
county’s population, is associated with relatively low
population-based area source emissions and potential contribution to the
violating monitor.  Similarly, the near proximity of the urbanized
population in Rock Island County to the violating monitor can indicate
potential to contribute to the violating monitor.  This supports a
boundary that is focused on the urbanized portions of Scott County and
Rock Island County that includes about 89 percent of the population of
both counties. 

There are emissions associated people such as emissions from cars, both
for commuting and local trips, and houses.  Population and population
density are logically good indicators of these emissions.

Comment:

Factors 4, 6 and 8 – The commenter (0142) believes EPA did not explain
how these factors impact the monitored violations.  

EPA Response:

In regards to vehicle miles traveled, the metropolitan area is the most
heavily vehicle-traversed part of the county.  As such, it is reasonable
to include the contiguous metropolitan area in the nonattainment
boundary.  The traffic and commuting data evaluated under Factor 4 are
also indicative of the vehicle related emissions and their distribution.

In evaluating the meteorology factor, the wind rose (refer to the Iowa
TSD) indicates that winds most frequently occur from a generally
southerly direction, from the southwest to the southeast, on high PM2.5
days.  This suggests relatively low contributions from areas located to
the west, north, and east of the monitor, including Clinton County,
northern portions of Rock Island County, and the most northerly portions
of Muscatine County.  EPA’s nonattainment boundary includes potential
emissions sources located upwind to the southwest, south, and southeast
of the violating monitor. 

In evaluating the jurisdictional boundary factor, consideration was
given to existing boundaries and organizations that may facilitate air
quality planning and the implementation of control measures to attain
the standard.  There was a review of the information regarding the
Bi-State Regional Commission which represents the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for urbanized area transportation planning in the
Quad Cities area.  The MPO serves Henry, Mercer, and Rock Island
Counties in Illinois, and Scott and Muscatine Counties in Iowa.  Its web
site is:   HYPERLINK "http://www.bistateonline.org" 
www.bistateonline.org .  However, the Bi-State planning area itself was
not a key factor in determining the intended nonattainment boundary;
other factors pointed to a more localized nonattainment area boundary.

Comment:

Factor 9 – The commenter (0142) believes that Region 7 appropriately
considers emission reductions in Clinton County but not in Rock Island.

EPA Response:

Illinois did not provide information on control of sources in Rock
Island County.  So, EPA assumes that the emission estimates in the 2005
inventory reasonably represent current emissions.  If sources in Rock
Island County had added additional controls or other emission reductions
that would have lowered emissions from the 2005 levels, EPA would have
considered this.  Since this was not the case for Rock Island County,
the emissions considered in Factor 1 were accurate.     

Comment:

One commenter (0083) requests that EPA designate a partial county
boundary for Scott County, Iowa, that is within the borders of the city
of Davenport, as nonattainment.  The commenter cites the technical
analysis from Iowa DNR that points to a point source nearby the
violating monitor as justification for the nonattainment boundaries.

EPA Response:

EPA conducted a case-by-case analysis of the violating areas based on
the information provided to it by the State and other relevant
information.  EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as
well as the area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent
to the State noted that the data the State provided did not support very
small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a lack of
contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it demonstrate that
only the sources in immediate proximity to the violating monitors
contributed to violations.  As this information was not provided to the
EPA, its case-by-case review resulted in a decision to notify the State
of its intent to include county-wide areas in the nonattainment area
boundaries. Since that time the State responded to EPA’s 120-day
letter and submitted more data for review.  However, this data also did
not demonstrate that no other sources in the area were contributing to
the violation, nor did it demonstrate an overwhelming contribution
solely from the point sources nearest to the violating monitors.  On the
contrary it showed a considerable contribution (almost 50 percent of the
total filter mass) of secondary formation attributable to emissions
transported from a longer range in addition to a smaller contribution of
secondary formation from local point source emissions.  The State’s
technical response to EPA’s 120-day letter did not support as narrow a
boundary as recommended by the State.  EPA concluded that a larger
partial county designation, inclusive of the townships of the major
metropolitan areas includes the violating area and the nearby
contributing areas.  Refer to EPA’s response above concerning the
nature of the monitors.

Comment:

The commenter (0083) asserts that the violating monitoring sites are not
representative of ambient air quality throughout the county as the
violating monitors are source-oriented monitors and that “all
information” indicates that the air quality violations are limited to
the immediate areas around Blackhawk Foundry and Grain Processing
Corporation.  The commenter states that emissions from the entire
three-county area have not been shown to contribute to the monitored
violations and that the nonattainment area should not exceed the
“representative scale” of the two monitors. 

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

Nonattainment area designations are to include the area in violation and
areas shown to contribute to the violation.  Although modeling data
provided by the state demonstrates that the two named local sources
influence the violation at the monitors, the modeling did not
demonstrate that other point sources in the Quad Cities area do not
contribute to the violation as well.  For the reasons detailed in the
TSDs for the Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA has
determined that other point sources in the area contribute to violations
of the NAAQS.  Thus, EPA is establishing a nonattainment area boundary
to include these sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and Illinois
which address these issues in greater detail.

Comment:

The commenter (0083) suggests that EPA should not designate entire
counties as nonattainment, but should take into consideration efforts of
the two named point sources to negotiate, with the State,
“voluntary” control strategies. 

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes the efforts by the state and the stakeholders to achieve
emissions reductions as soon as possible.  EPA also encourages both
states to continue efforts to assist the community in implementing
voluntary measures.  

However, under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, in designating
nonattainment areas, EPA must designate, as nonattainment, areas that
are violating a NAAQS and areas that are contributing to the violations.
 This requirement does not authorize EPA to rely on the ongoing efforts
to develop further control strategies in determining nonattainment
boundaries.  EPA’s decision must be based on the statutory
requirements, and EPA’s promulgation of the nonattainment designations
for these areas, as described in detail in the TSDs, meets the statutory
requirements.

We also note that the state’s submission includes a “mitigation
plan” submitted by Blackhawk Foundry.  The plan states that the
company’s intended control strategy, when fully implemented, “will
significantly reduce PM2.5 concentrations”.  However, the document
also concludes that, after implementation of the “preferred
alternatives” identified in the company’s control strategy, the
“combination of the predicted concentration” from the foundry, and
the background concentration, “could result in a predicted exceedance
of the PM2.5 NAAQS”.  (“PM2.5 Emissions Mitigation Plan”, Oct. 10,
2008, at p. 3.)  This uncertainty provides additional justification for
establishing a boundary to ensure that emissions from other nearby
sources in the area are considered in developing the attainment
demonstration control strategies for these two areas.

Comment:

One commenter (0063/0067) disagrees with EPA’s designations.  The
commenter requests that Rock Island County, IL, be designated as
attainment.  The commenter believes that only a portion of Scott County,
IA should be designated as nonattainment.  The commenter cited the
following issues with the technical analysis:

Rock Island, IL, Scott County IA (Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL)

Factor 1 – The commenter believes EPA gave inappropriate and
distortional weight to the CES.  The commenter believes EPA’s Regions
5 and 7 do not provide criteria (i.e., the CES) that concludes to Rock
Island contributing to Scott County.  The commenter cites that the 2005
NEI for Rock County are higher that the values published by the Illinois
EPA.

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes that the CES is one analytical tool used in the process
of determining nonattainment area boundaries and should not be
considered as the sole factor for EPA’s conclusions.  The CES is a
tool to provide an initial set of potential counties contributing to a
violation in an area.  Those counties were then further examined using
the nine factors and other information from the State and local air
agencies to determine the strength an validity of the evidence for
keeping or dropping counties from the initial set.  

EPA is designating the partial county nonattainment area in Rock Island
and Scott Counties for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard after considering
each of the nine factors, as detailed in the TSD.  For this decision the
EPA relied most heavily on emissions, air quality, meteorology, and
population.  The additional modeling data provided evidence that was
used to determine that a majority of emissions from nearby sources that
cause or contribute to the violation should be included in the
nonattainment area.  EPA determined that inclusion of the local point
source PM2.5 emissions is a highly significant consideration in
establishing the nonattainment boundaries.  For Scott County, the
boundary includes all of the local point sources.  The EPA defined
nonattainment includes the area violating the standard and the area that
is contributing significantly to the violation. The partial county areas
of Rock Island and Scott Counties fulfill this definition.

Comment:

 μg/m3.  The commenter cites that Iowa DNR modeling demonstrates that
the nonattainment site in Scott County is significantly influenced by
local sources and the monitor is designated as a SPM. 

EPA Response:

As stated previously nonattainment area designations are to include the
area in violation and areas shown to contribute to the violation. 
Although modeling data provided by the state demonstrates that the two
named local sources influence the violation at the monitor, the modeling
did not demonstrate that other sources in the Davenport-Moline-Rock
Island area do not contribute to the violation as well.  For the reasons
detailed in the TSDs for the Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and
Muscatine, EPA has determined that other sources in the area contribute
to violations of the NAAQS.  Thus, EPA is establishing a nonattainment
area boundary to include these sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa
and Illinois which address these issues in greater detail.

Comment:

Factors 4 and 6 – The commenter (0063/0067) believes EPA did not
explain how these factors impact the monitored violations.

EPA Response:

In regards to vehicle miles traveled, the metropolitan area is the most
heavily vehicle-traversed part of the county.  As such, it is reasonable
to include the contiguous metropolitan area in the nonattainment
boundary.  In evaluating the meteorology factor, the wind rose (refer to
the Iowa TSD) indicates that winds most frequently occur from a
generally southerly direction, from the southwest to the southeast, on
high PM2.5 days.  This suggests relatively low contributions from areas
located to the west, north, and east of the monitor, including Clinton
County, northern portions of Rock Island County, and the most northerly
portions of Muscatine County.  EPA’s nonattainment boundary includes
potential emissions sources located upwind to the southwest, south, and
southeast of the violating monitor.

EPA determined nonattainment area includes sufficient portions of Rock
Island County in Illinois to represent the predominance of population
and emissions.  EPA believes that sufficient commuting occurs between
Rock Island County and Scott County that Rock Island County must be
considered an integral part of the Davenport area.

Comment:

One commenter (0070) suggests that the EPA recommended entire county
nonattainment area designation for Scott County, IA be reduced to a “3
square mile area adjacent to the foundry”.  The commenter believes
that a whole county designation is unjust for the citizens and
businesses of Scott County, IA.  

EPA Response:

EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as well as the
area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent to the
State noted that the technical support data it provided did not support
very small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a
lack of contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it
demonstrate that only the sources in immediate proximity to the
violating monitors contributed to violations.  As this information was
not provided to the EPA, its case-by-case review resulted in a decision
to notify the State of its intent to include county-wide areas in the
nonattainment area boundaries. Since that time the State responded to
EPA’s 120-day letter and submitted more data for review.  However,
this data also did not demonstrate that no other sources in the area
were contributing to the violation, nor did it demonstrate an
overwhelming contribution directly from the point sources nearest to the
violating monitors.  On the contrary it showed a considerable
contribution (almost 50 percent of the total filter mass) of secondary
formation attributable to emissions transported from a longer range in
addition to a smaller contribution of secondary formation from local
point source emissions.  The State’s technical response to EPA’s
120-day letter did not support as narrow a boundary as recommended by
the State.  EPA concluded that larger partial county designations,
inclusive of the townships of the major metropolitan area will protect
public health and allow the State greater flexibility in establishing
its attainment demonstration.  With respect to impacts on county
residents and businesses, the State has flexibility under the CAA to
consider such impacts as it develops the control strategy to bring the
area into attainment of the air quality standard.  

Comment:

One commenter (0079) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designations. 
The commenter requests a one-year extension of the designation of Scott
County, IA and Rock County, IL. 

EPA Response: 

EPA notes that there was sufficient monitoring data to designate the
violating area as nonattainment, and a one-year extension to obtain
additional monitoring information is not justified.  EPA is obligated to
designate an area as nonattainment if the area is monitoring a violation
of the standard based on the most recent three years of monitoring data.
There is sufficient monitoring data available to make the designation.

Comment:

The commenter (0079) believes that there is insufficient information
based on the dramatically different technical conclusions between Iowa
DNR and EPA based on similar technical data and that designation of a
county in a statistical metropolitan statistical area is not supported
by EPA’s guidance and claims that EPA is not applying the guidance in
designation of Scott County, IA, Rock County, IL. The commenter believes
that EPA did not follow proper procedures required by 107(d)(1)(A) by
using 2005-2007 data.  

EPA Response:

EPA did conduct a case-by-case analysis of the violating areas based on
the information provided to it by the State and other relevant
information.  EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as
well as the area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent
to the State noted that the data the State provided did not support very
small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a lack of
contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it demonstrate that
only the sources in immediate proximity to the violating monitors
contributed to violations.  As this information was not provided to the
EPA, its case-by-case review resulted in a decision to notify the State
of its intent to include county-wide areas in the nonattainment area
boundaries. Since that time the State responded to EPA’s 120-day
letter and submitted more data for review.  However, this data also did
not demonstrate that no other sources in the area were contributing to
the violation, nor did it demonstrate an overwhelming contribution
solely from the point sources nearest to the violating monitors.  On the
contrary it showed a considerable contribution (almost 50 percent of the
total filter mass) of secondary formation attributable to emissions
transported from a longer range in addition to a smaller contribution of
secondary formation from local point source emissions.  The State’s
technical response to EPA’s 120-day letter did not support as narrow a
boundary as recommended by the State.  EPA concluded that a larger
partial county designation, inclusive of the townships of the major
metropolitan areas includes the violating area and the nearby
contributing areas.  Refer to EPA’s response above concerning the
nature of the monitors.

Comment:

The commenter (0079) believes that the Blackhawk Foundry monitor is not
representative of the general air quality conditions. The commenter
references 40 CFR 58 to describe the special purpose monitor in Scott,
County. The commenter believes that the PM2.5 concentrations are
dominated by long range transport.

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

Nonattainment area designations are to include the area in violation and
areas that contribute to the violation.  Although modeling data provided
by the state demonstrates that the two named local sources influence the
violation at the monitor, the modeling did not demonstrate that other
sources in the Quad Cities area do not contribute to the violation as
well.  For the reasons detailed in the TSDs for the
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA has determined that
other sources in the area contribute to violations of the NAAQS.  Thus,
EPA is establishing a nonattainment area boundary to include these
sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and Illinois which address
these issues in greater detail.

Please refer to the Iowa TSD for long range transport discussion.

Comment:

One commenter (0152) disagrees with EPA’s designations.  The commenter
requests that Rock Island County, IL be designated as attainment.  The
commenter believes that only a portion of Scott County, IA should be
designated as nonattainment.  The commenter cited the following issues
with the technical analysis:

Factor 1 – The commenter believes EPA gave inappropriate and
distortional weight to the CES.  The commenter believes EPA’s Regions
5 and 7 do not provide criteria (CES) that concludes to Rock Island
contributing to Scott County.  The commenter cites that the 2005 NEI for
Rock County are higher that the values published by the Illinois EPA.

EPA Response:

EPA’s intent for creating the CES was to use it as an initial
screening tool to emphasize nearby counties to the violating site that
should be evaluated as candidates for possible inclusion in a
nonattainment area based on contribution to the violations in the area. 
Data from other sources including the factors proposed by EPA guidance
and State information provided through comment were considered for the
final boundary determination.  At no point in the process was any single
source of information used to be outcome-determinative nor was any
factor given more weight than another in making the final boundary
decisions.

Comment: 

Factor 2 – The commenter (0152) believes that the background 24-hour
PM2.5 value for the State is approximately 30 μg/m3.  The commenter
cites that Iowa DNR modeling demonstrates that the nonattainment site in
Scott County is significantly influenced by local sources and the
monitor is designated as a SPM.

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the 300
Wellman site is situated to assess the potential for source level
impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding several industrial facilities. 
The Adams School site is situated to assess population exposures in
direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The Jefferson School site (is also
situated for assessment of population exposure NAAQS compliance, but it
also incorporates chemical speciation and a continuous monitor to
establish a clearer picture of PM2.5 behavior in the Davenport area. 
Monitor network design is largely influenced by the data collection
priorities of each individual State.  Annual monitoring network plans
are submitted by each state and are reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA
establishes minimum monitoring network requirements in the code of
federal regulations, but States are allowed and encouraged to invest in
more thorough data collection systems.  Both of the violating monitors
are designated as eligible for comparison with the NAAQS consistent with
40 CFR Part 58.

As stated previously nonattainment area designations are to include the
area in violation and areas shown to contribute to the violation. 
Although modeling data provided by the state demonstrates that the two
named local sources influence the violation at the monitor, the modeling
did not demonstrate that other point sources in the Quad Cities area do
not contribute to the violation as well.  For the reasons detailed in
the TSDs for the Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA
has determined that other point sources in the area contribute to
violations of the NAAQS.  Thus, EPA is establishing a nonattainment area
boundary to include these sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and
Illinois which address these issues in greater detail.

Comment:

Factors 4 and 6 – The commenter (0152) believes EPA did not explain
how these factors impact the monitored violations.

EPA Response:

EPA determined nonattainment area includes sufficient portions of Rock
Island County in Illinois to represent the predominance of population
and emissions.  Rock Island County has moderate emissions that commonly
are blown toward the violating monitor in Scott County.  EPA believes
that sufficient commuting occurs between Rock Island County and Scott
County that Rock Island County must be considered an integral part of
the Davenport area.

  

Comment:

One commenter (0144) requests EPA to designate the Davenport, IA-IL area
as unclassifiable pending the completion of source apportionment
modeling and chemical filter analysis studies.

EPA Response:

EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as well as the
area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent to the
State noted that the technical support data it provided did not support
very small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a
lack of contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it
demonstrate that only the sources in immediate proximity to the
violating monitors contributed to violations.  As this demonstration was
not made, EPA’s case-by-case review resulted in a decision to notify
the State of its intent to include county-wide areas in the
nonattainment area boundaries. Since that time the State responded to
EPA’s 120-day letter and submitted more data for review.  However,
this data also did not demonstrate that no other sources in the area
were contributing to the violation, nor did it demonstrate an
overwhelming contribution directly from the point sources nearest to the
violating monitors.  On the contrary it showed a considerable
contribution (almost 50 percent of the total filter mass) of secondary
formation attributable to emissions transported from a longer range in
addition to a minor contribution of secondary formation from local point
source emissions.  The State’s technical response to EPA’s 120-day
letter did not support as narrow a boundary as recommended by the State.
 EPA concluded that larger partial county designations, inclusive of the
townships of the major metropolitan area will protect public health and
allow the State greater flexibility in establishing its attainment
demonstration.  Refer to EPA’s response above concerning the nature of
the monitors.  EPA only has authority to designate an area
“unclassifiable” if it lacks sufficient information to promulgate a
designation, and EPA does not lack information for this area. 

Comment:

The commenter (0144) suggests that EPA’s whole county recommendation
is not in line with previous designations for PM10.  The commenter cites
Buffalo, IA as a reference to its point and notes that two large point
sources were contributing the violation of PM10 standard and subsequent
consent orders “appear to have been a successful solution to the air
quality issues in that area”.  

EPA Response:

Prior designations for PM10 areas have little, if any, relevance for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.   PM10 and PM2.5 are different NAAQS, with different size
indicator particles, that behave differently in the atmosphere, and are
often caused by emissions from different sources that may require
different controls strategies.  PM2.5 typically transports much greater
distances in the atmosphere and typically is much more likely to consist
of secondarily formed particles that result from the mixture of
precursors in the atmosphere.  Finally, PM10 boundaries were often
designated nearly 20 years ago, and current facts and circumstances in
the area may have changed.

Comment:

One commenter (0089) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designation that
Scott and Rock Island Counties be designated as nonattainment.  The
commenter requests that the counties be designated as attainment.  The
commenter suggests as an alternative that if EPA designates the counties
nonattainment, that the boundaries are the narrower boundaries.  The
commenter believes that EPA is not permitted to base designations upon
2005-2007 data and must do so based upon 2004-2006.

EPA Response:

EPA has used the most recent monitoring data available to identify areas
that violate the new standard. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA
promulgate designations based on valid air quality data available at the
time of the promulgation.  That data must be quality assured in order to
be considered in the designation process.  That data set may change
during the designation process as data is submitted by the state to the
EPA each year and it is quality assured. The State was asked to make
recommendations for all areas in the State to be designated as
unclassifiable, attainment, or nonattainment.  These recommendations
were due to EPA by December 2007.   Iowa based its recommendation of the
entire state being attainment on the most recent quality assured data
available to it at the time of the recommendation, which was 2004-2006
monitoring data. At that time the data did not indicate violations of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The State anticipated that more recent
data might show violations and asked EPA to consider that data in making
decisions.   During 2008, 2007 monitoring data was quality assured and
as such was ready for consideration by the State and EPA.  Monitoring
data from 2005-2007 showed two areas in the state with violations of the
standard.  Based on this more recent data the EPA informed the State of
the violating monitors and requested a revised recommendation.  Iowa
subsequently recommended two very small partial county areas in the
violating counties.  In addition, EPA is not “re-designating the
area” as suggested by the commenter.  It is instead promulgating
initial designations based on the most current information available as
it is required to do.  

Finally, if EPA were required to promulgate designations based upon
2004-2006 data, it could not consider more recent data from 2008 that
the state may elect to submit if it were to affect the attainment status
of this area prior to the effective date of the designation.

Comment: 

EPA used monitoring data from two source-oriented, SPMs with middle
spatial scale ranges, that exhibited exceedance that were not
representative of general air quality conditions;

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

Nonattainment area designations are to include the area in violation and
areas that contribute to the violation.  Although modeling data provided
by the state demonstrates that the two named local sources influence the
violation at the monitor, the modeling did not demonstrate that other
sources in the Quad Cities area do not contribute to the violation as
well.  For the reasons detailed in the TSDs for the
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA has determined that
other sources in the area contribute to violations of the NAAQS.  Thus,
EPA is establishing a nonattainment area boundary to include these
sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and Illinois which address
these issues in greater detail.

Comment:

EPA’s statements on whether sufficient data is available to properly
characterize the nonattainment area are contradictory;

EPA Response:

EPA noted that there was sufficient monitoring data to designate the
violating area as nonattainment, and a 1-year extension to obtain
additional monitoring information is not justified.    EPA must
designate an area as nonattainment if the area is monitoring a violation
of the standard based on the most recent three years of monitoring data.
There is sufficient monitoring data available to make the designation.  
However, there was not sufficient data provided by the State to support
a very small partial county designation as recommended by the State. 
Therefore EPA’s statements were related to two separate issues and not
inconsistent.

Comment:

EPA has failed to follow its own policy guidance in the establishment of
proposed area designations.

EPA Response:

EPA did conduct a case-by-case analysis of the violating areas based on
the information provided to it by the State and other relevant
information.  EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as
well as the area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent
to the State noted that the data the State provided did not support very
small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a lack of
contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it demonstrate that
only the sources in immediate proximity to the violating monitors
contributed to violations.  As this information was not provided to the
EPA, its case-by-case review resulted in a decision to notify the State
of its intent to include county-wide areas in the nonattainment area
boundaries. Since that time the State responded to EPA’s 120-day
letter and submitted more data for review.  However, this data also did
not demonstrate that no other sources in the area were contributing to
the violation, nor did it demonstrate an overwhelming contribution
solely from the point sources nearest to the violating monitors.  On the
contrary it showed a considerable contribution (almost 50 percent of the
total filter mass) of secondary formation attributable to emissions
transported from a longer range in addition to a smaller contribution of
secondary formation from local point source emissions.  The State’s
technical response to EPA’s 120-day letter did not support as narrow a
boundary as recommended by the State.  EPA concluded that a larger
partial county designation, inclusive of the townships of the major
metropolitan areas includes the violating area and the nearby
contributing areas.  Refer to EPA’s response above concerning the
nature of the monitors.

Comment:

EPA should give consideration to the efforts already underway in the
Quad Cities area to address high background levels of PM2.5.

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes the efforts by the state and the stakeholders to achieve
emissions reductions as soon as possible.  EPA also encourages both
states to continue efforts to assist the community in implementing
voluntary measures.  

However, under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, in designating
nonattainment areas, EPA must designate, as nonattainment, areas that
are violating a NAAQS and areas that are contributing to the violations.
 This requirement does not authorize EPA to rely on the ongoing efforts
to develop further control strategies in determining nonattainment
boundaries.  EPA’s decision must be based on the statutory
requirements, and EPA’s promulgation of the nonattainment designations
for these areas, as described in detail in the TSDs, meets the statutory
requirements.

We also note that the state’s submission includes a “mitigation
plan” submitted by Blackhawk Foundry.  The plan states that the
company’s intended control strategy, when fully implemented, “will
significantly reduce PM2.5 concentrations”.  However, the document
also concludes that, after implementation of the “preferred
alternatives” identified in the company’s control strategy, the
“combination of the predicted concentration” from the foundry, and
the background concentration, “could result in a predicted exceedance
of the PM2.5 NAAQS”.  (“PM2.5 Emissions Mitigation Plan”, Oct. 10,
2008, at p. 3.)  This uncertainty provides additional justification for
establishing a boundary to ensure that emissions from other nearby
sources in the area are considered in developing the attainment
demonstration control strategies for these two areas.

Comment:

Two commenters (0155, 0150) suggest as an alternative that if EPA
designates the Scott County, IA and Rock Island County, IL areas, as
nonattainment, that narrower boundary designations are made as
recommended by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR).  The
commenters believe that the monitor results are not representative of
the general area air quality.  The commenters believe that the monitor
results are not representative of the general area air quality.  One of
the commenters (0155) also requests that Rock Island County, IL, be
designated as attainment.

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

EPA believes that Rock Island County has moderate emissions that
commonly are blown toward the violating monitor in Scott County.  We
also believe that sufficient commuting occurs between Rock Island County
and Scott County such that Rock Island County must be considered an
integral part of the Davenport area.

Comment:

The commenter (0155) suggests that EPA should not designate the entire
county as nonattainment but should take into consideration efforts of
the named point source to negotiate, with the State, a “voluntary”
control strategy. 

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes the efforts by the state and the stakeholders to achieve
emissions reductions as soon as possible.  EPA also encourages both
states to continue efforts to assist the community in implementing
voluntary measures.  

However, under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, in designating
nonattainment areas, EPA must designate, as nonattainment, areas that
are violating a NAAQS and areas that are contributing to the violations.
 This requirement does not authorize EPA to rely on the ongoing efforts
to develop further control strategies in determining nonattainment
boundaries.  EPA’s decision must be based on the statutory
requirements, and EPA’s promulgation of the nonattainment designations
for these areas, as described in detail in the TSDs, meets the statutory
requirements.

3.13.  Dayton-Springfield, OH

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for the State of Ohio.
 The commenter requests that EPA designation Clark, Greene and
Montgomery Counties as nonattainment.  These are the same counties that
EPA has proposed as candidates for a designation of nonattainment.  The
commenter cites negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution
to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.14.  Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI

Comment:

One commenter (0130) believes that the Port Huron monitor (St. Clair
County) should be treated separately and EPA is inappropriately
expanding regulatory scope.  The commenter believes the EPA’s
designation of multiple counties in southeast Michigan, including Wayne,
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, St. Clair, Monroe, and Livingston Counties
inappropriately expands regulatory scope far beyond the specific
location with a specific challenge.  The commenter refers to technical
comments submitted by another commenter (0110) for support. Several
commenters (0075, 0094, 0097, 0110, 0113, 0130) disagree with EPA’s
proposed designations in the Detroit nonattainment area.  The commenters
support Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) initial
recommendation that southeast Michigan be separated into three distinct
nonattainment areas, reflecting the distinct circumstances that lead to
measured nonattainment.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenters assertions that EPA should follow the
recommendations of the State of Michigan’s to divide the Detroit
nonattainment area into three separate nonattainment areas for a number
of reasons.  EPA generally will not divide areas because having one area
allows for better planning.  Instead of assessing the impact of a source
on several nonattainment areas, determining the impact is simplified
when there is just one area.  Having a single nonattainment area also
eliminates the need to integrate planning for multiple areas.

Specifically in the Detroit area, the metropolitan planning organization
addresses the seven counties of the existing nonattainment area and thus
is already designed to conduct planning for the prospective
nonattainment area as a whole.  Michigan noted that the air quality in
St. Clair and Wayne Counties may be impacted by unique sources.  These
counties are also impacted by the same common sources as all counties in
the Detroit area.  Therefore, a single Detroit nonattainment area better
reflects the integrated planning that will be needed for this area. 
Michigan will have the opportunity in its nonattainment plan development
to include specific control measures to address the air quality in St.
Clair and Wayne Counties beyond the controls implemented for area-wide
air quality improvement.  

Please refer to the State RTC Document for a more detailed explanation
of EPA’s designation of the Detroit area, including EPA assessment of
the State’s various technical arguments that these pubic commenters
endorsed.   See section 2.2 of this document for EPA’s responses to
the various legal comments submitted by these commenters challenging
EPA’s interpretation of the statute and designations process
generally.

3.15.  Evansville, IN

Comment:

One commenter (0058) requests a 1-year extension of the designation
deadline for Dubois County, IN.  

EPA Response:

Indiana submitted exceptional events information for several areas in
the State.  EPA concurred with some of the exceptional events and
adjusted the design values appropriately.  As explained in the TSD, in
the Evansville area, the 2005-2007 design value for Dubois County shows
that it now attains the 2006 PM2.5 air quality standards.  Dubois County
was recommended as nonattainment because it was considered to be
violating the air quality standards.  EPA reexamined the information for
Dubois County and determined that after concurrences on the exceptional
events claims it is neither violating the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS nor is it
contributing to violations in Vanderburgh County.  EPA is making the
designations in December 2008.  EPA is designating Dubois County as
attainment and a 1-year extension is not warranted because EPA has
available information to support the designation.  

Comment:

One commenter (0106) supports EPA’s recommendation and requests that
EPA designate Dubois, Gibson, Pike, Spencer, Vanderburgh, Knox and
Warrick Counties in Indiana as nonattainment.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional
haze.

EPA Response:

Indiana submitted exceptional events information for several areas in
the State.  EPA concurred with some of the exceptional events and
adjusted the design values appropriately.  As explained in the TSD, in
the Evansville area, the 2005-2007 design value for Dubois County shows
that it now attains the 2006 PM2.5 air quality standards.  Dubois County
was initially recommended as nonattainment because it was considered to
be violating the air quality standards.  EPA reexamined the information
for Dubois County in light of the exceptional events claims and
determined that it is neither violating the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS nor is
it contributing to violations in Vanderburgh County.  Thus EPA is
designating Dubois County as attainment.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

One commenter (0103) requests a 1-year extension from the EPA to
designate the proposed Evansville, IN nonattainment area, in order to
obtain sufficient information.  The commenter believes that if the most
recent data from 2008 is used Evansville, IN, is likely to be able to be
in compliance.  The commenter recommends if EPA proceeds with 2008
designations, that EPA designate as nonattainment only those counties
with violating monitors.  The commenter provided additional technical
analysis to support its claims.  

EPA Response:

EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to promulgate designations within
two years of the promulgation of an air quality standard, in this case
by December 18, 2008.  An extension may be granted in cases where
information is insufficient to promulgate designations, but because EPA
believes there is sufficient information an extension is not warranted
for Indiana.  Therefore, EPA is making its designations in December
2008.  

EPA is required by the Act to designate all areas that contribute to
violations as nonattainment in addition to areas that actually violate
the standard, thus EPA can not designate only the areas that have
violating monitors.  As for monitoring data, EPA uses data from FRM or
FEM monitors to determine the air quality.   If 2008 data will show that
the Evansville area attains the 2006 air quality standards, then Indiana
needs to submit the quality assured data to EPA within the specified
period.  

Please see section 2.3 above for EPA’s Response regarding the
submission of 2008 data.  Please refer to the TSD and the State and
Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions for this area.

The commenter supplied information to support its comments.  As noted,
EPA can only use FRM or FEM data in making designations.  Supplied
monitoring data shows the decreasing trend of PM2.5 concentration in the
Evansville area.  EPA is aware of this trend.  However, EPA must
designate areas under the statute based on current conditions, and
Evansville is currently violating the standard.  Emissions data were
supplied.  Emissions data is one of the nine factors that EPA examined
in determining the nonattainment area.  Information on wind speed and
direction were provided for the days of 17 “pollution episodes.” 
The winds came from a variety of directions with a slight tendency to be
from the southwest.  EPA developed a pollution rose for Evansville which
showed prevailing surface winds come from a variety of directions.  The
information provided by the commenter used just “episodes,” so it is
only a small sample set.  Examination of the Appendix K of the comments
graphs shows the wind direction is often varied even within an
“episode.”  EPA concluded that the varying winds did support
contribution from the areas included in the designation.

The commenter also supplied a number of back trajectories.  The PM2.5
concentration in a location such as Evansville is the result of complex
atmospheric reactions.  In addition to the PM2.5 directly emitted, some
of the concentration is formed from precursor emissions.  The sources
emitting the various components may be in different areas making the
analysis for wind information more complex.  Back trajectories also do
not account for the dispersion that occurs as pollutants are carried
from their source.  The back trajectories illustrate that some of the
pollution impacting an area is from distant sources.  EPA is aware that
emissions from sources around the nation contribute a regional
background level of PM2.5.  EPA has developed a number of national
emissions control programs to reduce the regional background
concentration.  The CAA provides other mechanisms to address regional
pollution problems, such as section 110(a)(2)(D) and section 126.  In
the context of designations, however, EPA must determine what nearby
areas contribute to violations within those areas, and the nonattainment
area plan provisions of section 172 then address the “local”
component of the nonattainment problem in the area.   In the Evansville
area, even accounting for the regional background, emissions from the
nonattainment area counties still contribute to violations as discussed
in the TSD.

Comment:

The commenter (0103) questions the use of the CES for designations.

EPA Response:

The CES is an analytical tool to provide an initial assessment of areas
that may be contributing to violations in a specific area.  EPA
recognized this fact and therefore used additional forms of information
to evaluate areas.  EPA also solicited additional information from State
and local agencies that was unique to the area in question.  EPA made
its final designations using information it had and the States provided
on the recommended nine factors as well as other analytical tools.  The
CES uses two seasonal factors to better weight the score based on
seasonal variances in chemical composition of the PM2.5 concentration in
an area.  One can see some of this seasonal variability in the
speciation data charts in Appendix G of the comments.  Calculating this
factor for all high concentration days in areas across the nation would
be a substantial undertaking.  In the Evansville area, EPA used the nine
factors and analytical tools in deciding that Posey County, Indiana,
Henderson County, Kentucky, and other counties to the south and west of
Vanderburgh County are not contributing to the monitored violations. 
EPA used a county-by-county evaluation to determine a nonattainment area
that contains violating and contributing areas as required instead of
simply including all metropolitan area counties which could have been
overinclusive or just the violating counties which would have been
underinclusive.  

3.16.  Fairbanks, AK

Comment:

One commenter (0019/0084) disagrees that Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB)
contributes to the violation in Fairbanks, AK.  On September 11, 2008
the commenter requested that the EPA extend the public comment period
because the commenter believed there was data to show that the Eielson
Air Force Base in Alaska is in attainment.  On October 1, 2008, the
commenter requested a 1-year extension for the designation of Fairbanks,
AK, to include information from an ongoing study.  The commenter
provides the following reasons:

The commenter undertook ambient air monitoring for PM2.5 and PM10 during
the period of October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005 (data
submitted).  The commenter states that the results of this study clearly
show EAFB is in attainment with the NAAQS for both 24-hour and annual
standards for PM2.5 at the time the study was completed (the 24-hour
standard for PM2.5 was 65 μg/m3; and the EPA had not promulgated rules
for excluding measurements associated with exceptional events such as
wildfires).  EAFB believes the values that exceeded the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (in their comparison with 2004/2005 data) were due to
extensive wildfires in the interior region of Alaska during that time
period and high ambient PM2.5 measurements should be excluded from the
data set used to determine compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

EPA Response:

In its final designation, EPA has not included Eielson Air Force Base
within the boundary of the Fairbanks nonattainment area for reasons
explained in its TSD for the areas as well as in its State and Tribal
RTC document and as further explained in these responses.  However,
after review of the data submitted by the EAFB, EPA disagrees with the
assertion that the EAFB is in attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard.  This is principally because the methodology for determination
of whether an area is in violation has several significant components
that were not met.  

Whether an area is violating a criteria pollutant standard is identified
using data from FRM or FEM monitors that are sited and operated in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, as revised on October 17, 2006 (see 71
FR 61236).  The monitors used for PM2.5 measurement are indeed FRM
monitors and were for potential PSD permit related monitoring program. 
EPA is unable to verify whether the siting criteria were met and
approved by an approved air permitting authority.

Once the siting and operating criteria are met, the design value for the
criteria pollutant (PM2.5 in this case) is computed according to 40 CFR
Part 50 Appendix N, as revised on October 17, 2006.  40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix N, Section 4.2 a specifically says that

less than 35 μgm-3.  This comparison shall be based on 3 consecutive,
complete years of data.”

As EAFB conducted air pollutant monitoring only for one year, this data
cannot be used to determine the attainment status of an area. 
Therefore, the claim that this area is in attainment of the standards
based on the data submitted by EAFB is not valid.  What is evident is
that EAFB has one year of PM2.5 data measured using an FRM monitor that
shows a few exceedances in one year of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the
summer months.  

Even prior to the 1990 CAA, EPA has had guidance regarding the exclusion
of data affected by an exceptional.  For a discussion of the historical
development of EPA guidance and rules on exceptional events, see the
final preamble of the Exceptional Events Rule, 72 FR at 13562.   For
example, the Guideline on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data
Affected by Exceptional Events (exceptional events guideline) and
Appendix K to 40 CFR, part 50, were issued by EPA to address, in part,
the situation where natural sources strongly influence an area's PM10
air quality.  Later, in 1996 EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation published the Natural Events Policy Memorandum, which provided
further guidance on the treatment of exceptional events.  And, on
Thursday, March 22, 2007, EPA published its final rule on the Treatment
of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events in Federal Register Vol. 72,
No. 55, pp 13650.  EPA has always had a mechanism to treat data affected
by exceptional events that would influence the designation status of an
area.  However, as the data submitted by EAFB cannot be used for
designations of an area, as mentioned above, this assertion is not
relevant to the discussion other than to flag high values that may
potentially be attributed to natural events.

Comment:

The commenter (0019/0084) believes EPA has substantially overestimated
the amount of PM2.5 and SO2 emissions from stationary emission units. 
EAFB believes EPA used potential emissions estimates from 2002 to
estimate PM2.5 and SO2 emissions from EAFB.  The commenter provided
additional information about controls installed in 2005 at the Central
Heat and Power Plant (CHPP).

EPA response:

EPA appreciates the information supplied in the attachments.  The
full-stream baghouses on all boilers constitutes application of good
control technology to reduce direct PM emissions.  However, chemical
speciation of filters in the Fairbanks area indicates that secondarily
formed PM is a high proportion of filter mass that leads to exceedances
and violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Therefore, EPA has reviewed all
major sources of secondary precursors such as SO2 and NOx.  However, in
this regard, although the data shows that the EAFB has major sources of
NOx (330 tons per year or tpy) and SO2 (280 tpy), for reasons
articulated in the technical support document, the Response to State and
Tribal comments and in this document for the Fairbanks area, EPA has
excluded EAFB from the boundary of the Fairbanks nonattainment area.

Comment:

The commenter (0019/0084) believes emissions from space and hot water
heating sources are minor and have a small input into the PM2.5
concentrations.  

EPA Response:

Although no quantification of emissions is provided, EPA is in general
agreement that heating related emissions may be minor.   

Comment:

The commenter (0019/0084) does not believe activities on military
training ranges within the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) have any
effect on ambient concentrations of PM2.5 in the city of Fairbanks and
the direction of prevailing winds generally out of the north and the
northeast, EAFB does not believe emissions from Blair Lakes could be
transported to Fairbanks.

EPA Response:

Based on the information provided by EAFB and Fort Wainwright, EPA
agrees that the activity and sources in the military training ranges to
the due south and east of Fairbanks do not contribute to the violation
of the PM2.5 NAAQS at the Fairbanks monitor.

Comment:

The commenter (0019/0084) believes that the predominant wind directions
during non calm conditions are from the north and northeast and the EAFB
is located southeast of Fairbanks, AK.  The commenter believes that
winds speeds are either calm or predominantly out of the northeast,
northwest, or southwest quadrants on days where the PM2.5 concentrations
exceeded 35 μg/m3.  The commenter believes during calm conditions it is
unlikely that emissions from the EAFB contribute to violations in
Fairbanks, AK.

EPA Response:

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by December
2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  EPA invited the
State to provide a recommendation for the Fairbanks based on a through
technical analysis of the data.  The State submitted its recommendation
for the Fairbanks area with significant data gaps and no meteorological
analysis.  The submission failed to conclusively establish sources that
would contribute to violations at the Fairbanks PM2.5 monitor or the
meteorological conditions surrounding the exceedance events.  In its
letter modifying States recommendation sent to the State of Alaska on
August 18, 2008, EPA used data at its disposal to designate the area
nonattainment and determined the boundaries to include all potential
sources that could contribute to a violation of the PM2.5 24-hour
standards at the Fairbanks monitor.  EPA’s review did indicate that
the City of North Pole and EAFB had major sources of criteria pollutants
that could potentially contribute to Fairbanks violations.  

Subsequently, on October 20, 2008, the State submitted a comprehensive
technical analysis using the recommended 9 factors suggested by EPA, to
identify the sources that contribute to violations of the PM2.5
standards at the Fairbanks monitor.  Further monitoring studies
conducted in the winter of 2007-2008 in the Fairbanks-North Pole area
provide support to the fact that PM2.5 concentrations in the area are in
phase, that is, they increase and decrease concurrently with time of
day, at Fairbanks and North Pole, which indicates a homogeneous air
mass.  Additional data was submitted by EAFB and Fort Wainwright.  The
meteorological monitoring data for surface winds from EAFB was
especially informative.  After review of this data, EPA believes that
emissions from sources in North Pole do contribute to the violations of
the PM2.5 NAAQS at Fairbanks.  As emissions from EAFB are very small in
relation to the emissions in the area and because the meteorological
evidence supporting flow from EAFB to Fairbanks during PM2.5 exceedances
does not support a determination that emissions at EAFB are contributing
to violations at the Fairbanks PM2.5 monitor.  

Comment:

Prior to the September 2, 2008 Notice Of Availability publication in the
Federal Register, the commenter (0019/0084) was unaware that EPA was
considering the inclusion of EAFB and some of its training ranges in the
proposed PM2.5 nonattainment area for the FNSB.  Had the commenter been
aware of EPA’s concerns about contributions from these sources, EAFB
would have provided the information and data.  

EPA Response:

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by December
2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  EPA invited the
State to provide a recommendation for the Fairbanks based on a through
technical analysis of the data.  It is customary at this stage for
States to consult and seek advice from all jurisdictions, agencies and
other interested parties that may be affected by this decision.  The
State submitted its recommendation for the Fairbanks area with
significant data gaps and no meteorological analysis.  The submission
failed to conclusively establish sources that would contribute to
violations at the Fairbanks PM2.5 monitor or the meteorological
conditions surrounding the exceedance events.  

In its letter modifying the State’s recommendation sent to the State
of Alaska on August 18, 2008, EPA used available data to designate the
area nonattainment and determined the boundaries to include all
potential sources that could contribute to a violation of the PM2.5
24-hour standards at the Fairbanks monitor.  EPA’s review did indicate
that the City of North Pole and EAFB had major sources of criteria
pollutants that could potentially contribute to Fairbanks violations. 
In its data submission on October 20, 2008, according to EPA’s
knowledge, the State of Alaska did consult with all jurisdictions and
agencies that would be affected and provided a comprehensive set of
data, which supports our determination not to include EAFB within the
boundary of the Fairbanks nonattainment area.

Comment:

The commenter (0019/0084) requests a 1-year extension pursuant to CAA
section 107(d)(1)(B)(i) for the designation of Fairbanks, AK, to include
information from an ongoing study.

EPA Response:

EPA appreciates and will participate in collecting data to understand
the complex mechanisms contributing to air quality problems in the
Fairbanks area.  EPA agrees that the collective evidence represented by
the data does not warrant the inclusion of sources within the EAFB and
the AEFB in the FNSB PM2.5 nonattainment area.  EPA appreciates the
critical role that the EAFB and the larger DOD play in protecting the
security of our nation.  However, it is also important that the public
health of the citizens of the United States is not be unnecessarily
jeopardized in doing so.  Working collaboratively, EPA is confident that
EAFB will be able to balance it critical missions of protecting our
national security interest while allowing the health of our citizens to
be maintained.  EPA appreciates the commitment of the EAFB to the goals
of the CAA and the public health of the citizens of the State of Alaska.
 Additional data gathered in the near future will aid us in
understanding the nature of the pollution in the FNSB and provide
solutions that are targeted and effective.  EPA believes that waiting
for additional data to clarify the boundaries of the nonattainment area
will provide marginal benefit at best and will delay the area from
solving its air pollution issues and further jeopardize the health of
its citizens.  The technical analysis indicates that sources in EAFB do
not contribute to violations of the NAAQS at FNSB.  However sustained
positive solutions to air quality issues in the area can be reached by
balancing multiple goals through collaboration and innovation.  At this
point, based on the data submitted by the State and the DOD on October
20, 2008, EPA has adequate information to exclude the large military
training ranges to the South and East of Fairbanks, and the EAFB.

EPA has authority to delay a designation under section 107(d), only when
it lacks information necessary to make a designation decision.  That is
not the case in this area.  

Comment:

The commenter (0019/0084) believes the SIP is a better method to control
and/or reduce emissions that are contributing to PM2.5 nonattainment in
the FNSB.  

EPA Response:

EPA’s has determined not to include the EAFB in the Fairbanks PM2.5
NAA.  Even though the EAFB will not be within the NAA, EPA encourages
the EAFB to work collaboratively through the SIP process with the EPA,
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and the FNSB to
address all sources of emissions in order to protect public health .

Comment:

One commenter (0098) requests EPA to draw boundaries of the Fairbanks,
AK nonattainment area to include only those areas with a demonstrated
record of nonattainment.  The commenter is concerned that the
construction of pipelines may temporarily increase particulates and
support areas some of which may be located in the EPA’s proposed
nonattainment area.  The commenter believes that designation of a larger
nonattainment area will complicate a project that will provide air
quality benefits in Fairbanks, AK (a reliable supply of clean burning
natural gas can be brought in to displace particulate generating fuels
in the region).  

EPA Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter that usage of natural gas as a heating
source for Fairbanks and the availability of a gas infrastructure for
Fairbanks will greatly reduce Fairbanks’ dependence on fuel that
generates significant air pollution.  EPA also agrees that availability
of a clean burning fuel will improve the air quality throughout the
United States.  

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by December
2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  EPA invited the
State to provide a recommendation for the Fairbanks based on a through
technical analysis of the data.  The State submitted its recommendation
for the Fairbanks area with significant data gaps.  The submission
failed to conclusively establish sources that would contribute to
violations at the Fairbanks PM2.5 monitor.  In its letter modifying the
State’s recommendation sent to the State of Alaska on August 18, 2008,
EPA used available data to designate the area nonattainment and drew the
boundaries to include all potential sources that could contribute to a
violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards at the Fairbanks monitor. 

Subsequently, on the 20th of October 2008, the State submitted a
comprehensive technical analysis using the recommended nine factors
suggested by EPA, to identify the sources that contribute to violations
of the PM2.5 standards at the Fairbanks monitor.  After careful review
of the information, EPA is substantially in agreement with the PM2.5
boundary recommended by the State of Alaska.  EPA has determined that
the final boundary will capture the sources that contribute to the
violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS at the Fairbanks monitor.  Further, EPA
believes that controlling the sources identified in the State’s
recommended boundary will also help the areas attain the standard and
ensure that the health of the citizens is maintained.  

Comment:

Four commenters (0034, 0040, 0053, 0092) request a 1-year extension of
the designation deadline for Fairbanks, AK.  Three of the commenters
(0034, 0040, 0092) believe that additional data will assist in the
characterization of the sources of PM2.5 emissions and determination of
the boundary.  The commenters cite an ongoing study that the commenter
believes will assist in determining the sources and boundary for the
area.  

EPA Response:

EPA appreciates and will participate in collecting data to understand
the complex mechanisms contributing to air quality problems in the
Fairbanks area.  Additional data gathered in the near future will aid us
in understanding the nature of the pollution in the Fairbanks area and
provide solutions that are targeted and effective.  At this point, based
on the data submitted by the State and the DOD, EPA has adequate
information to determine the boundary of the Fairbanks, AK nonattainment
area.  

EPA does not have authority to delay an designation when it has adequate
information to make a determination, as it does in this area  So while
the EPA encourages collection and analysis of more information that will
be helpful in solving the PM2.5 nonattainment issues in Fairbanks, it
does not find any need to delay the designation to collect this
information.

Comment:

The commenter (0102) believes that the nonattainment boundary that EPA
proposed for Fairbanks is too large.  The commenter recommends that EPA
delay the designation for a 1-year period as provided under CAA Section
107(d)(1)(B)(i) to include information from significant efforts taken by
 Fairbanks and DEC.  The commenter believes that there is a lack of
Alaska specific data which will result in incorrect recommendations and
decisions on air quality issues in their nonattaining communities.  

EPA Response:

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by December
2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  EPA invited the
State to provide a recommendation for the Fairbanks based on a through
technical analysis of the data.  The State submitted its recommendation
for the Fairbanks area with significant data gaps.  The submission
failed to conclusively establish sources that would contribute to
violations at the Fairbanks PM2.5 monitor.  In its letter modifying the
State’s recommendation sent to the State of Alaska on August 18, 2008,
EPA used at its disposal to designate the area nonattainment and drew
the boundaries to include all potential sources that could contribute to
a violation of the PM2.5 24-hour standards at the Fairbanks monitor.  

Subsequently, on the 20th of October 2008, the State submitted a
comprehensive technical analysis using the recommended nine factors
suggested by EPA, to identify the sources that contribute to violations
of the PM2.5 standards at the Fairbanks monitor.  After careful review
of the information, EPA is in agreement with the PM2.5 boundary
recommended by the State of Alaska.  EPA has determined that the final
boundary will capture the sources that contribute to the violation of
the PM2.5 NAAQS at the Fairbanks monitor.  Further, EPA believes that
controlling the sources identified in the State’s recommended boundary
will also help the areas attain the standard and ensure that the health
of the citizens is maintained.

EPA does not have authority to delay an designation when it has adequate
information to make a determination, as it does in this area.   So while
the EPA encourages collection and analysis of more information that will
be helpful in solving the PM2.5 nonattainment issues in Fairbanks, it
does not find any need to delay the designation to collect this
information/

Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which
explains EPA’s decisions on this nonattainment area.

Comment:

The commenter (0102) provides an assessment of the nine factors as
follows:

Factor 1 – The commenter states it is not apparent why there is a
discussion of CES.  The commenter recommends removal of the discussion
on CES because EPA specifically states at the end of the discussion that
CES was not considered in Alaska.  

EPA Response:

EPA agrees with this comment and has revised the TSDs for the State of
Alaska to better explain references to the CES.

Comment:

The commenter (0102) comments that ADEC’s positive matrix
factorization (PMF) analysis identifies the principle sources of sources
of PM2.5 emissions or their precursors.  EPA acknowledges this and the
fact that the contribution of mobile sources is less conclusive and
points to the need for a more detailed analysis.

The fact that more analysis is needed to identify the mobile source
contribution is the reason the commenter provided additional Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Funds to Fairbanks Metropolitan Area
Transportation System (FMATS) to fund the coming winter study, including
the ability to use those funds beyond the current nonattainment area to
ensure that all mobile source contributions are identified.  

Because a source exists does not mean the source is contributing to the
air quality problems and extending the boundary to include that source
makes no sense.  Sources such as Eielson AFB are considerably east and
south of the current carbon monoxide maintenance area.  While it is
possible that emissions “might” be transported, the fact that they
“might” impact does meet one of the key issues referenced in the
presentation on “Designations for the 2006 PM2.5 Standards: Evaluating
the Nine Factors in Setting Non-attainment Area Boundaries”.

Because they “may” contribute is a reason to continue to study and
determine whether they do or do not contribute to the air quality
violations.  If the boundary is extended before this is known, the
borough, State and the Air Force will have to use the same limited
resources to, not only study whether they impact, but design and
implement control measures that may not be needed.  

EPA Response:

As mentioned in the response to the letter above, EPA agrees with the
State of Alaska’s recommendations for the PM2.5 nonattainment
boundaries based on additional information submitted on October 20,
2008.

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenter (0102) states EPA’s inclusion of the City
of North Pole is unsupported by any data.  Without data, it is
unacceptable to assume the community or any of the emissions sources
within the community actually cause or exacerbate the air quality
violations in or near the City of Fairbanks.  A source’s existence is
not conclusive evidence of contributing to the problem.  During the
development of the carbon monoxide designation, actual monitoring data
was used to determine the boundary should include North Pole.  In this
instance, no FRM or FEM monitoring data exists to justify the inclusion
of North Pole.

Given the distance, the low wind speeds, prevailing wind drift
(north/northeast), and the fact that North Pole is east and south of the
City of Fairbanks, it is unknown whether North Pole contributes to the
nonattainment problems in Fairbanks.  The commenter is aware that a very
limited number of samples were taken during one winter that may indicate
elevated levels in North Pole, but no information exists to show the
elevated levels are more than a local phenomenon.  The commenter
believes this fact will not be known until the winter study is completed
and actual monitoring data is collected.  To include the North Pole
prior to collecting that information is unreasonable.

EPA Response:

The State of Alaska submitted additional information on the October 20,
2008 in support of their recommended boundary for the PM2.5
nonattainment area.  This data clearly establishes that there are
emission sources, wind transport and monitored levels of PM2.5 that
indicate exceedances of the standard when there are high readings in the
Fairbanks monitor.  Based on this data, EPA finds that the City of North
Pole and populated areas around it are contributing to the violations of
the PM2.5 NAAQS at the Fairbanks monitor and therefore needs to be part
of PM2.5 nonattainment area for Fairbanks.  Additionally, the State of
Alaska has recommended that the City of North Pole as part of the PM2.5
nonattainment area.

Comment:

Factor 3 – The commenter (0102) states that the population data
provided rightly concludes the focus should be on the FNSB.  However,
“…the inference that violations in the area are the result of
contributions from…” the City of North Pole are not supported by
data.  

The commenter also expresses concern is that large portions of
unpopulated areas within the Borough were included within the boundary
recommended by EPA.  To highlight this concern, the commenter obtained a
copy of the FNSB’s Department of Community Planning a chart of
population density using 2000 census data.  A copy of the chart is
attached to the comment letter and shows most of the Borough is either
unpopulated or has a density of less than 10 people per square mile. 
More importantly, the entire region to the south of the FMATS is
unpopulated.  This region, between the Tanana River and the southern
boundary of the Borough, is included in EPA’s proposed nonattainment
boundary.  Since there has been no population growth within this area
(i.e., the 2000 Census data are still valid), EPA should revise the
southern boundary to edge of the populated area (i.e., the Tanana
River).

General meteorological data shows the prevailing wind is from the
north/northeast.  The City of North Pole is south and east of the City
of Fairbanks.  There is no conclusive data showing emissions from North
Pole contribute to air quality conditions in Fairbanks.  Until the
extensive monitoring study is completed this winter, it is unreasonable
to expand the nonattainment area to include the City of North Pole.

EPA Response:

Based on data submitted by the State of Alaska on the October 20, 2008
and the State’s recommendations, EPA agrees that sources of emissions
in the large military reservations to the South and East of the City of
Fairbanks do not contribute to the violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS at the
Fairbanks monitor.  Accordingly these are areas are not included in the
nonattainment area for Fairbanks.  However, as mentioned above, the data
submitted by the State and the State’s recommendations do support
inclusion of the City of North Pole in the nonattainment area.  

Comment:

Factors 4 and 5 – The commenter (0102) states that the traffic volumes
presented in Table 4 of the comment letter contain inaccuracies.  First,
commuting in the traditional sense probably does not exist because of
the long distances involved just within the Borough.  The FNSB is huge
in comparison to other States: the Borough covers 7,444 square miles. 
This area is larger than any of the five smallest States.  

The commenter states that Table 4 and 5a of the comment letter contain
significant errors.  The population and VMT growth rates have remained
relatively stable.  However, there is a significant error in the actual
VMT reported.  EPA used only the VMT from the “Collector” streets
and has failed to include the VMT from the rest of the road system.

The mileage VMT in Table 4 of the comment letter is for the
“Collector” streets only and fails to include the VMT from the rest
of the urban road system.  “Collector” streets, while important to
compute the emissions from mobile sources, tend to have slower speeds
and only account for approximately 27 percent of the VMT.  The total VMT
reflected in Table 5a of the comment letter is shown as 315 (million). 
It should really be 1,147 (million) in 2006.  Given the time frame
available to respond, we were not able to provide the corrected 2005 VMT
because there was a change in classification for the Fairbanks urbanized
area.  Please contact the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
for additional information.

EPA Response:

EPA has updated its technical data based on the information submitted by
the State of Alaska.  EPA appreciates the State’s submission of
accurate, quality assured data that is used in making scientifically
based assessments.

Comment:

Factors 6 and 7 – The commenter (0102) states that Fairbanks
experiences strong low level ground based inversions during the winter. 
As with all microclimates, there may be some wind drift (as noted in
EPA’s discussion to be from the northerly direction).  Any inclusion
of areas to the east, west and south beyond those recommended by the
State and local staff should be excluded pending the completion of the
extensive monitoring study this winter.

State and local staffs have been working with the National Weather
Service and the University of Alaska Fairbanks to understand the ground
based inversions for over 30 years.  The complexity of the relationship
of these inversions to air quality is not simple or straight forward. 
These past efforts led to the establishment of temperature dependent
national standards for light-duty vehicles.

Through this work we have learned that the lack of Alaska specific
information can incorrectly bias EPA recommendations and decisions on
air quality issues in our nonattainment communities.  These concerns are
again appearing in EPA’s proposed recommendations to the PM2.5
nonattainment boundaries proposed for Fairbanks.  The proposed
boundaries are excessive, and clearly ignore the recommendations from
local and State experts who have spent years studying emission sources
and air quality within the community.  The analysis provided by EPA does
not provide a compelling basis to dramatically increase the size of the
nonattainment area recommended by ADEC.

EPA’s analysis identifies and clearly calls for the collection and
consideration of additional meteorological, emissions and monitoring
data.  Since EPA’s analysis acknowledges the need for additional data,
why go beyond the local knowledge and expertise to unreasonably expand
the boundary, especially if State and local staff is diligently
undertaking extensive efforts to obtain additional data.

Instead, EPA should be supporting the efforts with staff and resources
that at least match the State and local efforts to obtain the additional
information.  A reasonable and prudent course would be to delay
designation until these the additional information become available and
have been analyzed.  Under the Act such an option exists for the EPA.

EPA Response:

As mentioned in the response to the letter above, EPA agrees with the
State of Alaska’s recommendations for the PM2.5 nonattainment
boundaries based on additional information submitted on October 20,
2008.  .

Comment:

Factor 8 – The commenter (0102) states that EPA should drop any
reference to “ozone areas” in the heading for this section.  At this
time there are no ozone areas in Alaska and this reference only leads to
confusion for the general reader.  The planning and jurisdictional
boundary discussion correctly concludes that ADEC and the FNSB can, and
have, implemented a cohesive set of controls to address air quality
nonattainment issues.

EPA Response:

EPA will delete any reference to ozone areas to avoid any confusion that
may arise due to that.

Comment:

Factor 9 – The commenter (0102) comments that ADEC has legal authority
to control industrial emission sources and has an approved permit
program.  Taking EPA’s analysis on face value, it appears the
nonattainment boundary was expanded to include a facility known as Pump
Station 8 on the Alaska Oil Pipeline.  This facility, while once
permitted, is not operational and there are no emissions from the
facility.  To expand the boundary to include this facility is not
warranted.  Expansion of a boundary to capture sources because they
exist is unreasonable until they are shown to have an impact on the
proposed nonattainment area.

The inclusion of this particular source is an excellent example of why
EPA should not extend the boundaries beyond those recommended by the
State until such time as the State and local staff working on the winter
study have concluded their efforts.  Instead, EPA should be supporting
the efforts of local staff.  A reasonable and prudent course would be to
delay designation until the additional information is know.  Under the
Act such an option exists for the EPA.  

EPA Response:

Based on additional information by the State of Alaska, EPA has
determined that its recommended nonattainment boundary is appropriate. 
As explained above, EPA does not see the need to delay the designation. 
Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which
explains EPA’s decisions on this nonattainment area.

3.17.  Grand Rapids, MI

Comment:

One commenter (0035) believes that Ottawa County be designated
attainment because according to the PM2.5 monitor in Ottawa County it is
not violating.  The commenter also requested that designation be based
on 2006-2008 data and that the public comment period should be extended
another 60 days.  Another commenter (0075) disagrees with EPA’s
proposal that Kent and Ottawa Counties in Michigan should be designated
as nonattainment.  The commenter believes that the most recent data
represents attainment.  

EPA Response:

EPA included Ottawa County in the Grand Rapids nonattainment area.  EPA
determined that Ottawa County contributes to the violations in Kent
County using the recommended nine factor analysis.  The details of the
analysis are provided in the TSD.  A nonattainment designation informs
the public that the concentration of a pollutant exceeds the air quality
standards.  The state will be able to select the desired emission
controls as it plans how to bring the area into attainment of the
standards.

See section 1.0 for EPA’s response to an extension of the public
comment period and section 2.3 for comments regarding the use of 2008
data.

Comment:

One commenter (0097) also believes that if 2006-2008 data are applied
both Kent and Ottawa Counties would be designated as attainment and the
seven counties in Southeast Michigan would remain designated as
nonattainment.  If 2005-2007 data are considered then only Kent County
should be designated as nonattainment.  

EPA Response:

See section 2.3 for EPA’s response the use of 2008 data. Please refer
to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s
decisions.

3.18.  Green Bay, WI

Comment:

One commenter (0127) disagrees with EPA’s proposed designation for
Brown County, WI.  The commenter believes that if the most recent data
from 2008 is used, Brown County, WI is likely to be able to be in
compliance.  The commenter supports the comments from commenters 0082
and 0109.

EPA Response:

See section 2.3 for EPA’s response on the use of 2008 data.

Comment:

One commenter (0119) requests that EPA expand the nonattainment area
designations.  The commenter requests that EPA designate Winnebago and
Outagamie Counties in Wisconsin as nonattainment.  The commenter
believes that Winnebago and Outagamie Counties contribute to violations
in Brown County.  The commenter cites negative health impacts from
PM2.5.

EPA Response:

EPA considered the impacts of Outagamie and Winnebago Counties on the
Green Bay area.  While Outagamie County has moderate emissions and
population similar to that of Brown County, these emissions and this
population are primarily associated with Appleton, which is a separate
urban area that is monitoring attainment of the standard.  Only a small
fraction of commuters from the Appleton area commute into the Green Bay
area.  Appleton is at the southern end of Outagamie County, further
reducing its impact on concentrations in Green Bay, at the northern end
of Brown County.  Winnebago County has low commuting and economic
integration to the Green Bay area.  No other factor warrants inclusion
of any other county besides Brown County in the nonattainment area.  The
technical analysis shows that a single county nonattainment area is
appropriate. 

Comment:

One commenter (0082) believes that if the most recent data from 2008 is
used, Dane and Brown Counties in Wisconsin are likely to be able to be
in compliance.  

EPA Response:

See section 2.3 for EPA’s response on the use of 2008 data.

Comment:

One commenter (0096) believes that if the most recent data from 2008 is
used, Dane and Brown Counties are likely to be able to be in compliance.
 The commenter added that analysis from data clearly shows that
commuting is insignificant for these area’s emissions.  

EPA Response:

The CAA requires EPA to designate areas failing to meet an air quality
standard and areas that contribute to violations as nonattainment areas.
 Even if an area is monitoring attainment or lacks air quality
monitoring, it is to be designated as nonattainment if it contributes to
a violation.  The counties nearby a violating county must be evaluated
for a contribution to the violation.  Other factors including population
and commuting are also reviewed for these nearby counties.  The CAA
requires defining nonattainment areas to include the full set of
contributing areas along with areas experiencing violations, as a means
of assuring that the State planning process takes comprehensive
consideration of nearby areas where controls can help improve air
quality.  

Designations are based on current air quality.  Current values are also
used for the other factors such as emissions and emission controls.  The
trend of improved air quality in many areas is commendable.  Still, the
possibility that an area may achieve the air quality standards in the
future is not a basis for an attainment designation.  Similarly,
projections of future emission reductions or increases of population and
commuting may not prove accurate and are not a basis for determining the
size of a nonattainment area.  Therefore, EPA designated counties
nonattainment as part of the Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee areas
using the current monitoring, emissions, and other data.  EPA is also
allowing Wisconsin and the other States to submit 2008 monitoring data
prior to the effective date of the designations.  This ensures that the
latest monitoring data are considered.  Please see section 2.3 above
regarding the submission of 2008 data.  Please refer to the TSD and the
State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions for this
area.

3.19.  Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.20.  Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH

Comment:

One commenter (0137) supports EPA’s recommendations and requests that
EPA designate Boyd and Lawrence (partial) Counties in Kentucky as
nonattainment.  The commenter cites negative health impacts from PM2.5
and its contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this supporting comment and has made a determination
based on the technical analysis and information provided from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky that Boyd and a portion of Lawrence Counties in
Kentucky should be included as part of the Huntington-Ashland
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  

Comment:

One commenter (0080) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designations for
Adams County, OH.  The commenter provides additional information
relating to the estimated emissions reductions for Stuart Station and
Killen Station in Adams County, OH.

EPA Response:

EPA used this additional information in its assessment of this county in
the Huntington-Ashland area.  EPA determined that even after the
implementation of new emission controls the remaining emissions from the
Adams County, Ohio power plants are still significant enough to warrant
inclusion in the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.  The remaining
large emissions, location in relation to the violating monitor, and
meteorology all support inclusion of Adams County in the nonattainment
area.  However, as explained in the TSD Adams County did not rank high
for other factors and thus the low population and commuting supported a
partial county designation for only the townships with contributing
power plants.  EPA has provided a detailed response to this issue in
full in the State and Tribal RTC and/or the TSD; please refer to these
documents for additional related information.

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for the State of Ohio.
 The commenter requests that EPA designation Adams (partial), Gallia
(partial), Lawrence, and Scioto counties as nonattainment.  The
commenter cites negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution
to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this supporting comment and has made the final
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using an evaluation of the
recommended nine factors described in the June 2007 guidance as well as
other relevant information in determining appropriate nonattainment area
boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC
document which explains EPA’s decisions. 

3.21.  Imperial County, CA

Comment:

One commenter (0066) requests that only the city of Calexico be
designated as nonattainment and not the whole of Imperial County in part
because the commenter believes there is a unique situation in the area. 
The commenter claims that the PM2.5 violations in Calexico are due to
the in impact of transport from sources in Mexicali, Mexico.  The
commenter provides additional information about the sources in Mexicali,
Mexico.

EPA Response:

As requested by EPA, CARB provided additional information showing that
the PM2.5 emissions in the Calexico area are different from those in the
rest of Imperial County.  The 2007 emission inventory for the entire
Imperial County indicates the major sources are fugitive windblown dust,
unpaved road dust and farming operations.  The violating monitor in
Calexico indicates that PM2.5 is 48 percent organic carbon and 22
percent ammonium nitrate.  This speciation data indicates that primary
sources in Calexico are residential and/or open burning and mobile
sources.  These sources correlate with population centers and location
of major highways. 

California has noted that emissions from activities in Mexicali and at
the border crossing contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels in
Calexico.  The Calexico population is 30,000, compared to 1 million in
Mexicali, Mexico.   Heavy truck traffic at the border crossing
contributes to mobile source emissions.  The data also show that the
high levels of PM2.5 emissions occur primarily in the winter months when
residents south of the border heavily depend on wood as a fuel source.

EPA agrees that the PM2.5 designation for Imperial County should be
limited to the areas where local sources account for the contribution to
the fine particle levels on exceedance days.  Therefore, EPA has
promulgated a nonattainment area that includes the bulk of the direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions in Imperial County, that are
predominant located in the cities of Calexico, El Centro and Brawley and
environs.  This nonattainment area covers 690 square miles, or 15
percent of the entire County, and it captures 86 percent of the
population, as well as all major highways and stationary sources.  

Comment:

One commenter (0066), in conjunction with factual arguments, asserted
that violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Imperial Valley,
California, are “caused” by emissions from adjacent Mexico, and that
the emissions contributed from Mexico should be a basis for EPA
designating only a small portion of Imperial Valley as nonattainment. 

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that a substantial portion of the pollution contributing to
violations in Imperial Valley emanates from Mexico.  However, EPA
disagrees with the commenter’s implicit argument that EPA should use
the existence of international transport as a reason to alter the
designation for this area, contrary to the requirements of section
107(d).  

Under section 107(d), States and EPA are obligated to designate as
“nonattainment,” both those areas that are violating the NAAQS, and
those nearby areas that are “contributing” to those violations.  
The statute does not define nonattainment in terms of “causing”
violations of the NAAQS, and instead refers to areas that
“contribute” to the violations.  This is logical because violations
of the PM2.5 NAAQS are the result of the cumulative impacts of emissions
from many different types of sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors that in the aggregate result in violation of the NAAQS.  

As correctly noted by the commenter, EPA has no authority to designate
portions of a foreign country as part of this area.  EPA does, however,
have a responsibility to designate that portion of California that
contains the domestic sources of emissions that are contributing to this
violation.  EPA cannot ignore the domestic sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors that also contribute to violations of the NAAQS in Imperial
Valley.  EPA is therefore designating that portion of Imperial Valley
that contains emissions sources and activities that the Agency believes
are contributing to the violation, in conjunction with emissions from
Mexico.  The State of California and the local air district will need to
develop a nonattainment area SIP for this area that appropriately
evaluates and controls these domestic sources of emissions.  

EPA notes that under section 179B of the CAA, the State of California
may take the international transport from Mexico into consideration in
the development of a nonattainment area plan for this area.  The CAA
does not, however, completely exempt areas subject to international
transport from compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements
for nonattainment areas.  Thus, although California will not need to
over control its own sources to compensate for transport for Mexico, it
will have the obligation to address domestic sources to insure that the
residents of this area are accorded some protection from unhealthy
levels of ambient PM2.5, even if it is not possible to assure attainment
of the NAAQS without further reductions from Mexico.  EPA agrees that
further international efforts to address transport from other countries
is necessary and has initiatives underway to achieve this end.

3.22.  Indianapolis, IN

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.23.  Johnstown, PA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.24.  Juneau, AK

Comment:

One commenter (0116) requests that a 1-year extension from the EPA for
the Juneau, AK nonattainment area.  The commenter requests the EPA
consider 2008 monitoring data prior to finalizing designations.  The
commenter is concerned that the EPA’s proposed boundary is larger than
the State of Alaska’s recommendation, and encouraged EPA to carefully
consider information submitted by the State of Alaska.  The commenter
also provided additional information about previous PM10 boundary.  

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes and commends the CBJ and Alaska for having implemented a
successful PM10 related woodstove control ordinance and for proactively
updating it to address the latest 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Burn bans,
incentives to procure pellets stoves and road paving have collectively
provided effective control of coarse particle pollution and improved the
health of the citizens of Juneau.  

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by
December, 2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  Based on
this data Juneau was in attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  However,
the monitor in Mendenhall Valley measured several exceedences in
December 2007.  A preliminary review of the 2005-2007 PM2.5 monitoring
data in April 2008 indicated that the area may potentially be in
violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  A subsequently final review of
this data by the EPA confirmed that the 2005-2007 design value for the
area violated the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Based on this review, EPA
invited the State to provide a recommendation for the Juneau area based
on a through technical analysis of the data.  The State submitted its
recommendation for the Juneau area in June 2008, as nonattainment for
the PM2.5 24-hour standard based on the monitoring data and recommended
the old PM10 nonattainment area boundary as the PM2.5 boundary without
any further technical justification.  In its letter modifying States
recommendation sent to the State of Alaska on August 18, 2008, EPA used
data from 2005-2007 and available data at its disposal to designate the
area nonattainment and proposed the boundaries for the Juneau area.  

Subsequently, on the 20th of October 2008, the State submitted a
comprehensive technical analysis using the nine factors approach
suggested by EPA, to identify the sources that contribute to violations
of the PM2.5 standards at the Mendenhall Valley monitor.  After careful
review of the information, EPA agrees that the PM2.5 boundary
recommended by the State of Alaska captures the sources that contribute
to the violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS to the Mendenhall Valley monitor. 
Further, EPA believes that controlling the sources identified in the
State’s analysis will also help the areas attain the standard and
ensure that the health of the citizens is maintained.  

EPA recognizes that many areas in the country are making improvements in
their air quality, and believes that it is important to recognize such
improvements.  In making decisions about whether an area is meeting the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA also believes that it is important to use the
most recent air quality data.  EPA will be unable to use 2008 data air
quality data for the designation decisions that will be made in December
2008.  However, all States will still have the opportunity to benefit
from their efforts to improve air quality by using 2008 air quality data
to demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

Comment:

The commenter (0102) believes that the nonattainment boundaries that EPA
proposed for Juneau is too large.  The commenter recommends that EPA
delay the designation for a 1-year period as provided under CAA Section
107(d)(1)(B)(i) to include information from significant efforts taken
City Borough of Juneau (CBJ) and Alaska Department of Environment
Conservation (ADEC).  The commenter believes that there is a lack of
Atlanta specific data which will result in incorrect recommendations and
decisions on air quality issues in their nonattaining communities.  

EPA Response:

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by
December, 2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  Based on
this data Juneau was in attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  However,
the monitor in Mendenhall Valley measured several exceedance in December
2007.  A preliminary review of the 2005-2007 PM2.5 monitoring data in
April 2008 indicated that the area may potentially be in violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Based on this review, EPA invited the State to
provide a recommendation for the Juneau area based on a through
technical analysis of the data.  The State submitted its recommendation
for the Juneau area in June 2008, as nonattainment for the PM2.5 24-hour
standard based on the monitoring data and recommended the old PM10
nonattainment area boundary as the PM2.5 boundary without any further
technical justification.  In its letter modifying States recommendation
sent to the State of Alaska on August 18, 2008, EPA used data from
2005-2007 and available data at its disposal to designate the area
nonattainment and drew the boundaries to include all potential sources
that could contribute to a violation of the PM2.5 24-hour standards at
the Mendenhall Valley monitor.  

Subsequently, on the 20th of October 2008, the State submitted a
comprehensive technical analysis using the nine factors approach
suggested by EPA, to identify the sources that contribute to violations
of the PM2.5 standards at the Mendenhall Valley monitor.  After careful
review of the information, EPA agrees that the PM2.5 boundary
recommended by the State of Alaska captures the sources that contribute
to the violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS to the Mendenhall Valley monitor. 
Further, EPA believes that controlling the sources identified in the
State’s analysis will also help the areas attain the standard and
ensure that the health of the citizens is maintained.

EPA does not have authority to delay an designation when it has adequate
information to make a determination, as it does in this area  So while
the EPA encourages collection and analysis of more information that will
be helpful in solving the PM2.5 nonattainment issues in Fairbanks, it
does not find any need to delay the designation to collect this
information.

Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which
explains EPA’s decisions on this nonattainment area.

Comment:

The commenter (0102) provides an assessment of the nine factors as
follows:

Factor 1 – The commenter states it is not apparent why there is a
discussion of CES.  The commenter recommends removal of the discussion
on CES because EPA specifically states at the end of the discussion that
CES was not considered in Alaska.  

EPA Response:

EPA agrees with this comment and has revised the TSDs for the State of
Alaska to better explain references to the CES.

Comment:

The commenter (0102) believes that further analysis on emissions from
adjacent “counties” and their impact on violations in the Mendenhall
Valley are not necessary.  The distances are relatively large (although
smaller than those found in the Fairbanks area) and the emissions
compared to Juneau are small.  Furthermore, there are no roads linking
the communities and the coastal environment (including mountains and
winds) limits any transport to the Mendenhall Valley.  

Meteorological information is limited because of the sparse population
and the complexity of the coastal environment.  The need to employ local
knowledge of the climate, geological, environment and emissions is the
very reason why EPA should not just arbitrarily expand the nonattainment
area and use national “top down” processes that forced the use of
meteorological information from a community almost 200 miles away from
Juneau.

EPA Response:

Based on this and other information EPA agrees with the Alaska’s
recommendation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area.

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenter (0102) states the analysis correctly
concludes there are no monitors in neighboring counties/communities. 
This is due to the knowledge of State staff regarding the air quality in
those areas.  While there may be small areas that could be influenced by
local emissions in the neighboring counties/communities, it is this
local experience that has allowed State staff to focus the extremely
limited resources to those areas that have (and in the case of the
Mendenhall Valley) demonstrated the potential for higher concentrations.
 This same local knowledge is what has limited the monitoring to just
the Mendenhall Valley.

In fact, the commenter understands that a PM2.5 monitor was operated in
a neighboring valley (the Lemon Creek area) within the Juneau area that
had no violation of the PM2.5 standard.  It is interesting to note that
EPA has included Lemon Creek valley as part of the proposed
nonattainment, even though it did not have high concentrations.  

The commenter states that ADEC conducted a short term monitoring program
in the downtown area of the City and Borough of Juneau and did not
document any high values of PM2.5, NOX or SOX associated with the summer
cruise ship traffic.  During the summer months, the cruise industry
brings over 750,000 passengers to the Juneau area.  Please note that the
summer cruise ship season is our busiest time of the year and has no
impact on the high wintertime values of PM2.5 in the Mendenhall Valley. 
Yet this area was also included in the recommendation to expand the
nonattainment value.  Since neighboring valleys have had monitoring data
that show they do not exceed the standards, the recommendation by EPA to
expand the boundary for Juneau are completely unsupported and should be
revised.  DEC and the CBJ will be submitting local data which supports
the selection of more reasoned boundaries.  Under the CAA, such an
option exists for the EPA.

EPA Response:

Availability of monitoring data from different areas by itself does not
qualify an area to be designated. Whether an area is violating a
criteria pollutant standard is identified using data from Federal
Reference Method (FRM) and Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors that
are sited and operated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, as revised on
October 17, 2006 (see 71 FR 61236). 

Once the siting and operating criteria are met, the Design Value for the
criteria pollutant (PM2.5 in this case) is computed according to 40 CFR
Part 50 Appendix N, as revised on October 17, 2006. 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix N, Section 4.2 a specifically says that,

“The 24 hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24 hour standard design value
at each monitoring site is less than 35 μgm-3.As the ADEC short term
monitoring program for a year does not meet these criteria, this data
cannot be used to determine the attainment status of an area.” 

The mere presence of a monitor showing attainment does not, however,
answer whether that area is contributing to a violation in a nearby
area.

Nevertheless,  the state has submitted substantial emissions and
meteorological evidence that support the fact that the violations of the
NAAQS and the sources contributing to the violations at the Mendenhall
Valley monitor are limited to the recommended nonattainment area
boundary, which coincides with the previously designated PM10
nonattainment area boundary for Juneau.  EPA notes that this area is
appropriate because of the unique topographical and meteorological facts
and circumstances in this area, not because PM2.5 and PM10 are
interchangeable.  Based on this information EPA agrees with the
State’s recommendation for the PM2.5 nonattainment area.

Additionally, as the state’s information provides an adequate basis
for determining a PM2.5 boundary, EPA does not find the need to extend
the designation date. 

Comment:

Factor 5 – The commenter (0102) states that the assumption that
population has remained stable (i.e., there has been no growth) is
accurate.  The ability of the City and Borough of Juneau to grow is
limited by its geography (the community is land/sea locked and
surrounded by the Tongass National Forest) and the availability of new
jobs.  The assumption that vehicle travel has grown by 62 percent,
however, is completely unsupported and is contradicted by extensive
vehicle traffic count data collected by the commenter.  The commenter
questions the difference between EPA’s estimate and their actual AADT.
 At this point, the reason for the difference is not apparent but the
fact remains that AADT is directly related to VMT and has decreased over
the past 10 years.  It is not possible to have an increase in VMT if our
traffic counts are down as reflected in Table 1 of the comment letter.

The commenter states that the assertion that vehicle emissions may be
higher are totally flawed and not supported by any data.  The commenter
also states that the assumption of growth is so flawed that it alone
suggests any increase in the proposed nonattainment area beyond the
State’s recommendation should not be considered.

For this reason, the commenter recommends EPA reduce the nonattainment
recommendation to those provided by the State or provide compelling
proof that such an expansion is justified by data that truly reflects
local conditions and not a “top down” national approach.

EPA Response:

EPA utilizes national databases for it information and directly pulls
data from federal agencies such as the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), and the U.S. Census Bureau to name a few.  The quality and
accuracy of data is determined by those agencies and is only as good as
the data that is submitted and available to those agency databases.  EPA
appreciated receiving this updated data, and has updated it analysis to
reflect this update. After review of information submitted by the
Alaska, EPA agrees with the state’s assessment and agrees with the
state’s recommendation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area.

Comment:

Factor 6 – The commenter (0102) states that the meteorological
assumptions presented for Juneau are seriously flawed; there is no
reason to believe that meteorological data from a community almost 200
miles away and separated by the tallest coastal mountain range in North
American could provide insight into conditions in Juneau.

Microclimates are extremely variable in Juneau, and are not even
comparable.  The Figure 5 discussion on page 30 of EPA’s attachment to
the Governor indicates this and states that the Yakutat data is
“…not representative of conditions in Juneau.”  Since EPA
acknowledges in the document that the meteorological data is not
representative of weather in Juneau, to designate an area larger than
recommended by the State at this time is not reasonable.

A much better solution would be to use the following two local sources
of data for Juneau.  Both are at
http://juneau-winds1.rap.ucar.edu/JuneauOps/combo_table.html or from our
road weather web page at http://roadweather.alaska.gov.  The Juneau Wind
Profiler is a national program developed, in part, by the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) for the Alaska Airlines
arrival/departure safety program.  

The serious and significant flaws associated with the incorrect
application of meteorology information justifies returning to the
State’s recommendations for the Juneau nonattainment area.  In light
of the use of meteorological data from over 200 miles away to represent
the low meteorological conditions experienced during the nonattainment
period, the department recommends EPA adopt the State’s recommended
nonattainment area.

EPA Response:

The State Of Alaska submitted substantial meteorological information and
an analysis based on that information supporting a PM2.5 nonattainment
area recommendation.  This data was collected over the years from
2005-2007 from the NOAA and NWS offices in the Mendenhall Valley area
and the UAF South Campus.  The data is representative of local climactic
and weather conditions and provides technical support for EPA to reach
its decision on the boundary for the PM2.5 nonattainment area for
Juneau.

Comment:

Factor 7 – The commenter quotes “the geography/topography
analysis...might have an effect on the air shed…distribution of PM2.5
over the Juneau and Mendenhall Valley” goes to the heart of the
problem.  The commenter states that the geography/topography and local
meteorological conditions have everything to do with the distribution of
the emissions.  This is the very reason that the recommendations for the
nonattainment area were made in the State’s request and should have
been accepted by EPA.

Large tracts of land incorporated by EPA in the expanded nonattainment
area are lands in the Tongass National Forest.  The expanded boundary
also includes portions of the Juneau Ice Field.  Attachment 2 provides a
better depiction of the topographical characteristics.  The department
recommends EPA drop the expanded boundary and accept the recommended
boundary for the Juneau nonattainment area.  It is unnecessary to
include large tracks of the national forest that cannot be developed,
including portions of the Juneau Ice Field.

EPA Response:

The updated information provided by the State of Alaska on the 20th of
October 2008 supports this comment.  That updated information provides
more detail on the topography in the Mendenhall Valley, Lemon Creek, and
Downtown Juneau areas.  Based on this and other information EPA agrees
with the State recommendation for the PM2.5 nonattainment area.  

Comment:

Factor 8 – The commenter (0102) states that EPA should drop any
reference to “ozone areas” in the heading for this section.  At this
time, there are no ozone areas in Alaska and this statement only leads
to confusion for the general reader.

EPA Response:

EPA will delete any reference to ozone areas to avoid any confusion that
may arise due to that.

3.25.  Klamath Falls, OR

Comment:

One commenter (0043) believes “regulations concerning PM2.5 are
draconian and overbearing due to the few days of the year that Klamath
Falls exceeds EPA standards."

EPA Response:

The Peterson School monitoring site in Klamath Falls has documented a
violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using ambient air quality data
collected by the State during the years 2005 through 2007 (please see
the TSD for this action).  Thus, the area violates the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS as established in federal regulations, 40 CFR part 50.  Achieving
compliance with the health based NAAQS will reduce adverse public health
effects from exposure to PM.

The CAA requires EPA to work with States and designate areas that
violate the NAAQS, and nearby areas with sources that contribute to
violations, as nonattainment (please see section 107(d)(1)(B) of the
CAA).  EPA has no leeway under the Act to designate such areas
attainment or unclassifiable even if the monitored violations occur only
on a few days.  

Designation as nonattainment initiates a State process to develop a SIP
that will more clearly analyze the sources that cause or contribute to
violations of the NAAQS and implement appropriate control measures for
those sources to bring the area back into attainment.  The burden of
control will be addressed by the State as it develops its SIP.

Comment:

One commenter (0060) disagrees with EPA's recommendation for expanding
the nonattainment area of Klamath Falls beyond the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB).  The commenter requests that EPA follow the ODEQ proposed NAA or
delay to allow further data collection, technical analysis and
appropriate review.  The commenter cites the following issues with the
technical analysis:

Factor 1 – The commenter believes that EPA should allow more time to
develop and refine a current emission database to show the predominant
contributors to the exceedences if residential wood combustion is an
important contributor.

EPA Response: 

With regard to emissions data, EPA believes that there is currently
sufficient information on sources in the Klamath Falls area to establish
a boundary of the NAA.  The most recent emission data provided by Oregon
is for the year 2007.  This year coincides with the time frame ambient
air quality data was collected for determining nonattainment.  This
inventory includes major stationary sources, area sources and mobile
sources and is adequate for establishing the NAA boundary.  

EPA also believes that previous year inventories are also representative
of the relative contribution of various sources and source categories
due to the very limited growth of the area.  These inventories also are
dominated by woodstove emissions.  Providing ODEQ additional time to
prepare another emission inventory is not warranted and not permitted by
the Act, which allows delay only if there is insufficient information
which EPA concludes is not the case here.  

Comment:

Factor 2- The commenter (0060) believes that the major industrial
sources included in the proposed NAA do not emit large emissions or
contribute to the exceedances.

EPA Response:  

The State of Oregon provided additional information to EPA demonstrating
that there were essentially no emission sources of PM2.5 in areas to the
south of the Klamath Falls Air Quality Zone (AQZ).  See discussion of
EPA’s response to Oregon’s supplemental information contained in the
Response to State Comments document elsewhere in the docket to this
action.  EPA concluded that the major sources in the AQZ do in fact have
emissions that contribute to the violating monitor, and that the AQZ
does include all of the emissions sources in the area.  Thus EPA has
determined the NAA boundary should be the AQZ.

Comment:

Factor 3 – The commenter (0060) cites low population numbers and no
sources of industrial emissions outside of the Klamath Falls UGB as
justification of why the NAA should not be expanded.

EPA Response: 

EPA agrees that most of the population resides within the UGB.  However,
there are major industrial sources of PM2.5 as well as residential units
with the potential to have wood stove emissions located just outside the
UGB.  The CAA requires that areas with sources that contribute to
nonattainment be included in the nonattainment area.  Thus, the NAA
boundary must include all major industrial sources and area sources that
contribute to nonattainment.  The entire AQZ meets this criteria and
therefore is appropriate for defining the nonattainment area boundary.

Comment:

Factor 4 – Traffic and commuting patterns are significant only within
the UGB area and any sources that could impact exceedances could
originate from beyond the proposed boundaries.  The commenter (0060)
questions the conclusion to expand the NAA boundary based on this
information.

EPA Response:  

The CAA does not make a distinction between significant and
non-significant contribution.  Thus, the area boundary must include
areas with sources that contribute regardless of significance.  Oregon
has submitted information that demonstrates that there are no sources to
the south of the urbanized area of Klamath Falls, thus the AQZ is an
appropriate boundary for the NAA as it covers all the areas with sources
that contribute to nonattainment.  Although traffic and VMT may not have
been a significant factor in extending the boundary to the AQZ, there
are still some mobile source emissions in this area and coupled with the
stationary sources in this area led EPA to conclude that the AQZ was an
appropriate boundary for the nonattainment area.

Comment:

Factor 5 – The commenter (0060) cited the Oregon Land Use laws that
inhibit high growth rates outside of the UGB area.

EPA Response: 

EPA understands that Oregon Land Use laws generally regulate growth and
development to areas within the UGB. However, these laws are not
federally enforceable and thus not a significant consideration for a
federal decision.  In consideration of the other recommended 8 factors
and other information in the boundary analysis, the AQZ meets the
requirements of the CAA.  Additional high growth outside of the UGB may
currently be limited, but there are sufficient existing sources of
emissions within the AQZ to justify expansion of the nonattainment area
to include all of the AQZ.  Further, local land use laws that are not
incorporated into a SIP could be changed in the future if the
nonattainment area does not include all sources currently contributing
to nonattainment.

Comment:

Factor 6 – The commenter (0060) believes that the HYSPLIT back
trajectory modeling analysis shows some influences on the UGB
originating outside the area.  The commenter states that EPA hones
quickly in on the couple of industrial facilities on the UGB border, as
if there are unknown major industrial complexes outside the UGB dumping
emissions into the UGB.  EPA’s conclusion from factor 6 is
inappropriate and inaccurate.   The commenter believes EPA’s analysis
is inaccurate and inappropriate.

EPA Response:  

In addition to the HYSPLIT modeling results, Oregon provided
meteorological data that demonstrates high PM2.5 concentrations occur
during periods of intense ground based inversions, low wind speed and
cold winter temperatures.  A stable atmosphere with no wind to disperse
pollution would indicate that major industrial sources located just
outside the UGB have a strong potential for contributing to violations
of the NAAQS within the UGB.  Thus a nonattainment area larger than the
UGB is warranted.  The AQZ is larger than the UGB and contains all the
major industrial sources.  Thus EPA concluded that the AQZ is an
appropriate nonattainment boundary based on this factor as well as many
other factors.

Comment:

Factor 7 – The commenter (0060) stated there is no data available to
support the expansion of the NAA boundary.  The commenter believes that
geography plays a role in limiting dispersion of ground level smoke, yet
not so much to warrant a 4000 to 5000 ft NAA zone.

EPA Response:  

Additional information provided by the State supports a smaller NAA
boundary than the full county originally proposed by EPA.  As discussed
in the TSD supporting this action, the AQZ is the appropriate boundary
based on consideration of this factor as well as several other factors.

Comment:

Factor 8 – The commenter (0060) believes that there is not enough
justification in EPA’s analysis of sources to warrant the expansion of
the NAA zone to the California-Oregon border.

EPA Response:  

This comment is not relevant to factor 8, jurisdictional boundaries. 
This factor is to consider existing legal boundaries such as city
limits, county boundaries, or other legal boundaries.  The UGB and the
AQZ are both legal entities established by Klamath County.  EPA has
determined the AQZ is the appropriate NAA boundary based on analysis of
all of the factors.  EPA agrees that based on analysis of all the data
including the new data submitted it is not appropriate in this case to
expand the boundary to the California border.

Comment:

Factor 9 – The commenter (0060) states that EPA was not able to
determine whether or not controls on the stationary sources are
federally enforceable and did not consider such data in their final
recommendation.  The commenter presents information that shows the
industrial sources in and near the UGB are well controlled.  The
commenter also shows that any increase in emissions from sources outside
a NAA must demonstrate no more than 1 μg/m3 impact in the NAA.  The
commenter goes further to say that a broad NAA boundary creates
unnecessary economic hardship, in that any new source in a NAA needs to
offset the increase in emissions which in a small community like Klamath
Falls is difficult.  

EPA Response:  

EPA is required and constrained by the CAA to designate those areas that
violate the NAAQS and those areas that contribute to violations.  The
CAA does not, however, define contributing.  Therefore, EPA’s guidance
recommends consideration of factors relevant to contribution, including
the recommended nine factors identified in EPA’s designations
guidance.  EPA concludes that even with current controls the stationary
sources in the AQZ are contributing to the monitored violations. 
Section 107 does not include a materiality test; any sources that are
contributing to the violating monitors must be included in the
nonattainment designation.  EPA cannot take into account the hardship of
sources to comply with the requirements of the Act in making
designations under section 107; these are proper considerations for the
State in developing a nonattainment area SIP.  Please see section 2.2
above for further response on these general legal issues.

Comment:

One commenter (0170) disagrees with EPA's recommendation for expanding
the nonattainment area of Klamath Falls beyond the UGB.  The commenter
requests that EPA follow the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) proposed NAA or delay to allow further data collection, technical
analysis and appropriate review.  The commenter believes that EPA’s
CES is flawed.  The commenter believes that the TSD needs more data
under all factors to support the proposed boundary.  The commenter
believes that EPA reached critical conclusions from inadequate
scientific and factual data and made faulty assumptions.  The commenter
cites the following issues with the technical analysis:

Factor 1 –The commenter believes there is extremely limited
contemporaneous data upon which EPA based its decision.  

EPA Response:  

EPA believes the emission inventory data presented by the State are
adequate to determine those sources that cause or contribute to
violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  All industrial source emissions,
estimation of area source emissions, and mobile source emissions are the
most current available.  Due to the slow growth rate of population and
the resulting slow growth of area and mobile sources in this area,
emissions data from 2005-2006 are representative of current emissions. 
The data are also contemporaneous with the air quality data collected
during 2005-2007 that was used to determine whether the area violates
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA believes there is reliable emissions data
to determine the nonattainment boundary.  The data on which the CES was
based were the most available up-to-date information at the time to be
released within the current schedule for State and public comment by
October 2008.

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenter (0170) believes that there is insufficient
information upon which to make air quality conclusions, as the
monitoring site at Peterson School appears to be the sole genesis of
data.  Furthermore, it is difficult to follow the logic supporting so
extensive a proposed boundary of the NAA and the extent to which wood
smoke factored into the analysis.  Clearly more data and analysis is
required.

EPA Response:  

Air quality data from the Peterson School monitoring site for 2005-2007
meets EPA monitoring and quality assurance requirements and was
submitted by the State of Oregon to EPA for inclusion in the National
data base.  Any and all data that meets EPA monitoring and quality
assurance requirements must be used to determine whether the NAAQS are
met.  Air quality data from the Peterson School monitor demonstrates the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is not met and thus the area does not attain the
NAAQS.  EPA cannot delay under the statute to collect additional data
where sufficient data exists to make a nonattainment designation.  The
next step in the process is to determine the extent of the NAA boundary.

The recommended nine factor analysis is used by EPA to determine the
extent of the nonattainment boundary.  EPA considered the county
boundary as the basic jurisdictional element for determining the
nonattainment area boundaries, consistent with past designation
practice.  The State provided adequate evidence that an area smaller
than the county be designated nonattainment and initially recommended
the UGB.  EPA disagreed with the State’s recommendation as it clearly
did not include all sources that potentially could contribute to PM2.5
levels at the Peterson School Site.  Some major industrial sources and
areas with residential wood combustion are not located within the UGB.

EPA used its best professional judgment, along with the information
provided in the State’s recommendation to determine the boundary of
the NAA.  EPA initially proposed a conservative boundary assuring all
areas with sources potentially contributing to nonattainment were
included.  EPA’s proposed boundary for the partial Klamath County
designation generally used topography features and County’s southern
boundary, simplified by using Township-Range survey lines.  

The State provided additional data after reviewing EPA’s proposed
boundary, showing the chemical composition of particulate captured on
monitoring filters and the distribution of population and wood stoves in
the area surrounding the City of Klamath Falls.  Elemental and organic
carbons are the most predominate species in the ‘filter catch’
indicating wood smoke is the primary source of emissions.  After
carefully reviewing this new information, EPA believes that the AQZ as a
revised recommendation from the State is appropriate.  It is a boundary
larger than the UGB but smaller than EPA’s original proposed boundary.
 The AQZ includes all wood stove emission sources and industrial sources
that contribute to PM2.5 concentrations at the Peterson School
monitoring site.  See the TSD for further information on EPA’s
rational for selecting the AQZ as the NAA boundary.

Comment:

Factor 3 – The commenter (0170) states the majority of lands lying
outside the UGB are Federal and agricultural land typically irrigated
during the growing season and covered by snow during the winter months.

EPA Response:  

EPA acknowledges that much of the land to the south of the UGB is rural
agricultural and federal land.  These lands are not sources of PM2.5
emissions during the winter season when exceedances of the level of the
PM2.5 standard are recorded due to snow cover and frozen ground.  EPA
has thus removed these areas from the NAA boundary.  EPA is designating
the AQZ as nonattainment based on analysis of all the factors as
detailed in the TSD.

Comment:

Factor 4 – The commenter (0170) believes that EPA’s emphasis upon
organic carbon is somewhat inconsistent with concerns regarding
vehicular emissions.  Apparently EPA desires to capture other potential
sources.

EPA Response:  

The commenter is correct.  EPA includes all potential sources that cause
or contribute to PM2.5 levels in the Klamath Falls area, including
mobile sources as well as wood smoke and industrial sources.

Comment:

Factor 5 – The commenter (0170) states that there is no significant
growth outside of the UGB and the proper focus of an analysis of growth
rates is within the proposed boundary itself.  

EPA Response:

EPA agrees with the comment; however, EPA concludes that the AQZ is an
appropriate boundary based on consideration of all of the factors. 
Although future growth may be limited to the UGB, there are current
sources outside the UGB and within the AQZ that are contributing
emissions to the violating monitor and thus must be included within the
nonattainment area.

Comment:

Factor 6 – The commenter (0170) states that it is unclear whether any
[meteorology] data was obtained locally.  There are no data suggesting
unknown sources are contributing PM into the air.  Consequently,
commentary regarding wind direction does not have analytical value
absent concrete data.

EPA Response: 

Oregon provided meteorological data from the Peterson School monitoring
site.  The data demonstrates that during periods of high PM2.5
concentrations, the area is experiencing ground based inversions and
very low wind speed.  This data would indicate local sources including
those outside the UGB are contributing to the high PM2.5 level.  For
this reason EPA is designating the AQZ as the nonattainment boundary.

Comment:

Factor 7 – The commenter (0170) believes that EPA’s reliance upon
topography and 5000 ft contours is extremely difficult to reconcile with
the EPA proposed boundary.  

EPA Response:  

The State of Oregon presented additional technical information
concerning emissions sources that demonstrates the AQZ for Klamath
County is the appropriate boundary for the nonattainment area.  Thus,
EPA is designating the AQZ as nonattainment and is no longer relying on
topography alone to limit the size of the nonattainment area.

Comment:

Factor 8 – The commenter (0170) states that EPA emphasizes that other
potential sources lie outside the UBG.  While this may be true, there
are no data ties to a particular potential source and no logical nexus
to these sources.  The county assumes, without being sure, that EPA
entirely is concerned with industrial sources within the current AQZ. 
If so, this fact would strongly support a conclusion that the NAA
coincide with the AQZ.  If the concern is simply that the NAA contain
potential sources, more data needs to be collected to identify how those
sources contribute to the air quality problems at issue.

EPA Response:  

EPA agrees with this comment and is designating the AQZ as nonattainment
based on current emissions from the area.

Comment:

Factor 9 – The commenter (0170) states that EPA appears to be
concerned with rebutting the State’s position that the UGB is an
appropriate boundary for the NAA, primarily emphasizing that four major
industrial sources lie outside the UGB.  Absent additional data and
factual support, factor 9 does not support EPA’s proposed boundary.  

EPA Response:  

The UGB is not an appropriate boundary for the nonattainment area since
there are major industrial sources located just outside the UGB.  EPA is
also concerned that the NAA boundary includes all the woodstoves.  The
State has provided information that the AQZ includes the industrial and
area sources that contribute to violations of the NAAQS.  EPA is
designating the AQZ as nonattainment based on this additional data and
analysis of all factors and analytic tools.

3.26.  Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN

Comment:

One commenter (0045) requests that Knox County, TN be designated
nonattainment.  The commenter believes that the air quality is horrible
and that EPA action will force positive change.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the determination that Knox
County, TN should be included in the nonattainment boundary for the
Knoxville area for the designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
    

3.27.  Lafayette-Frankfort, IN

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.28.  Lancaster, PA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.29.  Libby, MT

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.30.  Liberty-Clairton, PA

Comment:

Five commenters (0059, 0095) express disagreement with EPA’s previous
designation of the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area as separate from
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5
standard.  The commenters state that the entire metropolitan area is
cohesively defined for transportation and regional planning purposes as
well as economic development, and should be so for air pollution control
measures as well.

EPA Response:

For the designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) provided extensive
documentation to support a recommendation that a separate, nonattainment
area be designated within the Pittsburgh nonattainment area.  PADEP
resubmitted this material in its October 20, 2008 letter to EPA
regarding boundary recommendations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  This
document can also be found on the following website, listed as Appendix
1 of Pennsylvania’s Remarks to EPA’s Response:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/rec/region3.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/rec/region3.htm .  

EPA determined that the materials provided by Pennsylvania justify the
designation of Liberty-Clairton as a separate, distinctively
local-source impacted nonattainment area be designated within the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area.  Because of a localized
source of emissions and unique topography which contains these emissions
in the area, EPA determined that it was appropriate to establish
Liberty-Clairton as a separate nonattainment area from the Pittsburgh
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS designations.  The
recommended Liberty-Clairton area was specified as the area in the
vicinity of the Clairton Coke Works, which was previously designated
nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS as the “Clairton & 4 Boroughs
area.”

Comment:

Four commenters (0095) comment that higher monitor readings in one part
of the nonattainment area indicates the presence of a major source of
pollution in the vicinity.  The commenters state that a large single
source should argue for a larger nonattainment area since the emissions
from that large source are likely blown throughout the entire Pittsburgh
metropolitan region, into multiple States as well as across the
international border.  The commenters assert that previous studies
demonstrate the widespread impact of the emissions from such large
sources, and therefore the nonattainment designation should reflect the
entire Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA CSA, including all of Allegheny County,
as one area.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that, in the case of the Liberty-Clairton area, higher
monitor readings at one monitor in Allegheny County indicate the
presence of a major source of pollution in the vicinity.  This major
source is the Clairton Cole works.  However, as described in EPA’s
August 18, 2008 Technical Analysis for Liberty-Clairton Area, emissions
from the Clairton Coke Works do not contribute to PM levels in the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area or other points downwind.  The Clairton
Coke Works is a large and complex facility that emits a combination of
particulates, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and hundreds of VOCs.  Although
the coke plant has numerous existing emission controls, the combination
of a large amount of low-level emissions in a narrow river valley
creates a local air quality problem which is uniquely different from the
remainder of the area.

There are eight air quality monitors in Allegheny County.  PM2.5 design
values at seven of the eight monitors correlate well.  However, the
PM2.5 design value at Liberty Borough is considerably higher.  The 2005
- 2007 design value at the Liberty Borough monitor is 60.9 µg/m3, while
the design values at the other seven monitors in Allegheny County are
between 34 and 40 µg/m3.  The large local sources plus unusual
topographical features results in much higher PM2.5 monitored values at
the Liberty Borough monitor than the other monitors in Allegheny County.
 

The commenters referenced a report entitled The Particulate-Related
Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions in order to compare
Clairton Coke Works emissions to that of other large sources of
particulates, such as power plants.  However, the emissions from the
Clairton Coke Works are much less than those from a power plant.  In
2004, Clairton Coke Works had SO2 emissions of 1654 tons and NOX
emissions of 4,368 tons.  By contrast, the Cheswick and Bruce Mansfield
power plants in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area emitted substantially
more SO2 and NOX in the same year.  Cheswick in Allegheny County emitted
over 40,900 tons of SO2 and 4,900 tons of NOX; and Bruce Mansfield
Beaver County emitted over 37,900 tons on SO2 and 24,000 tons of NOX in
2004.  Carbon emissions are also higher at the power plants.  However, a
direct comparison cannot be made.  Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are
reported for Clairton Coke works, 3,894 tons in 2004.  Carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions are reported for the power plants; in 2004 emissions
were nearly 3,198,900 tons from Cheswick and over 17,654,000 tons from
Bruce Mansfield.

Furthermore, in its October 20, 2008 letter to EPA regarding boundary
recommendations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, PADEP stated that the Clairton
Coke Works facility has stack heights that are lower than normal power
plant stacks.  This would mean that the effects of a source like the
Coke Works would impact the ground at a much closer location locally
than a power plant.  The highest fine particulate concentrations occur
at the Liberty Borough monitor when we see the south-southwesterly winds
along with a morning inversion.  A morning inversion occurs when the
ground is cooler than the air above it; normally at night, the area is
under the control of high pressure and clear skies.  With the warmer air
being above the cooler air, vertical mixing is at a minimum.  Therefore,
anything exhausted in the boundary layer with an inversion in place will
remain trapped in that layer.  For example, as the Coke Works’ low
level sources emit emissions, the plume of emissions will only rise to
the top of the inversion layer.  At that point, the pollution is spread
out horizontally.  These inversions usually set up only a few hundred
feet above the surface.  Therefore, fine particulate levels can become
very high near the surface.  In this case, the plume impacts the
hillside across the river as well; the plume is actually not traveling
large distances.  This is evident from the speciation data from two
sites, Liberty and Lawrenceville.  The Lawrenceville monitor is actually
downwind from the Pittsburgh metro area (the monitor sits atop the
Allegheny County Health Department building in Lawrenceville, which is
to the west of the Allegheny River).  

The figures below display the results of the 2003-2005 speciated
components of the fine particulates at these two monitors.

Lawrenceville					Liberty Borough

    

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 .  2003-2005 Speciated components at
the Lawrenceville and Liberty Borough Monitors.

The following figure looks at the difference between the Lawrenceville
and Liberty monitors, also know as the Liberty Excess.  

Liberty Excess

 

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  2 .  Difference between 2003-2005
speciated components at the Liberty and Lawrenceville monitors.

Regional pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates, are not showing up
in the Liberty Excess.  In this case, carbon (elemental and organic) is
playing a big role in the actual PM2.5 measurements at Liberty.  The
Clairton Coke Works facility is a large contributor to elemental and
organic carbon.

Comment:

One commenter (0059) stated it found no support for the assumption that
the emissions from the major source at Liberty-Clairton are isolated
from the air quality in the surrounding Pittsburgh metropolitan area,
including air quality in Allegheny County and Westmoreland County, both
of which are in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area.

EPA Response:

As explained in EPA’s August 18, 2008 Technical Analysis for
Liberty-Clairton Area, speciation data further illuminates
Liberty-Clairton area’s unique local problem.  The Allegheny County
Health Department (ACHD) conducted an 18-month study which compared
PM2.5 speciation data at the Liberty Borough monitor to another monitor
in Allegheny County, the Lawrenceville monitor.  (See, “PM2.5 Chemical
Speciation and Related Comparisons at Lawrenceville and Liberty:
18-Month Results,” dated June 7, 2005, prepared by Jason Maranche,
Allegheny County Health Department, and available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.achd.net/airqual/pubs/pdf/speciation_report.pdf" 
http://www.achd.net/airqual/pubs/pdf/speciation_report.pdf .)  The
Lawrenceville monitor, # 42-003-008, is located in Pittsburgh, downwind
from the central business district.  The Liberty Borough monitor site is
located in the Monongahela Valley, which contains a mix of urban
residential, heavy industrial and rural areas.  

The ACHD study showed that the Lawrenceville monitor is impacted by
sulfates during warmer weather and nitrates when it is cold.  The
Liberty Borough monitor showed similar levels of nitrates and sulfates,
depending on the season.  However, the main species detected year-round
at Liberty Borough were organic and elemental carbon.

Thus, the high concentrations of carbon at the Liberty Borough monitor
indicate a unique local problem in the area.  The additional carbon is,
on average, approximately equal to the difference between the Liberty
Borough design concentration and the concentration for the remainder of
the surrounding Pittsburgh area.  

3.31.  Logan, UT-ID

Comment:

One commenter (0099) recommends that EPA designate two separate
nonattainment areas bounded by the State line between Utah and Idaho. 
The commenter is concerned about the difficulty of conducting various
air quality planning efforts (especially transportation conformity
analysis) while having to coordinate with one MPO, two State Departments
of Transportation, two State Departments of Environmental Quality and
two separate Regional EPA Offices.

EPA Response:

The Cache Valley is a bowl-shaped valley measuring approximately 60
kilometers north to south and 20 kilometers east to west and almost
entirely surrounded by mountain ranges.  There is no topographic
physical barrier that separates the populated areas of Cache County,
Utah and Franklin County, Idaho and it is clear that the portions of the
two counties being designated nonattainment are located in the same
airshed.  EPA’s analysis of the meteorology of the area included wind
direction, speed, and pollution rose data.  High PM2.5 days occur during
winter temperature inversions and the highest concentrations were with
light winds from the NW and SE directions.  These factors in combination
with a low mixing height acting as a lid over the air mass prevents
dispersion into the upper atmosphere.  Thus, the high terrain areas
surrounding the air mass and exceeding the mixing height act to
essentially define its boundaries. 

Nationwide, there are numerous areas that are multi-state and
multi-jurisdictional that have been designated as one nonattainment area
and have been able to coordinate together to address common air
pollution issues.  Past experience indicates that States are capable of
working collaboratively in SIPs to resolve nonattainment area problems
that cross state lines.  The transportation conformity analysis has a
collaborative process formally outlined in Section XII “Transportation
Conformity Consultation” of Utah’s SIP and addresses issues such as:
transportation conformity consultation, specific roles and
responsibilities, the interagency collaboration and consultation
process, and the dispute resolution process.

There are options available to administer the transportation conformity
requirements in the entire boundary area for Cache and Franklin Counties
(or any other geographic area).  To address these transportation
conformity issues, and many other situations, EPA’s Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has produced two documents;
“Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation
Conformity Rule; Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and New Air Quality
Standards” (EPA420-B-04-012, July, 2004), and “Interim Guidance for
Implementing the Transportation Conformity Provisions in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU)” (EPA420-B-06-90, February, 2006.)

The “Companion Guidance” document (EPA420-B-04-012) outlines options
for establishing the PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) on a
nonattainment area-wide basis or subarea basis.  In addition, the
MPO/States may revert from using nonattainment area-wide budgets to
demonstrate conformity by meeting selected respective subarea emission
budgets if the MPO/States make concurrent conformity determinations that
demonstrate consistency of their respective plans and programs with
their individual subarea budgets.  Likewise, at any time in the future,
the MPO/States may switch from using subarea budgets to using
nonattainment area-wide budgets.  This is allowed as long as they once
again perform a joint conformity determination and the sum of their
subarea motor vehicle emissions are equal to or less than the
established nonattainment area-wide PM2.5  MVEBs.  This process is
allowed provided that it is established in the respective SIPs.  The
guidance provides great flexibility for the MPO/States to jointly meet
the necessary SIP budget(s) and represents a unified process for
addressing transportation conformity.

3.32.  Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.33.  Louisville, KY-IN

Comment:

One commenter (0137) supports EPA’s recommendations and requests that
EPA designate Bullitt and Jefferson counties in Kentucky as
nonattainment.  The commenter cites negative health impacts from PM2.5
and its contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this supporting comment and has made the determination
that Bullitt and Jefferson counties in Kentucky should be included in
the nonattainment boundary for the Louisville area for the designations
for the 2006 revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions:

Comment:

One commenter (0114) requests that EPA deny the exceptional events
request from the Kentucky Division of Air Quality, citing negative
health impacts from PM2.5.  The commenter requests that EPA designate
Bullitt and other counties that exceed or contribute to violations of
the NAAQS as nonattainment.

EPA Response:

As explained in EPA’s June 08, 2007, guidance entitled, Air
Designations for the Revised 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard,
“Air quality monitoring data affected by exceptional events may be
excluded from use in identifying a violation if they meet the criteria
for such an exclusion, as specified in the Final Rule on the Treatment
of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events (72 FR 13560).  Attached to the
August 19th letter from EPA to Governor Beshear
(http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_KY_EPAMO
D.pdf) is a very detailed analysis all of the exceptional events
requests, including Bullitt County, Kentucky.  (See Enclosure 3).  While
EPA did concur with some of the exceptional events requests made for the
Louisville area, as explained in the TSD EPA is designating Bullitt
County as part of the Louisville nonattainment area because this county
has a monitor that is violating the standard with a design value of 36
for the 2005-2007 time period even after consideration of all proposed
exceptional events and exclusion of those approved by EPA.  Please see
the TSD and exceptional events attachment for full discussion of these
issues.

3.34.  Madison-Baraboo, WI

Comment:

Four commenters (0082, 0096, 0109, 0134,) disagreed with EPA’s
recommended designations for Columbia County in Wisconsin.  All of the
commenters believe that the emissions from Columbia County do not
contribute to the violation in Dane County.  Two of the commenters
(0082, 0096) believe that if the most recent data from 2008 is used,
Dane and Brown counties are likely to be able to be in compliance.  One
of the commenters (0109) requested a 1-year extension from EPA to
designate because the commenter believes that if the most recent data
from 2008 are used the area will be in attainment.  One of the
commenters (0082) requests that in the event EPA is unwilling to
reconsider the proposed nonattainment designation, the commenter
believes that a partial county boundary confined in the Town of Pacific
because it encompasses Columbia Energy Center.  

Factor 2 – The commenter believes that Columbia County is surrounded
compliant monitors (Sauk and Dodges Counties) and therefore the county
is not contributing.  The commenter believes that the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) data prove that stationary sources contribute a
minute fracture of the total PM2.5.  The commenter requests that EPA
review the NOX emissions in Table 1 of the comment letter because the
commenter believes there are no coal-fire emission units that are
irregularly high;

Factor 6 – The commenter believes Columbia County does not have
significant emissions on upwind days with high concentrations of PM2.5. 
The commenter believes that the prevailing winds displayed on EPA’s
pollution roses indicate that prevailing winds (71 percent) are from the
directions of south or southwest.

EPA Response:

EPA initially recommended designating Columbia and Dane Counties as
nonattainment.  EPA considers the Columbia County emissions to
contribute to the violations in Dane County base on analysis of all
factors and analytic tools.  Additional information shows that Columbia
County emissions are mostly generated at a power plant.  Consistent with
what EPA did in other areas where a single source or closely located
group of sources is responsible for a large portion of a contributing
county’s emissions, EPA is designating a partial county area as
nonattainment.  In the Madison area, EPA is designating Pacific Township
in Columbia County as nonattainment and the rest of the county as
attainment.  Meteorological data indicates the wind comes from a variety
of directions in the Madison area.  There is no dominating wind
direction.  Also, the atmosphere chemistry forming fine particulate from
precursor emissions is complex, so it is not as simple as the wind
carrying the pollution from one area to another.  EPA concluded based on
this meteorology coupled with the size of emissions from Pacific
Township, location in relation to the violating monitor, low population
and commuting that a partial county designation including Pacific
Township was appropriate.  Please see section 2.2 for general comments
on materiality of emissions and attaining monitors between a source and
a violating monitor.

EPA is providing Wisconsin and the other states an opportunity to submit
2008 monitoring data before the designations are effective.  Should this
data show that the entire area meets the air quality standards, EPA will
reconsider the appropriate designation.  Further detail is provided
above in section 2.3.  

Comment:

One commenter (0119) requests that EPA expand the nonattainment area
designations.  The commenter requests that EPA designate Grant County,
WI as nonattainment.  The commenter believes that Grant County
contributes to violations in Dane County.  The commenter provides
additional information about the impact of future modifications at
Nelson E.  Dewey Unit 3.  The commenter cites negative health impacts
from PM2.5.  

EPA Response:

Additional information on a proposed Grant County source expansion was
also provided.  EPA uses the current conditions to set nonattainment
areas.  Just as EPA cannot use projected emission controls on a large
source to exclude a county from the area, the Agency cannot use the
projected new source expansion to add Grant County to the Madison
nonattainment area.  Wisconsin needs to include planned emission
increases like the Grant County power plant expansion mentioned in the
comment when it develops plans to bring the Madison area into
attainment.  In addition, any new or modified facilities must comply
with applicable new source review requirements.

3.35.  Milwaukee-Racine, WI

Comment:

One commenter (0082) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designations for
Racine and Waukesha counties in Wisconsin.  The commenter believes that
the emissions for the Racine and Waukesha counties do not contribute to
the violations in Milwaukee County.

Racine County, WI.

Factor 1 – The commenter believes that the emissions are minimal and
should not be characterized as contributing.  The commenter believes
that the DNR data prove that stationary sources contribute a minute
fracture of the total PM2.5;

Factor 4 – The commenter believes that emissions from the county to
Milwaukee County are minimal, using EPA’s emission factors for
light-duty trucks and passenger cars and data from the U.S.  Census
Bureau, which the commenter attached to its submission; and

Factor 9 – The commenter believes that all the stationary sources in
Racine County are fully controlled.

Waukesha County, WI

Factor 1 – The commenter believes that the emissions are minimal and
should not be characterized as contributing.  The commenter believes
that the DNR data prove that stationary sources contribute a minute
fracture of the total PM2.5.  The commenter requests that EPA review the
NOX emissions in Table 1 because the commenter believes there are no
coal-fire emission units are irregularly high;

Factor 4 – The commenter believes that emissions from the county to
Milwaukee County are minimal, using EPA’s emission factors for
light-duty trucks and passenger cars and data from the U.S.  Census
Bureau, which the commenter attached to its submission; and

Factor 9 – The commenter believes that all the stationary sources in
Waukesha County are fully controlled.

EPA Response:

The CAA requires EPA to designate areas failing to meet an air quality
standard and areas that contribute to violations as nonattainment areas.
 Even if an area is monitoring attainment or lacks air quality
monitoring, it is to be designated as nonattainment if it contributes to
a violation.  The counties nearby a violating county must be evaluated
for a contribution to the violation.  Other factors including population
and commuting are also reviewed for these nearby counties.  The CAA
requires defining nonattainment areas to include the full set of
contributing areas along with areas experiencing violations, as a means
of assuring that the State planning process takes comprehensive
consideration of nearby areas where controls can help improve air
quality.  

Designations are based on current air quality.  Current values are also
used for the other factors such as emissions and emission controls.  The
trend of improved air quality in many areas is commendable.  Still, the
possibility that an area may achieve the air quality standards in the
future is not a basis for an attainment designation.  Similarly,
projections of future emission reductions or increases of population and
commuting may not prove accurate and are not a basis for determining the
size of a nonattainment area.  Therefore, EPA designated counties
nonattainment as part of the Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee areas
using the current monitoring, emissions, and other data.  EPA is also
allowing Wisconsin and the other States to submit 2008 monitoring data
prior to the effective date of the designations.  This ensures that the
latest monitoring data are considered.  Please see section 2.3 above
regarding the submission of 2008 data.  

Specifically, Waukesha County has a relatively large amount of emissions
for this area, even considering current emission controls.  Racine
County has moderate emissions considering controls.  Section 107 does
not include a materiality test, any area that contributes to the
violations must be included in the nonattainment areas.  EPA analyzed
the counties and found both counties make a contribution to the
violations in the adjacent Milwaukee County considering emissions,
emission controls, location in relation to the violating monitors,
population, commuting and meteorology.  Commuting data from 2005, more
recent then that cited by the commenter, shows the 97 percent of
Waukesha County workers and 88 percent of Racine County workers commute
within the Milwaukee area.   

Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which
explains EPA’s decisions on this area.

Comment:

Two other commenters (0096, 0134) also disagree with EPA’s recommended
designations for Racine and Waukesha Counties in Wisconsin.  The
commenters believe that the emissions for the Racine and Waukesha
Counties do not contribute to the violations in Milwaukee County, and
that commuting from these areas is low.

EPA Response:

The CAA requires EPA to designate areas failing to meet an air quality
standard and areas that contribute to violations as nonattainment areas.
 Even if an area is monitoring attainment or lacks air quality
monitoring, it is to be designated as nonattainment if it contributes to
a violation.  The counties nearby a violating county must be evaluated
for a contribution to the violation.  Other factors including population
and commuting are also reviewed for these nearby counties.  The CAA
requires defining nonattainment areas to include the full set of
contributing areas along with areas experiencing violations, as a means
of assuring that the State planning process takes comprehensive
consideration of nearby areas where controls can help improve air
quality.  

Designations are based on current air quality.  Current values are also
used for the other factors such as emissions and emission controls.  The
trend of improved air quality in many areas is commendable.  Still, the
possibility that an area may achieve the air quality standards in the
future is not a basis for an attainment designation.  Similarly,
projections of future emission reductions or increases of population and
commuting may not prove accurate and are not a basis for determining the
size of a nonattainment area.  Therefore, EPA designated counties
nonattainment as part of the Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee areas
using the current monitoring, emissions, and other data.  EPA concluded
as described in the TSD that based on emissions, emission controls,
population, commuting and meteorology Racine and Waukesha do currently
contribute to the violations in Milwaukee.

EPA’s commuting data shows that Racine and Waukesha Counties have a
high fraction of workers who commute within the Milwaukee area.  This
helps to show that the counties are a part of the area.  Wisconsin did
not supply any county-to-county commuting information for EPA to review.
 Still, EPA determined that Racine and Waukesha Counties contribute to
the Milwaukee County violation based on the recommended nine factor
analysis.  The commuting data certainly was not the sole factor in
EPA’s designations.

EPA is also allowing Wisconsin and the other States to submit 2008
monitoring data prior to the effective date of the designations.  This
ensures that the latest monitoring data are considered.  Please see
section 2.3 above regarding the submission of 2008 data.  Please refer
to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s
decisions for this area.

Comment:

One commenter (0119) requests that EPA expand the nonattainment area
designations.  The commenter requests that EPA designate Kenosha,
Ozaukee, and Washington Counties in Wisconsin as nonattainment.  The
commenter believes that Kenosha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties
contribute to violations in Milwaukee County.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5.

EPA Response:

EPA determined that Milwaukee, Racine, and Waukesha Counties make up the
Milwaukee nonattainment area and that Kenosha, Ozaukee, and Washington
Counties do not belong in the Milwaukee nonattainment area.  

The 2005 emissions inventory shows high emissions in Kenosha County, but
these 2005 emissions were attributable in large part to the WEPCO
Pleasant Prairie power plant.  By the end of 2006, this plant had highly
effective NOx control equipment in place on both units, and by the end
of 2007 the plant had highly effective SO2 control equipment in place on
both units.  As a result, Kenosha County now has relatively low
emissions which EPA believes no longer contributes to violations in
Milwaukee County.  Ozaukee and Washington Counties have moderate
emissions and a moderate fraction of the commuters from these counties
commute into Milwaukee County.  However, the population and emissions in
these counties is sufficiently lower than the population and emissions
in Milwaukee, Racine, and Waukesha Counties for EPA to determine that
these counties do not contribute to the violations.

Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which
explains EPA’s decisions for this area.

3.36.  Morgantown, WV

Comment:

One commenter (0131) requests that EPA follow the law and perform the
duties of the office in protecting the public in Monongalia County, WV. 
The commenter comments that the people and other assets will not be
protected in the near-term or the decades ahead unless the nonattainment
status is appropriately applied.  The commenter believes that the
following power plants: Ft.  Martin, Beechurst, Hatsfield Ferry in
Pennsylvania, Rivesville and another unnamed power plant located on the
Cheat River in Preston County, contribute to the violation in Monongalia
County.  The commenter notes the impacts of underground and surface
mining on particulates.  The commenter notes the increase of truck
traffic.  The commenter notes the impacts of: West Virginia University,
unemployment, growth, open burning and other fine particulate
contributors in Monongalia County.

EPA Response:

EPA considers the designation of nonattainment areas with appropriate
boundaries to be an important step toward the attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  To promulgate the designations, EPA followed the
process set forth in section 107(d) of the Act.  In determining what
specific areas to include with the boundaries of a designated
nonattainment area, EPA followed the definition of “nonattainment”
in section 107(d)(1)(A)(i).  That provision requires EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that does not meet the NAAQS, or that contributes
to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. 
EPA indentified areas that were violating the NAAQS based upon monitors
that registered violations of the NAAQS over a 3-year period
(2005-2007).  In order to determine what nearby areas were contributing
to these violations, EPA evaluated a broad range of information.  In
order to determine what nearby areas were contributing to these
violations, in accordance with the Agency’s June 8, 2007 guidance, EPA
evaluated a broad range of available information and technical data
related to the nine factors.  For the Morgantown Area, the information
evaluated included vehicular data and emissions and controls (current
and projected) data for ten electrical generating units (EGUs) with SO2
plus NOx emissions greater than 5000 tons, including: the Fort Martin
Power Station located in Monongalia County, WV; the Hatfield’s Ferry
Power Station located in Greene County, PA; the Rivesville Facility
located in Marion County, WV; and, the Albright Facility located in
Preston County, WV.  The Fort Martin Power Station and the Morgantown
Energy Facility (referred to as “Beechurst” by the commenter) are
located in Monongalia County, WV, which is being designated as
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of the Morgantown Area. 
The Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station is located within the portion of
Greene County, PA which is being designated as nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of the Pittsburgh Nonattainment Area.  EPA
recognizes the commenter’s concern relating to various other potential
sources of fine particulate emissions within Monongalia County, WV, and
believes that the designation of this area as nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS is an important step towards improving ambient air quality
within this area. 

Comment:

One commenter (0176) requests EPA to designate Monongalia County as
nonattainment.  The commenter provides details for each of the nine
factors for analysis:

Factor 1 – The commenter stated there are two coal-fired facilities in
the area and a third facility in construction, and that emission data of
these facilities will have to be collected by a third-party
environmental scientist;

Factor 2 – The commenter notes that there are no dust suppression
equipment currently used for open coal piles, river barge loading
plants, rail loading cars, coal waste sites, and coal mixing facilities.
 The commenter also notes idling trucks on County Route 53 and smelling
flue gas several times a year.  The commenter suggests asking landowners
to put new monitors on their property to gather data; 

Factor 3 – The commenter notes the building of townhouses and schools
in town and that vehicles used for coal mining are common throughout the
county;

Factor 4 – The commenter states that traffic is very heavy
county-wide, including Interstate 79;

Factor 5 - The commenter states that Monongalia County is growing
quickly but not responsibly; 

Factor 7 – The commenter notes that there are a number of villages,
farmland, forestland, rolling hills and valleys; and

Factor 9 – The commenter states that more enforcement and heavier
fines are needed to control the air pollution and more oversight is
needed by EPA.

EPA Response:

In EPA’s August 18, 2008 letter to West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin,
III, the Agency proposed designating Monongalia County as the Morgantown
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  This
recommendation was based on EPA’s technical analysis for the
Morgantown area, which included a review of the recommended nine factors
in the Agency’s June 8, 2007 guidance which addressed many of the
factors noted by the commenter.  Consistent with that position, EPA is
now designating the Morgantown area, which includes all of Monongalia
County, nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  Please refer
to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s
decisions.  West Virginia will now have to prepare a SIP for the area
demonstrating attainment by controlling the various sources noted by the
commenter.  The State has discretion to decide which sources to control
and the commenter will have the opportunity to participate in public
comment on the draft SIP.  

3.37.  Muscatine, IA

Comment:

One commenter (0171) supports EPA’s recommendations for all of
Muscatine County, IA, to be designated as nonattainment.  The commenter
states that high background concentrations of fine particulate matter
indicate sources outside the cities of Muscatine and Davenport are the
sources are contributing to the fine particulate matter concentrations
recorded.  

EPA Response:

EPA proposed designating the whole county of Muscatine County as
nonattainment due to monitored violations and an initial review of the
9-factor analysis.  In October 2008, Iowa provided additional
information on the area in response to EPA’s 120-day letter.  Based on
an analysis of the data provided by the State, in conjunction with the
9-factor analysis, EPA determined that it could not support the
State’s recommended boundary, but that a partial county designation
was appropriate.  

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  

Please refer to the Iowa TSD for long range transport discussion.

Comment:

One commenter (0089) disagrees with EPA’s proposed designation that
Muscatine County be designated as nonattainment.  The commenter requests
that the county be designated as attainment.  The commenter suggests as
an alternative that if EPA designates the county nonattainment, that the
boundary is the narrower boundary recommended by Iowa Department of
Natural Resources.  The commenter believes the following:

That Section 107(d)(1)(A) of the CAA bases designations on the monitored
values from 2004-2006 and EPA’s designation was improperly conducted
by accounting for design value monitoring data from 2005-2007.

EPA Response:

EPA has used the most recent monitoring data available to identify areas
that violate the new standard. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA
promulgate designations based on valid air quality data available at the
time of the promulgation.  That data must be quality assured in order to
be considered in the designation process.  That data set may change
during the designation process as data is submitted by the state to the
EPA each year and it is quality assured. The State was asked to make
recommendations for all areas in the State to be designated as
unclassifiable, attainment, or nonattainment.  These recommendations
were due to EPA by December 2007.   Iowa based its recommendation of the
entire state being attainment on the most recent quality assured data
available to it at the time of the recommendation, which was 2004-2006
monitoring data. At that time the data did not indicate violations of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The State anticipated that more recent
data might show violations and asked EPA to consider that data in making
decisions.   During 2008, 2007 monitoring data was quality assured and
as such was ready for consideration by the State and EPA.  Monitoring
data from 2005-2007 showed two areas in the state with violations of the
standard.  Based on this more recent data the EPA informed the State of
the violating monitors and requested a revised recommendation.  Iowa
subsequently recommended two very small partial county areas in the
violating counties.  In addition, EPA is not “re-designating the
area” as suggested by the commenters.  It is instead promulgating
initial designations based on the most current information available as
it is required to do.

Comment:

EPA used monitoring data from two source-oriented, SPMs with middle
spatial scale ranges that exhibited exceedence that were not
representative of general air quality conditions; EPA’s statements on
whether or not sufficient data is available to properly characterize the
nonattainment area are contradictory.

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

Nonattainment area designations are to include the area in violation and
areas that contribute to the violation.  Although modeling data provided
by the state demonstrates that the two named local sources influence the
violation at the monitor, the modeling did not demonstrate that other
sources in the Quad Cities area do not contribute to the violation as
well.  For the reasons detailed in the TSDs for the
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA has determined that
other sources in the area contribute to violations of the NAAQS.  Thus,
EPA is establishing a nonattainment area boundary to include these
sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and Illinois which address
these issues in greater detail.

Commenter (0089) stated that EPA’s proposed nonattainment boundaries
were in conflict with EPA’s 2007 guidance provided to the states, that
EPA did not make its recommendation on a case-by-case basis, that EPA
did not include only “areas” shown to have a significant
contribution to exceedance events, and that culpability of sources in
the larger area could not be established because only the source
oriented monitors were exceeding.  

EPA Response:

EPA did conduct a case-by-case analysis of the violating areas based on
the information provided to it by the State and other relevant
information.  EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as
well as the area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent
to the State noted that the data the State provided did not support very
small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a lack of
contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it demonstrate that
only the sources in immediate proximity to the violating monitors
contributed to violations.  As this information was not provided to the
EPA, its case-by-case review resulted in a decision to notify the State
of its intent to include county-wide areas in the nonattainment area
boundaries. Since that time the State responded to EPA’s 120-day
letter and submitted more data for review.  However, this data also did
not demonstrate that no other sources in the area were contributing to
the violation, nor did it demonstrate an overwhelming contribution
solely from the point sources nearest to the violating monitors.  On the
contrary it showed a considerable contribution (almost 50 percent of the
total filter mass) of secondary formation attributable to emissions
transported from a longer range in addition to a smaller contribution of
secondary formation from local point source emissions.  The State’s
technical response to EPA’s 120-day letter did not support as narrow a
boundary as recommended by the State.  EPA concluded that a larger
partial county designation, inclusive of the townships of the major
metropolitan areas includes the violating area and the nearby
contributing areas.  Refer to EPA’s response above concerning the
nature of the monitors.

 

Comment:

EPA should give consideration to the efforts already underway in the
Muscatine area to address high background levels of PM2.5.

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes the efforts by the state and the stakeholders to achieve
emissions reductions as soon as possible.  EPA also encourages both
states to continue efforts to assist the community in implementing
voluntary measures.  

However, under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, in designating
nonattainment areas, EPA must designate, as nonattainment, areas that
are violating a NAAQS and areas that are contributing to the violations.
 This requirement does not authorize EPA to rely on the ongoing efforts
to develop further control strategies in determining nonattainment
boundaries.  EPA’s decision must be based on the statutory
requirements, and EPA’s promulgation of the nonattainment designations
for these areas, as described in detail in the TSDs, meets the statutory
requirements.

Comment:

Two commenters (0150, 0151) suggest as an alternative that if EPA
designates the Muscatine County, IA, area as nonattainment, that a
narrower boundary designation is made as recommended by the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources and consider voluntary control
strategies at the named point sources.  

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes the efforts by the state and the stakeholders to achieve
emissions reductions as soon as possible.  EPA also encourages both
states to continue efforts to assist the community in implementing
voluntary measures.  

However, under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, in designating
nonattainment areas, EPA must designate, as nonattainment, areas that
are violating a NAAQS and areas that are contributing to the violations.
 This requirement does not authorize EPA to rely on the ongoing efforts
to develop further control strategies in determining nonattainment
boundaries.  EPA’s decision must be based on the statutory
requirements, and EPA’s promulgation of the nonattainment designations
for these areas, as described in detail in the TSDs, meets the statutory
requirements.

Comment:

Commenters (0150 and 0151) believe that the monitor results are not
representative of the general area air quality. 

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

Comment:

The commenter (0151) asserts that because EPA has not “promulgated an
approved method for quantifying PM2.5 emissions data can be suspect
absent an acceptable method”. “…Without an approved testing
method, accurate modeling, and better understanding of PM2.5 origins, a
premature PM2.5 nonattainment designation could result in industries
being required to undertake expensive process controls that have little
or no impact on local PM2.5 readings.

EPA Response:

EPA cannot decline to promulgate designations, or delay designations,
based upon a purported lack of a test method.   EPA has adequate
estimates of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for designation purposes
in the 2005 NEI.  Better information will be developed by the State and
EPA in the process of developing the SIP for each nonattainment area.

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA promulgate designations based on
valid air quality monitoring data available at the time of the
promulgation from monitors eligible for comparison with the NAAQS (PM2.5
in this case).  Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each
state and are reviewed and approved by EPA.  EPA establishes minimum
monitoring network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but
States are allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data
collection systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as
eligible for comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.
Two of these monitors are violating the NAAQS and therefore EPA must
promulgate nonattainment area designations. 

Comment:

One of the commenters (0151) also believes that Section 107(d)(1)(A) of
the CAA bases designations on the monitored values from 2004-2006 and
EPA’s designation was improperly conducted by accounting for design
value monitoring data from 2005-2007.

EPA Response:

EPA has used the most recent monitoring data available to identify areas
that violate the new standard. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA
promulgate designations based on valid air quality data available at the
time of the promulgation.  That data must be quality assured in order to
be considered in the designation process.  That data set may change
during the designation process as data is submitted by the state to the
EPA each year and it is quality assured. The State was asked to make
recommendations for all areas in the State to be designated as
unclassifiable, attainment, or nonattainment.  These recommendations
were due to EPA by December 2007.   Iowa based its recommendation of the
entire state being attainment on the most recent quality assured data
available to it at the time of the recommendation, which was 2004-2006
monitoring data. At that time the data did not indicate violations of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The State anticipated that more recent
data might show violations and asked EPA to consider that data in making
decisions.   During 2008, 2007 monitoring data was quality assured and
as such was ready for consideration by the State and EPA.  Monitoring
data from 2005-2007 showed two areas in the state with violations of the
standard.  Based on this more recent data the EPA informed the State of
the violating monitors and requested a revised recommendation.  Iowa
subsequently recommended two very small partial county areas in the
violating counties.  In addition, EPA is not “re-designating the
area” as suggested by the commenters.  It is instead promulgating
initial designations based on the most current information available as
it is required to do.

Comment:

One commenter (0083) requests that EPA designate a partial county
boundary for Muscatine County. IA, that is within the borders of the
city of Muscatine, as nonattainment.  The commenter cites:  the
technical analysis from Iowa DNR that points to a point source nearby
the violating monitor as justification for the nonattainment boundaries.
The commenter provides background on the Gerdau’s mill and SSAB mill
in Muscatine. (Note: Gerdaus is referred to as Ameristeel and SSAB is
referred to as IPSCO steel in R7s TSD)

EPA Response: 

EPA conducted a case-by-case analysis of the violating areas based on
the information provided to it by the State and other relevant
information.  EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as
well as the area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent
to the State noted that the data the State provided did not support very
small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a lack of
contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it demonstrate that
only the sources in immediate proximity to the violating monitors
contributed to violations.  As this information was not provided to the
EPA, its case-by-case review resulted in a decision to notify the State
of its intent to include county-wide areas in the nonattainment area
boundaries. Since that time the State responded to EPA’s 120-day
letter and submitted more data for review.  However, this data also did
not demonstrate that no other sources in the area were contributing to
the violation, nor did it demonstrate an overwhelming contribution
solely from the point sources nearest to the violating monitors.  On the
contrary it showed a considerable contribution (almost 50 percent of the
total filter mass) of secondary formation attributable to emissions
transported from a longer range in addition to a smaller contribution of
secondary formation from local point source emissions.  The State’s
technical response to EPA’s 120-day letter did not support as narrow a
boundary as recommended by the State.  EPA concluded that a larger
partial county designation, inclusive of the townships of the major
metropolitan areas includes the violating area and the nearby
contributing areas.  Refer to EPA’s response above concerning the
nature of the monitors.

Comment:

The commenter (0083) asserts that the violating monitoring sites are not
representative of ambient air quality throughout the county as the
violating monitors are source-oriented monitors and that “all
information” indicates that the air quality violations are limited to
the immediate areas around Blackhawk Foundry and Grain Processing
Corporation.  The commenter state that emissions from the entire
three-county area have not been shown to contribute to the monitored
violations and that the nonattainment area should not exceed the
“representative scale” of the two monitors. 

EPA Response:

There are multiple monitoring objectives served by the State’s
monitoring network.  In the instance of the Davenport area, the
violating monitor at the 300 Wellman site is situated to assess the
potential for source level impacts in the neighborhoods surrounding
several industrial facilities.  The Adams School site is situated to
assess population exposures in direct comparison with the NAAQS.  The
Jefferson School site is also situated for assessment of population
exposure NAAQS compliance, and it also incorporates chemical speciation
and a continuous monitor to establish a clearer picture of PM2.5
behavior in the Davenport area.  Monitor network design is largely
influenced by the data collection priorities of each individual State. 
Annual monitoring network plans are submitted by each state and are
reviewed and approved by EPA.   EPA establishes minimum monitoring
network requirements in the code of federal regulations, but States are
allowed and encouraged to invest in more thorough data collection
systems.  Both of the violating monitors are designated as eligible for
comparison with the NAAQS consistent with 40 CFR Part 58.

Nonattainment area designations are to include the area in violation and
areas shown to contribute to the violation.  Although modeling data
provided by the state demonstrates that the two named local sources
influence the violation at the monitors, the modeling did not
demonstrate that other point sources in the Quad Cities area do not
contribute to the violation as well.  For the reasons detailed in the
TSDs for the Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA has
determined that other point sources in the area contribute to violations
of the NAAQS.  Thus, EPA is establishing a nonattainment area boundary
to include these sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and Illinois
which address these issues in greater detail.

Comment:

The commenter (0083) suggests that EPA should not designate entire
counties as nonattainment, but should take into consideration efforts of
the two named point sources to negotiate, with the State,
“voluntary” control strategies. 

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes the efforts by the state and the stakeholders to achieve
emissions reductions as soon as possible.  EPA also encourages both
states to continue efforts to assist the community in implementing
voluntary measures.  

However, under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, in designating
nonattainment areas, EPA must designate, as nonattainment, areas that
are violating a NAAQS and areas that are contributing to the violations.
 This requirement does not authorize EPA to rely on the ongoing efforts
to develop further control strategies in determining nonattainment
boundaries.  EPA’s decision must be based on the statutory
requirements, and EPA’s promulgation of the nonattainment designations
for these areas, as described in detail in the TSDs, meets the statutory
requirements.

Comment:

Commenters (0093) request that EPA designate a partial county boundary
for Muscatine County, IA.  The commenter cites the technical analysis
from Iowa Department of Natural Resources as justification for the
nonattainment boundary.  

EPA Response:

EPA’s detailed analysis of air quality data for Muscatine County is
included in the Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for eastern Iowa. 
EPA agrees that on a number of exceedance days the Muscatine monitor is
influenced by “local” events and by regional events outside the
state.  EPA also acknowledges that the monitor is located near the Grain
Processing facility.  However, the Clean Air Act (section
107(d)(1)(A)(i)) instructs us to designate, as nonattainment, areas
which violate a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and
nearby areas which contribute to violations.  Iowa uses the variations
in area monitored values to support its argument that only a very few
sources in the Muscatine area contribute to violations in any meaningful
way.  EPA does not believe this provides sufficient information (without
filter analyses or similar studies) to conclude that some local PM2.5
sources contribute to violations and others do not.  (EPA recognizes
that Iowa argues that monitored data is only one factor in its
“cumulative weight-of-evidence” approach, and addresses other
factors raised by Iowa in the TSDs and below in the response to
comments.  However, EPA does not believe that the monitoring comparison
argument can be given weight in justifying exclusion of a substantial
number of local sources from the nonattainment boundary.)

Notwithstanding the proximity of the Muscatine (Garfield School) monitor
to the Grain Processing facility, we note that it is a federal reference
method monitor (classified as population-oriented, neighborhood scale),
and is designated under 40 CFR Part 58 as eligible for comparison with
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  The state has not claimed that any specific
data are invalid or otherwise unrepresentative of air quality in the
area.  The monitor meets EPA siting criteria.  Iowa has not provided
sufficient information concerning values recorded by the monitor for EPA
to conclude that local source influence does not include contributions
from sources outside the narrow boundary recommended by the state. 
Also, as explained below and in the TSD for Iowa, there is no speciation
data available for the monitor which would indicate source contribution.
   

Comment:

One commenter (0144) disagrees with EPA’s proposed whole county
designation of Muscatine, IA.  The commenters suggest that EPA’s whole
county recommendation is not in line with previous designations for
PM10.  

EPA Response:

Prior designations for PM10 areas have little, if any, relevance for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.  PM10 and PM2.5 are different NAAQS, with different size
indicator particles, that behave differently in the atmosphere, and are
often caused by emissions from different sources that may require
different controls strategies.  PM2.5 typically transports much greater
distances in the atmosphere and typically is much more likely to consist
of secondarily formed particles that result from the mixture of
precursors in the atmosphere.  Finally, PM10 boundaries were often
designated nearly 20 years ago, and current facts and circumstances in
the area may have changed.

EPA must designate the violating area as nonattainment as well as the
area contributing to the violation.  The 120-day letter sent to the
State noted that the technical support data it provided did not support
very small partial county boundaries.  The data did not demonstrate a
lack of contribution from other sources in the area, nor did it
demonstrate that only the sources in immediate proximity to the
violating monitors contributed to violations.  As this demonstration was
not made, EPA’s case-by-case review resulted in a decision to notify
the State of its intent to include county-wide areas in the
nonattainment area boundaries. Since that time the State responded to
EPA’s 120-day letter and submitted more data for review.  However,
this data also did not demonstrate that no other sources in the area
were contributing to the violation, nor did it demonstrate an
overwhelming contribution directly from the point sources nearest to the
violating monitors.  On the contrary it showed a considerable
contribution (almost 50 percent of the total filter mass) of secondary
formation attributable to emissions transported from a longer range in
addition to a minor contribution of secondary formation from local point
source emissions.  The State’s technical response to EPA’s 120-day
letter did not support as narrow a boundary as recommended by the State.
 EPA concluded that larger partial county designations, inclusive of the
townships of the major metropolitan area will protect public health and
allow the State greater flexibility in establishing its attainment
demonstration.  Refer to EPA’s response above concerning the nature of
the monitors.

Comment:

One commenter (0144) requests EPA to designate the Muscatine, IA area as
unclassifiable pending the completion of source apportionment modeling
and chemical filter analysis studies.

EPA Response:

Nonattainment area designations are to include the area in violation and
areas that contribute to the violation.  Although modeling data provided
by the state demonstrates that the two named local sources influence the
violation at the monitor, the modeling did not demonstrate that other
sources in the Quad Cities area do not contribute to the violation as
well.  For the reasons detailed in the TSDs for the
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island area and Muscatine, EPA has determined that
other sources in the area contribute to violations of the NAAQS.  Thus,
EPA is establishing a nonattainment area boundary to include these
sources.  Refer to EPA’s TSDs for Iowa and Illinois which address
these issues in greater detail.

3.38.  New York City-North New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT

See section 2.2 for general comments relating to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.39.  Nogales, AZ

See section 2.2 for general comments relating to this particular
nonattainment area. 

3.40.  Oakridge, OR

Comment:

One commenter (0161) disagrees with EPA and believes that Westfir, OR
does not exceed the NAAQS and that the use of wood stoves does not
contribute to the violation in Oakridge, OR.  The commenter provides the
following reasons:

The commenter states that the proposed NAA boundary for the Oakridge
area that includes the City of Westfir is especially egregious
considering no one from EPA has come to talk with the community, nor, at
least to their knowledge, has even been here to observe and document
local conditions.

EPA Response:  

EPA staff has toured Oakridge, its neighborhoods, and Westfir.  Lane
Regional Air Pollution Agency (LRAPA) provided meteorological data from
Oakridge that indicates during episodes of high PM2.5 concentrations,
there are strong, ground based inversions with calm to low wind speed. 
Wind flow is down valley at night and up valley during daytime hours. 
Westfir is separated from Oakridge by a mountain ridge that extends
above the inversion layer.  However, Oakridge and Westfir are less than
3 miles up-river from the confluence of the Middle Fork of the
Willamette River and the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Willamette
River respectively.  In other words, 5-6 miles via road ‘down and
around the mountain ridge.’  Down valley air flow from both towns mix
at the confluence of the two rivers and during daytime migrate up-valley
into Oakridge.  Thus, EPA concludes that emissions from Westfir do
contribute to the monitored violation in Oakridge.

Comment:

The commenter does not believe the City of Westfir violates the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, nor contributes to violations in neighboring Oakridge. 
There is no monitoring data demonstrating Westfir violated the NAAQS.

EPA Response:  

There is no documentation of violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS in Westfir
because there is no monitor located in Westfir.  However, the CAA
requires that areas that have sources that contribute emissions to areas
that violate the NAAQS also be included in the nonattainment area.  EPA
believes that due to the down-valley up-valley wind flow and the
relatively short distance between Oakridge and Westfir, that woodstove
emissions in Westfir do contribute to PM2.5 levels in Oakridge. 
Considering the distance between Westfir and Oakridge is approximately
three miles, even with low wind speeds, smoke from Westfir could impact
Oakridge over a multi-hour inversion period.  

Comment:

The commenter states that there is no empirical data that indicates
smoke from Westfir impacts the Oakridge area.

EPA Response:  

As discussed above, meteorological data coupled with emissions and
geography strongly suggest that wood smoke emissions in Westfir do
impact Oakridge.

Comment:

The commenter states that there seems to be the perception that all has
been done that can be done to improve Oakridge’s air quality,
therefore adjacent communities (which are separated by topographic
features) must contribute to the problem.  This proposition is flawed in
several ways in the following:  

About 21 percent of the particulates measured in 1991 are road dust
related, and there is a substantial rock crushing immediately adjacent
to the monitoring station in Willamette City; 

EPA’s technical support report accompanying its recommendation to the
State dismisses traffic patterns and commuting despite that State
Highway 58 is one the three main east-west transportation corridors in
the State; and  

There is also a rail yard in Oakridge that occasionally to often have
diesel engines idling for hours.  Have these sources of particulates has
been addressed, measured and/or regulated?  If not, it is premature to
begin additional restrictions in outlying areas that may not solve the
immediate problem.

EPA Response:  

Analysis of the particulate matter (PM2.5) captured on sampling filters
from Oakridge is 87 percent elemental and organic carbon, indicators of
wood smoke.  PM emissions from rock crushing operations tend to be in
the coarse fraction (i.e., larger than 2.5 micrometers), and are not
collected in the PM2.5 sampling train.  Most emissions from rock
crushing operations do not contribute to PM2.5 mass loadings.  While it
is true that there are sources of mobile source emissions in Oakridge,
EPA concludes as explained in the TSD that residential wood combustion
sources in Westfir also significantly contribute to the violating
monitor.  The State and LRAPA should consider emissions from mobile
sources as they develop the SIP to achieve compliance with the NAAQS.

Comment:

The commenter believes EPA’s boundary is arbitrary and capricious. 
The commenter states that the boundary which uses cadastral survey lines
has no bearing to air flow patterns nor topography, and EPA’s proposed
NAA boundary does not include the High Prairie north of Oakridge which
has a higher population than Westfir.  The commenter states that EPA’s
supporting information does not adequately demonstrate that Westfir
contributes to the Oakridge problem

EPA Response:  

EPA proposed the nonattainment area based on township-range survey lines
to simplify the boundary delineation and incorporate the mountain ridges
that define the valleys.  EPA believes that the technical analysis
described in the TSD does demonstrate that Westfir is contributing to
the violating monitor.  EPA did not have evidence that the High Prairie
contributed to the violation notwithstanding its population, based
primarily on topography and meteorology.

Comment:

The commenter questions the assertion that the bulk of Oakridge’s
particulate problem is created by wood stove burning, or at least that
other sources contribute less than 25 percent of particulates.  The
commenter believes that EPA’s conclusions are based on 

17-year old emission data.  The commenter states that transportation and
rock crushing emission sources should be investigated prior to any
regulatory changes.

EPA Response:  

Filter analysis of PM collected during the winter of 2007 during winter
days with high PM2.5 concentrations demonstrates that 87 percent of the
PM2.5 mass is wood smoke.  See the TSD for details.  All appropriate
sources will be considered by the state for control in developing the
nonattainment SIP.

Comment:

The commenter is concerned about the financial implications to the City
as well as the citizens.  The commenter in general felt that a
nonattainment designation would be an economic hardship on the
community, and states that if the designation is made, the commenter
would expect the Federal Government to provide assistance to provide low
and middle income members of the community with an alternative source of
heat.

EPA Response:  

The Act does not provide for financial implications to be a
consideration in nonattainment area designations.  EPA is likewise
concerned about the financial implications of air quality planning and
implementation.  The State should take such considerations into account
as it develops its plan that will bring the area back into attainment. 
EPA provides LRAPA financial support for the planning process.  See
section 2.1 above for additional EPA responses regarding wood smoke.

Comment:

Another commenter (0139) suggests that the designation boundary for the
Oakridge, OR area should be the PM10 boundary.  The commenter believes
that is no evidence that Westfir emissions are impacting Oakridge, OR. 
The commenter believes that the Oakridge UGB is appropriate, and the
larger rectangular boundary is unjustified by the technical information.
 The commenter provides additional information relating to topography,
meteorology, wind roses, visual observations and photographs.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s conclusion.  While the UGB contains
most of the area with sources that contribute to violations of the PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA believes it does not include all areas with sources that
contribute.  As explained above and in the TSD, EPA has concluded that
emissions from Westfir do contribute to the violations.  Thus, EPA is
designating as nonattainment EPA’s original proposed nonattainment
area.  

1.  Wind Rose discussion: The wind rose provided by the commenter is
located at the Oakridge Willamette Activity Center in Oakridge. 
Oakridge is located in a narrow river valley (Middle Fork of the
Willamette River).  Wind flow is predominately up-valley and down-valley
(east-west flow).  Approximately 70 percent of the time when exceedences
are reported, calm wind (<2.0 mph) is recorded.  Thirty percent of the
time winds speeds of greater than 2.0 mph are recorded.   There is no
flow directly from Westfir which is located approximately one mile to
the north-north-west of Oakridge separated by a ridge rising a few
hundred feet above the valley floor.  This information would tend to
indicate Westfir emissions do not impact Oakridge.

However, Westfir is located on the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the
Willamette River, approximately 1.0 mile up river from the confluence
with the Middle  Fork of the Willamette.  Oakridge is located
approximately 2.5 miles up river of the confluence of the two rivers. 
Thus, by river bed, Westfir is 3.5 miles from Oakridge, ‘down and
around the mountain.’ 

During winter inversion conditions, there is no vertical mixing in the
atmosphere and emissions are trapped at ground level.  With the
down-valley and up-valley flows observed by the meteorological station,
even at very low wind speeds emissions from Westfir travel down-valley
to the confluence of the two rivers and during times of up-valley flow,
migrate to Oakridge.  

The wind rose information provided by the commenter does not provide
evidence that Westfir emissions do not contribute to Oakridge PM2.5 
levels.

2.  Photos of Oakridge from ridge:  The photos of Oakridge from the
ridge separating it from Westfir shows definite ground based inversions
and smoke in the valley.  EPA concurs that emissions from Westfir most
likely do not travel up and over the ridge separating the two towns.  

The photographic documentation provided by the commenter does not,
however provide evidence that Westfir emissions do not contribute to
Oakridge PM2.5 levels as the air mass mixes at the confluence of the two
forks of the Willamette River.

3.  Graph of long term PM2.5 trends:  PM2.5 levels in Oakridge have been
steadily declining during the 1990’s, leveling off after 1999 to
levels below 65 μg/m3, but above the level of the revised PM2.5 NAAQS
of 35 μg/m3.  This data provides evidence that the area does not attain
the NAAQS.  It does demonstrate that the commenter has been very
successful in reducing emissions and adverse health effects from wood
smoke but more is still needed to attain the revised 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

4.  Meteorological data for ‘exceedence days’ during 2005-2007:  The
commenter provides meteorological data for ‘exceedence’ days for
2005-2007.  There were 33 days above the level of the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.  Generally those days are characterized by stable (inversion)
atmospheric conditions ranging from 12 hours to 21 hours each day and
the number of hours with wind speeds below 2 mph ranging between 12 and
24.  EPA agrees that Oakridge experiences high PM2.5 levels during
winter stagnation, poor ventilation, and low wind speed.  

However, even with low wind speeds and little vertical mixing, over a
24-hour period, the air mass can travel several miles.  (e.g., at 1 mph
and 10 hours of down-valley flow the air mass can travel 10 miles.) 
Thus even at low wind speeds, emissions from Westfir migrate down-valley
and up-valley and contribute to Oakridge PM2.5 levels.

5.  Nephelometer (PM levels) as a function of wind speed:  The commenter
provides a graph of PM2.5 levels (nephelometer readings) as a function
of wind speed from data collected 2005-2007.  This data shows that
generally as wind speed decreases, PM2.5 levels increase.  EPA agrees
that as wind speed decreases, atmospheric dispersion decreases and local
emissions dominate the PM2.5 levels.  However, even at low wind speed
with time, emissions can migrate miles in a 24-hour period.  (e.g., at
0.5 mph an air parcel can travel 12.5 miles in 24-hours)

6.  Figure 1, graph of diurnal variation of wind speed, temperature
differential, and PM2.5 levels (1/30/2005-2/4/2005):  EPA agrees with
the commenter that the graph shows PM2.5 levels increase during
nighttime inversions and low wind speeds.  However, the graph does not
demonstrate that at low wind speed air parcels do not migrate between
Westfir and Oakridge, a distance of three to four miles.  

Please see the TSD for more information.

3.41.  Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL

Comment:

One commenter (0114) requests that EPA deny the exceptional events
request from Kentucky Division of Air Quality, citing negative health
impacts from PM2.5.  The commenter requests that EPA designate McCracken
and the other counties that exceed or contribute to violations of the
NAAQS as nonattainment.

EPA Response:

As explained in EPA’s June 08, 2007, guidance entitled, Air 
Designations for the Revised 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard,
“Air quality monitoring data affected by exceptional events may be
excluded from use in identifying a violation if they meet the criteria
for such an exclusion, as specified in the Final Rule on the Treatment
of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events (72 FR 13560).  Attached to the
August 19th letter from EPA to Governor Beshear
(http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_KY_EPAMO
D.pdf) is a very detailed analysis all of the exceptional events
requests, including McCracken County, Kentucky.  (See Enclosure 3 in the
comment letter).  While EPA did concur with an exceptional event request
made for the Paducah area, EPA is designating McCracken County as part
of the Paducah-Mayfield nonattainment area because McCracken County has
a monitor that is violating the standard with a design value of 36
μg/m3 for the 2005-2007 time period.  

Comment:

One commenter (0137) supports EPA’s recommendations and requests that
EPA designate McCracken County, KY, as nonattainment.  The commenter
cites negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to
regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the determination that
McCracken County, Kentucky should be included in the nonattainment
boundary for the Paducah-Mayfield area for the designations for the 2006
revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard.     

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  

Comment:

One commenter (0100) supports EPA’s recommendation and request that
EPA designate Massac County, IL, as nonattainment.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional
haze.

EPA Response:

EPA has determined the major source in Massac County, Illinois is
responsible for a fair portion of the County’s emissions.  The
emissions are large enough to contribute to the violations being
monitored in McCracken County, Kentucky.  Therefore, EPA designated a
partial county area in Massac County, Illinois as nonattainment in the
Paducah-Mayfield area.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  

Comment:

One commenter (0019) applauds EPA’s recommendation for including
Massac County in the proposed Paducah KY-IL nonattainment area.

EPA Response:

EPA has determined the major source in Massac County, Illinois is
responsible for a portion of the County’s emissions.  The emissions
are large enough to contribute to the violations being monitored in
McCracken County, Kentucky.  Therefore, EPA designated a partial county
area in Massac County, Illinois as nonattainment in the Paducah-Mayfield
area.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal  RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

One commenter (0108) believes that Massac County, IL should be
designated as attainment.  The commenter supports the State of
Illinois’ recommendation that Massac County should not be included in
the Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL nonattainment area because the commenter
believes that the sources contained in Massac County, IL do not
contribute to the exceedences experienced by the McCracken County, KY
monitor.  The commenter believes that calculation of PM2.5 emissions is
still an inexact process because AP-42 allows different approaches to
determine PM2.5 emission estimates.  

EPA Response:

μg/m3 which is above the standard and makes this county an automatic
candidate for nonattainment.  

EPA has determined the major source in Massac County, Illinois is
responsible for a portion of the County’s emissions.  The emissions
are large enough to contribute to the violations being monitored in
McCracken County, Kentucky.  Therefore, EPA designated a partial county
area in Massac County, Illinois as nonattainment in the Paducah area.

EPA used emissions data from the National Emissions Inventory for Factor
1 of the technical analyses.  As there were no emission cutoff levels,
EPA used the emissions factor information to help determine which
counties are contributing.  Even if there were some differences in the
calculated emissions from different power plants due to the AP-42
factors, this is unlikely to change the county emission totals much and
have outcome on the determination.  For example in the Paducah area, the
emissions from McCracken County, Kentucky and Massac County, Illinois
are much higher than those of any of the other nearby counties.  These
counties would still standout from the other counties when examining the
emissions data.   

EPA reviewed the data provided by Illinois.  EPA is also aware of the
Joppa Power Plant’s emissions.  The emissions from this source are a
fair portion of the Massac County emissions, so EPA is designating that
part of Massac County in which the source is located as nonattainment in
the Paducah-Mayfield area.

Comment:

One commenter (0063/0067) disagrees with EPA’s designations.  The
commenter requests that Massac County, IL, be designated as attainment. 
The commenter requests a 1-year extension for the designation of
McCracken County, KY to allow further data collection.  The commenter
cited the following issues with the technical analysis for Massac
County, IL, McCracken County, KY (Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL):

The commenter believes that EPA predicated on the existence of the
emissions coming from Electric Energy, Incorporated’s Joppa Generating
Station and did not provide an assessment of the impact in the technical
analysis;

Factor 1 – The commenter believes the CES does not represent the
distance of the emission source to the monitor that measures
nonattainment.  

Factor 2 – The commenter believes that EPA did not provide an
assessment of this factor.  There is no monitor in Massac County;  and

Factor 6 – The commenter cites EPA: “…potential emissions
contributing originating from a northeasterly direction should be
eliminated” and believes it supports excluding Massac County.

EPA Response:

EPA is required by the Act to promulgate designations within two years
of the promulgation of an air quality standard.  An extension may be
granted in cases where information is insufficient to promulgate
designations, but EPA does not believe those criteria for an extension
is not warranted for McCracken County.  EPA has complete air quality
data for McCracken County.  So, EPA cannot designate the area as
unclassifiable.  The CAA defines a nonattainment area as any area that
does not meet an ambient air quality standard or that is contributing to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the standard. 
If an area meets either prong of this definition, then EPA is obligated
to designate the area as nonattainment.  However, EPA is allowing the
early submission of 2008 monitoring data prior to designation effective
data.  If Kentucky follows the procedure detailed above in section 2.3,
EPA will reconsider the appropriate designation.  There is no monitor in
Massac County.  Therefore, EPA could not use Factor 2 to evaluate Massac
County.  The absence of a violating monitor alone does not eliminate
counties from nonattainment status.  Massac County has been evaluated
based on the weight of evidence of the recommended nine factors and
other relevant information.

EPA recognizes that oddly shaped counties could potentially give
anomalous results in the CES analysis.  Thus, EPA indicated that the CES
is but one analytical tool for identifying areas that are potentially
contributing, and that the results must be evaluated along with other
forms of information.  Other sources of information from the recommended
nine factors and data provided by the State also were considered in
addition to the CES in making the final decision.  No one tool served as
the sole determinative factor in the decision, but the overall
collection of evidence provided the necessary information in EPA’s
final decision.

EPA reviewed the data provided by Illinois.  EPA is also aware of the
Joppa Power Plant’s emissions.  EPA has determined the major source in
Massac County, Illinois is responsible for a fair portion of the
County’s emissions.  The emissions are large enough (26,000 tpy SO2
and 5,000 tpy NOx) to contribute to the violations being monitored in
McCracken County, Kentucky.  The meteorological data indicated that
winds come from a variety of directions in the Paducah area including
the direction of the Joppa power plant.  So, Massac County emissions
were found to contribute to the McCracken County violation.  Therefore,
EPA designated a partial county area in Massac County, Illinois as
nonattainment in the Paducah-Mayfield area.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

Comment:

Another commenter (0142) disagrees with EPA’s designations.  The
commenter requests that Massac County, IL, be designated as attainment. 
The commenter cited the following issues with the technical analysis:

The commenter believes that EPA identified the emissions coming from
Electric Energy, Incorporated’s Joppa Generating Station and winds but
did not use all nine factors to arrive at the conclusion;

Factor 1 – The commenter believes the CES does not represent the
distance of the emission source to the monitor that measures
nonattainment; 

Factor 2 – The commenter believes that EPA did not provide an
assessment of this factor.  There is no monitor in Massac County; and

Factor 6 – The commenter cites EPA: “…potential emissions
contributing originating from a northeasterly direction should be
eliminated” and believes it supports excluding Massac County.

EPA Response:

The CAA defines a nonattainment area as any area that does not meet an
ambient air quality standard or that is contributing to ambient air
quality in a nearby area that does not meet the standard.  If an area
meets either prong of this definition, then EPA is obligated to
designate the area as nonattainment. EPA has adequate information to
make a judgment on designation for this area so a one-year extension is
not appropriate.  The design value for the monitor in McCracken County
is 36 micrograms per cubic meter which is above the standard and makes
this county an automatic candidate for nonattainment.  

The meteorological data indicated that winds come from a variety of
directions in the Paducah area.  So, Massac County emissions were found
to contribute to the McCracken County violation.

EPA reviewed the data provided by Illinois.  EPA is also aware of the
Joppa Power Plant’s emissions.  EPA has determined the major source in
Massac County, Illinois is responsible for a fair portion of the
County’s emissions.  The emissions are large enough to contribute to
the violations being monitored in McCracken County, Kentucky. 
Therefore, EPA designated a partial county area in Massac County,
Illinois as nonattainment in the Paducah-Mayfield area.

EPA is required by the Act to promulgate designations within two years
of the promulgation of an air quality standard.  An extension may be
granted in cases where information is insufficient to promulgate
designations, but EPA does not believe those criteria for an extension
is not warranted for McCracken County.  EPA has complete air quality
data for McCracken County.  So, EPA cannot designate the area as
unclassifiable.  However, EPA is allowing the early submission of 2008
monitoring data prior to designation effective data.  If Kentucky
follows the procedure detailed above in section 2.3, EPA will reconsider
the appropriate designation.  There is no monitor in Massac County. 
Therefore, EPA could not use Factor 2 to evaluate Massac County.  The
absence of a violating monitor alone does not eliminate counties from
nonattainment status.  Massac County has been evaluated based on the
weight of evidence of the recommended nine factors and other relevant
information.

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.42.  Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA proposed designations for the State of
Ohio.  The commenter requested that EPA designate Washington County as
nonattainment.  This is the same county that EPA has proposed as
candidate for a designation of nonattainment.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional
haze.

EPA Response:

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.  EPA
had designated Washington County Ohio as part of this area.

3.43.  Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE

See section 2.2 for comments regarding this particular nonattainment
area.  

3.44.  Pinehurst, ID

See section 2.2 for comments regarding this particular nonattainment
area.  

3.45.  Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA

Comment:

Five commenters (0059, 0095) express disagreement with EPA’s previous
designation of the Liberty-Clairton nonattainment area as separate from
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5
standard.  The commenters state that the entire metropolitan area is
cohesively defined for transportation and regional planning purposes as
well as economic development, and should be so for air pollution control
measures as well.

EPA Response:

For the designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) provided extensive
documentation to support a recommendation that a separate, nonattainment
area be designated within the Pittsburgh nonattainment area.  PADEP
resubmitted this material in its October 20, 2008 letter to EPA
regarding boundary recommendations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  This
document can also be found on the following website, listed as Appendix
1 of Pennsylvania’s Remarks to EPA’s Response:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/rec/region3.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/rec/region3.htm .  

EPA determined that the material provided by Pennsylvania justify the
designation of Liberty-Clairton as a separate, distinctively
local-source impacted nonattainment area that is designated within the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area.  Because of a localized
source of emissions and topography which contains these emissions in the
area, EPA determined that it was appropriate to establish
Liberty-Clairton as a separate nonattainment area from the Pittsburgh
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS designations.  The
recommended Liberty-Clairton area was specified as the area in the
vicinity of the Clairton Coke Works, which was previously designated
nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS as the “Clairton & 4 Boroughs
area.”

Comment:

Four commenters (0095) comment that higher monitor readings in one part
of the nonattainment area indicates the presence of a major source of
pollution in the vicinity.  The commenters states that a large single
source should argue for a larger nonattainment area, since the emissions
from that large source are likely blown throughout the entire Pittsburgh
metropolitan region, into multiple States as well as across the
international border.  The commenters assert that previous studies
demonstrate the widespread impact of the emissions from such large
sources, and therefore the nonattainment designation should reflect the
entire Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA CSA, including all of Allegheny County,
as one area.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that, in the case of the Liberty-Clairton area, higher
monitor readings at one monitor in Allegheny County indicate the
presence of a major source of pollution in the vicinity.  This major
source is the Clairton Coke works.  However, as described in EPA’s
August 18, 2008 Technical Analysis for Liberty-Clairton Area, emissions
from the Clairton Coke Works do not contribute to PM levels in the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area or other points downwind.  The Clairton
Coke Works is a large and complex facility that emits a combination of
particulates, SO2, ammonia, and hundreds of volatile organic chemicals. 
Although the coke plant has numerous existing emission controls, the
combination of a large amount of low-level emissions in a narrow river
valley creates a local air quality problem which is uniquely different
from the remainder of the area.

There are eight air quality monitors in Allegheny County.  PM2.5 design
values at seven of the eight monitors correlate well.  However, the
PM2.5 design value at Liberty Borough is considerably higher.  The 2005
- 2007 design value at the Liberty Borough monitor is 60.9 µg/m3, while
the design values at the other seven monitors in Allegheny County are
between 34 and 40 µg/m3.  The large local sources plus this
topographical feature results in higher PM2.5 monitored values at the
Liberty Borough monitor than the other monitors in Allegheny County.  

The commenters referenced a report entitled The Particulate-Related
Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions in order to compare
Clairton Coke Works emissions to that of other large sources of
particulates, such as power plants.  However, the emissions from the
Clairton Coke Works are much less than those from a power plant.  In
2004, Clairton Coke Works had SO2 emissions of 1,654 tons and NOX
emissions of 4,368 tons.  By contrast, the Cheswick and Bruce Mansfield
power plants in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area emitted substantially
more SO2 and NOX in the same year.  Cheswick in Allegheny County emitted
over 40,900 tons of SO2 and 4,900 tons of NOX; and Bruce Mansfield
Beaver County emitted over 37,900 tons on SO2 and 24,000 tons of NOx in
2004.  Carbon emissions are also higher at the power plants.  However, a
direct comparison cannot be made.  CO emissions are reported for
Clairton Coke works, 3,894 tons in 2004.  CO2 emissions are reported for
the power plants; in 2004 emissions were nearly 3,198,900 tons from
Cheswick and over 17,654,000 tons from Bruce Mansfield.

Furthermore, in its October 20, 2008 letter to EPA regarding boundary
recommendations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, PADEP stated that the Clairton
Coke Works facility has stack heights that are lower than normal power
plant stacks.  This would mean that the effects of a source like the
Coke Works would impact the ground at a much closer location locally
than a power plant.  The highest fine particulate concentrations occur
at the Liberty Borough monitor when we see the south-southwesterly winds
along with a morning inversion.  A morning inversion occurs when the
ground is cooler than the air above it; normally at night, the area is
under the control of high pressure and clear skies.  With the warmer air
being above the cooler air, vertical mixing is at a minimum.  Therefore,
anything exhausted in the boundary layer with an inversion in place will
remain trapped in that layer.  For example, as the Coke Works’ low
level sources emit emissions, the plume of emissions will only rise to
the top of the inversion layer.  At that point, the pollution is spread
out horizontally.  These inversions usually set up only a few hundred
feet above the surface.  Therefore, fine particulate levels can become
very high near the surface.  In this case, the plume impacts the
hillside across the river as well; the plume is actually not traveling
large distances.  This is evident from the speciation data from two
sites, Liberty and Lawrenceville.  The Lawrenceville monitor is actually
downwind from the Pittsburgh metro area (the monitor sits atop the
Allegheny County Health Department building in Lawrenceville, which is
to the west of the Allegheny River).  

The figures below display the results of the 2003-05 speciated
components of the fine particulates at these two monitors.

Lawrenceville					Liberty Borough

    

  REF _Ref217279381 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Figure 1.  2003-2005 Speciated
components at the Lawrenceville and Liberty Borough Monitors. 

The following figure looks at the difference between the Lawrenceville
and Liberty monitors, also know as the Liberty Excess.  

Liberty Excess

 

  REF _Ref217279390 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Figure 2.  Difference between
2003-2005 speciated components at the Liberty and Lawrenceville
monitors. 

Regional pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates, are not showing up
in the Liberty Excess.  In this case, carbon (elemental and organic) is
playing a big role in the actual PM2.5 measurements at Liberty.  The
Clairton Coke Works facility is a large contributor to elemental and
organic carbon.

Comment:

One commenter (0059) stated it found no support for the assumption that
the emissions from the major source at Liberty-Clairton are isolated
from the air quality in the surrounding Pittsburgh metropolitan area,
including air quality in Allegheny County and Westmoreland County, both
of which are in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area.

EPA Response:

As explained in EPA’s August 18, 2008 Technical Analysis for
Liberty-Clairton Area, speciation data further illuminates
Liberty-Clairton area’s unique local problem.  The Allegheny County
Health Department (ACHD) conducted an 18-month study which compared
PM2.5 speciation data at the Liberty Borough monitor to another monitor
in Allegheny County, the Lawrenceville monitor.  (See, “PM2.5 Chemical
Speciation and Related Comparisons at Lawrenceville and Liberty:
18-Month Results,” dated June 7, 2005, prepared by Jason Maranche,
Allegheny County Health Department, and available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.achd.net/airqual/pubs/pdf/speciation_report.pdf" 
http://www.achd.net/airqual/pubs/pdf/speciation_report.pdf .)  The
Lawrenceville monitor, # 42-003-008, is located in Pittsburgh, downwind
from the central business district.  The Liberty Borough monitor site is
located in the Monongahela Valley, which contains a mix of urban
residential, heavy industrial and rural areas.  

The ACHD study showed that the Lawrenceville monitor is impacted by
sulfates during warmer weather and nitrates when it is cold.  The
Liberty Borough monitor showed similar levels of nitrates and sulfates,
depending on the season.  However, the main species detected year-round
at Liberty Borough were organic and elemental carbon.

Thus, the high concentrations of carbon at the Liberty Borough monitor
indicate a unique local problem in the area.  The additional carbon is,
on average, approximately equal to the difference between the Liberty
Borough design concentration and the concentration for the remainder of
the surrounding Pittsburgh area.  

3.46.  Provo, UT

Comment:

37 commenters (0032, 0036, 0037, 0038, 0049, 0051, 0054, 0056, 0065,
0069, 0071, 0072/0156, 0073, 0076, 0077, 0074/0078, 0081, 0087, 0090,
0105, 0112, 0115, 0117, 0126, 0141, 0143, 0145, 0147, 0153, 0154, 0156,
0157, 0159, 0160, 0168, 0169, 0174) request that EPA designate the Salt
Lake and Provo in Utah as two separate nonattainment areas instead of
one.  The commenters are concerned about the possible conformity lapse
with two Metropolitan Planning Organization areas.  The commenters
support the recommendations from Utah State Division of Air Quality
(DAQ) and the technical information submitted by the State.  One of the
commenters (0049) claim that they hold the utmost importance, to develop
and produce viable and sustainable long term transportation plans.  The
commenter provides historical information and additional monitor data. 
Another commenter (0153) strongly urges EPA to separate the Utah County
portion of the nonattainment area along the Wasatch Front from Salt
Lake, Davis and Weber Counties (as is the PM10 designations), citing
studies that show little mixing of air under the influence of strong
temperature inversions episodes.  The commenter is concerned that the
pollution rose developed by EPA’s wind model is not consistent with
the data submitted by the Utah State DAQ and recommended that the local
data should be followed.

EPA Response:

EPA has amended our August 18, 2008 proposal, relative to separating or
combining Utah County and Salt Lake County.  EPA has given further
consideration to the State recommendation to separate the two counties
and agrees to Utah County (partial) as being a separate nonattainment
area.  This decision is based on a broader evaluation of jurisdictional
issues that the State claims will facilitate SIP planning.  Regardless
of whether they are a single or separate nonattainment area, both Utah
County and Salt Lake County are violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards and have similar design values.  EPA anticipates that the
State of Utah will have to insure that these two areas work closely
together to develop a consistent strategy for attaining the NAAQS,
including a combined modeling demonstration and consistent control
measures.  However, EPA’s analysis of speciated data, pollution roses,
and other analytical tools indicates that these two areas are
interconnected and thus we expect that SIPs for both areas will fully
account for this influence.

Comment:

One commenter (0112) requests EPA to extend the public comment deadline
for an additional 60 days, to follow State's recommendation to designate
the Salt Lake City and Provo areas as two separate nonattainment areas
instead of one.

EPA Response:

See 1.0 above for comments regarding the extension of the public comment
period.  

3.47.  Reading, PA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.48.  Sacramento, CA

Comment:

One commenter (0055) disagrees with the technical analysis for including
portions of Placer County in the Sacramento, CA nonattainment area.  The
commenter believes that the technical analysis is inaccurate and is
based on erroneous data that does not support the nonattainment
designation.  The commenter requests an unclassifiable designation for
the counties of Placer, El Dorado, Yolo and Solano.  The commenter
specified the following areas of concern regarding technical analysis:

Factor 1 – The commenter believes that the data in Tables 1, 2 and 3
and the chemical makeup in the TSD show that residential wood burning
and mobile source emissions are the most important sources of PM2.5. 
The commenter believes that PM2.5 exceedences are a result of local
residential emissions in Sacramento County rather than surrounding
counties.  The commenter believes that the CES does not represent Placer
County.  The commenter claims the CES ignores the special topography of
Placer and El Dorado Counties.  The commenter believes that more
research is necessary to control the ammonium nitrate formation in the
winter.

EPA Response:

While EPA used county-wide statistics, we also scrutinized population,
traffic, and stationary sources of emissions data at a smaller scale,
using spatial analysis and geographic information systems (GIS).  We
used publicly available data sources including the U.S. Census for
population, the Federal Highway Administration's Freight Analysis
Framework, and the National Emissions Inventory.  In all of the areas
where EPA’s boundary recommendations were larger than California’s
recommendations, EPA believes that it has included the violating
counties plus portions of counties with contributing emissions. EPA
agrees with the commenter that wood smoke and mobile source emissions
are the most important sources of PM2.5. EPA has identified these
sources in all the counties included in the nonattainment area.  The
majority of the county's population, traffic, and stationary sources
were included in the boundary EPA recommended.  

Because a substantial proportion of measured PM2.5 is in the form of
ammonium nitrate for the central California areas, EPA believes that NOx
emissions from mobile sources contribute to NAAQS violations, and must
be included in the nonattainment areas.  In addition, there is likely
some interchange of polluted air between the relatively urbanized
portions of neighboring counties   EPA therefore included locations
with substantial traffic and mobile emissions, and residential wood
burning that were adjacent to counties with violating monitors.  For
the Sacramento area, this included portions of Placer, El Dorado, Yolo,
and Solano counties.

EPA did exclude locations that are beyond topographic barriers. 
Because the Sacramento area has Sierra Nevada foothills to the east,
which are a topographic feature higher than the typical daytime height
of the inversion layer that occurs during NAAQS violations, EPA
considered the inversion height to estimate the size of the area likely
to have similar pollution conditions and to contribute to NAAQS
violations, in determining an appropriate eastern boundary. (The western
boundaries did not have topographic limits.) 

At the time the CES was calculated for all areas across the country,
only monthly, county level emissions were available for use.  Because of
this limitation and as noted in the CES TSD, careful interpretation for
some areas especially in the western United States where counties are
large with varying topography would be required as well as additional
information from the technical analysis and the State or Local air
agency to provide determinative conclusions as to the what the
nonattainment area boundary would encompass.  

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenter (0055) provided additional information to
support their belief that the nonattainment designation should only be
Sacramento County; 

Factor 4 – The commenter believes that PM2.5 exceedences are more
related to trips occurring in Sacramento County;

Factor 5 – The commenter believes that the high percentages of
Sacramento County for growth rate and VMT relative to the surrounding
counties supports their belief that the nonattainment designation 
should only be Sacramento County;

EPA Response:

EPA views mobile source emissions as a significant component of regional
PM2.5 levels in the Sacramento Valley, and it appears that the
combination of this regional pollution and local wood smoke emissions in
the Sacramento area lead to violations of the PM2.5 standard,
particularly during stagnant conditions.  Considering this, EPA looked
at the location of the violating monitors and the sources of both wood
smoke and nitrates to determine the appropriate nonattainment boundary.
This includes Sacramento and the surrounding urban areas where there
could be significant emissions from residential wood burning.  It also
includes the major transportation and commuting corridors associated
with Sacramento and the surrounding urban areas which can be a
significant source of the nitrate component. While the relative
significance of future and projected mobile source emissions per county
were considered, current traffic volumes associated with the Sacramento
urban area were also considered to be important given the potential
contribution to PM2.5 levels at the violating monitors.  Placer County
has the second highest level of emissions (11,000 tpy NOx, 10,000 tpy
VOC and 2,300 tpy PM2.5) of counties in the area.

Factor 6 – The commenter (0055) believes that the CES is low for the
county.  The commenter believes that further explanation is necessary
for EPA’s conclusion that El Dorado contributes when evaluating the
prevailing wind direction on the highest PM2.5 concentration days;

Factor 7 – The commenter is concern that indentifying the potential
contribution is based on back trajectories in calm-to-light wind
conditions.  The commenter believes that the inversion layer impact is
not a significant factor influencing the high PM2.5 measurements in
Sacramento County.  The commenter provides additional information
concerning the wind;  

Factor 8 – The commenter asserts that violations in the designated
area are caused by mobile and local area sources outside of its county,
and thus its inclusion in the nonattainment area will not facilitate
attainment.  The county is in another air district; and

Factor 9 – The commenter believes that residential wood burning is a
significant source of wintertime PM2.5 emissions.  The commenter notes a
rule adopted last December for woodstoves and a program for upgrading
wood burning appliances.

EPA Response:

EPA does not agree that Placer, El Dorado, Yolo and Solano counties
should be designated as unclassifiable for PM2.5. EPA is designating all
of Sacramento County and parts of Yolo, Solano, Placer, and El Dorado
counties as nonattainment.  A designation as unclassifiable is not
warranted because EPA has available information to support the
designation.  EPA’s boundary designation for the Sacramento PM2.5
nonattainment area includes all of Sacramento County and parts of Yolo,
Solano, Placer, and El Dorado Counties. This area includes a majority of
the population, and all major point sources and highways in this area. 
Locations west of this area contain small, dispersed populations and do
not include major travel corridors, so they were not included in the
nonattainment area.  

EPA’s boundary for Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the
areas with violating monitors, and the nearby contributing areas.  When
EPA proposed nonattainment boundaries in August 2008, the 2004-2006 and
2005-2007 design values for Placer County, based on air quality data in
EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database, were 38 µg/m3 and 30 µg/m3,
respectively.  Since then, data from July 9, 2005, which affected the
2004-2006 design value, were removed from AQS by ARB based on lab error
and thereby reducing the 2004-2006 design value to 31 µg/m3. Consistent
with comments provided CARB, these design values do not represent a
violation of the PM2.5 standard.  However, the revised design values do
not affect EPA’s premise for including the western portion of Placer
County, or the other surrounding counties, in the Sacramento
nonattainment area.   

Based on speciation data provided by CARB, organic carbon and nitrates
were identified as the major components of PM2.5 where violations
occurred, which were attributed to residential woodburning and mobile
sources, respectively.  As both sources are associated with urban areas,
the Sacramento nonattainment areas is intended to capture the full
extent of the urban areas associated with the City of Sacramento so that
sources potentially contributing to the violating monitors are included.
 Even though violations are not recorded in the surrounding counties,
such as Placer County, the Sacramento urban area clearly extends into
the surrounding counties.  

      With respect to the most recent residential wood burning emissions
data for El    

       Dorado County provided in CARB’s October 15 letter, EPA agrees
that this data suggests significantly less emissions than given in
ARB’s Almanac (updated August 8, 2007).  EPA relied on data from CARB,
and some of that information is in dispute or is incorrect, but it
doesn’t change EPA’s final determination which was based on
including contributing emissions from population centers and the
transportation network.

. 

Finally, while EPA agrees that wood smoke emissions are more localized,
we do not agree that the contribution of mobile sources can be
discounted.  EPA views mobile source emissions as a significant
component of regional PM2.5 levels in the Sacramento Valley, and it
appears that the combination of this regional pollution and local wood
smoke emissions in the Sacramento area lead to violations of the PM2.5
standard, particularly during stagnant conditions.  Considering this,
EPA looked at the location of the violating monitors and the sources of
both wood smoke and nitrates to determine the appropriate nonattainment
boundary. This includes Sacramento and the surrounding urban areas where
there could be significant emissions from residential wood burning.  It
also includes the major transportation and commuting corridors
associated with Sacramento and the surrounding urban areas which can be
a significant source of the nitrate component.

Comment:

Two commenters (0052, 0062) disagree with the technical analysis for the
Mountain Counties Air Basin portions in the Sacramento, CA nonattainment
area.  The commenters believe that the technical analysis is inaccurate,
and based on erroneous data that does not support the nonattainment
designation.  The commenters specify the following areas of concern
regarding technical analysis:

Factor 1 – Erroneous data was found in Table 1 and Table 2 of the TSD.
 The commenters believe that the CES does not represent El Dorado
County.  The commenters question the Process Rates estimates.

EPA Response:

While EPA used county-wide statistics, the Agency also scrutinized
population, traffic, and stationary sources of emissions data at a
smaller scale, using spatial analysis and geographic information systems
(GIS).  EPA used publicly available data sources including the U.S.
Census for population, the Federal Highway Administration's Freight
Analysis Framework, and the National Emissions Inventory.  In all of the
areas where EPA’s boundary recommendations were larger than
California’s recommendations, the majority of the county's population,
traffic, and stationary sources were included in the boundary EPA
recommended.  Furthermore, in many cases we used township and range
boundaries, rather than county boundaries, as a more appropriate means
to define nonattainment area boundaries in Yolo, Placer and El Dorado
Counties.

EPA relied on data from CARB, and some of that information is in dispute
or is incorrect, but it doesn’t change EPA’s final determination
which was based on including contributing emissions from population
centers and the transportation network.

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenters (0052, 0062) state there is no PM2.5
monitoring data was available for the county; 

Factor 3 – Population numbers for the county were incorrect;

EPA Response:

With regard to the commenters’ statement that counties should not be
designated nonattainment because a county does not have a violating
monitor, EPA notes that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA consider
areas that contribute to violations in addition to areas that have
violating monitors.  EPA determined that the emissions from other
counties and other factors were contributing to the violations in
Sacramento County.  

The population for El Dorado County in our spreadsheet (176,319) for the
year 2005, is very close to the "2006 estimate" on the US Census Bureau
website (178,066), so the number in the spreadsheet is correct given the
difference between 2005 and 2006.  The U.S. Census Bureau is the
preferred source of population data.

Comment:

The commenters (0052, 0062) also state the following:

Factor 4 – County transportation figures have insignificant impact on
the designated area, and thus the county should not be included in the
nonattainment designation;

Factor 5 – The use of percentages to represent population growth and
VMT changes (Table 7 in the comment letter) is misleading because of the
difference between baseline population and VMT values between Sacramento
and El Dorado Counties;

Factor 6 – The commenters believe that the CES is low for the county. 
The commenters believe that further explanation is necessary for EPA’s
conclusion that El Dorado contributes when evaluating the prevailing
wind direction on the highest PM2.5 concentration days; 

Factor 8 – The county is in another air district; and

Factor 9 – The commenters assert that violations in the designated
area are caused by mobile and local area sources outside of its county,
and thus its inclusion in the nonattainment area will not assist in
reaching attainment.  The commenters assert that existing control
technologies were not taken into consideration in EPA’s technical
analysis.

EPA Response:

With regard to the commenters’ statement that the analysis for
Sacramento was done selectively, EPA did not use the existing ozone and
PM10 boundaries when setting the final PM2.5 boundaries for Yolo,
Solano, Placer and El Dorado Counties.  EPA looked at the violating
monitors and sources potentially contributing to the violations.  Based
on speciation data provided by CARB, organic carbon and nitrates were
identified as the major components of PM2.5 where violations occurred,
which were attributed to residential wood burning and mobile sources,
respectively.  Since the truck traffic goes through EDC, those emissions
are included.  The point of origin does not matter.  As both sources are
associated with urban areas, the Sacramento nonattainment areas is
intended to capture the full extent of the urban areas associated with
the City of Sacramento so that sources potentially contributing to the
violating monitors are included.  Even though violations are not
recorded in the surrounding counties, such as El Dorado County, the
Sacramento urban area clearly extends into the surrounding counties.  

Comment:

One commenter (0121) requests EPA exclude Solano and Yolo counties in
California in the nonattainment area designation.  The commenter
believes that EPA's technical analysis does not justify the contribution
of the Yolo-Solano district.  The commenter points out, what the
commenter believes, are three major flaws with the method in which
analysis was conducted:

EPA conducted its analysis under the assumption that all of Solano
County impacts Sacramento County, which overstates its impact;

EPA’s CES analysis was performed selectively, instead of assessing
surrounding counties’ influence on  Sacramento County; and

EPA’s analysis penalizes Yolo County for historically implementing
growth policies that are beneficial to air quality.  The commenter
suggests that EPA compare growth in each county to overall growth in the
region.

The commenter provides additional detailed support for their request
that they be excluded from the Sacramento nonattainment area.  

Factor 1 – Erroneous data was found in Table 1 and Table 2 of the TSD.
 The commenter believes that the CES does not represent Solano County. 
The comment believes the CES for Yolo is low.  The commenter would like
to provide the EPA with information to revise the CES.   The commenter
believes that EPA’s speciation data from Sacramento which is dominated
by organic carbon and ammonium nitrate does not link Yolo County because
the EPA states that the most significant sources are
construction/demolition and farming;

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes that more resolved emissions data would have been useful
in calculating the CES.  However, only county level emissions were
available at the time the CES was developed.  In lieu of more resolved
emissions data, information from the other factors were utilized to
determine the extent of possible contribution

Solano County is divided into two parts.  The western part, which has
the violating monitor is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and is one of the counties included in the
San Francisco nonattainment Area.  The eastern part of Solano County is
under the jurisdiction of the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management
District, and, as part of a county with a violating monitor, has been
designated as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

With regard to Yolo County, that portion of the county that has been
designated nonattainment has over 97 percent of the total county
population, and 99 percent of the traffic of the entire county, so
contributing emissions have been captured in the partial county area
designated as nonattainment.

EPA’s original recommendation, the weight that the CES played in
determining the boundaries of any violating area varied from area to
area depending on how well the CES methodology took into account
characteristics of an area that impact transport and dispersion of
PM2.5.  With respect to the California designations, the CES was not
strongly considered.  Rather, as described above, EPA depended on actual
air quality data, emissions data, topography and meteorology in
determining nonattainment boundaries.

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenter (0121) believes the study cited by the EPA
does not support nonattainment area that includes Yolo or Solano
Counties; 

Factor 3 – The commenter believes that population numbers for the
counties are misleading, especially when only a portion of Solano is
being proposed;

Factor 4 – The commenter believes that EPA did not analyze if the
truck traffic originates from the district; 

Factor 5 – The commenter believes that population growth and VMT
changes are misleading;

Factor 6 – Further explanation is needed for EPA’s conclusion that
the effect of strength of winds and not wind direction does not indicate
adjacent areas do not contribute to high concentrations, and further
consideration needs to be taken regarding the geographic location of the
county and the county’s CES;

Factor 8 – The commenter asserts that violations in the designated
area are caused by mobile and local area sources outside of its county,
and thus its inclusion in the nonattainment area will not facilitate
attainment.  The county is in another air district; and

Factor 9 – The commenter asserts that existing control technologies
were not taken into consideration in EPA’s analysis.

EPA Response:

EPA is designating all of Sacramento County and portions of Yolo,
Solano, Placer, and El Dorado counties as nonattainment.  Excluding
portions of Yolo and Solano is not warranted because EPA has available
information to support the designation.  EPA’s boundary designation
for the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area includes all of Sacramento
County and parts of Yolo, Solano, Placer, and El Dorado Counties. This
area includes a majority of the population, and all major point sources
and highways in this area.  Locations west of this area contain small,
dispersed populations and do not include major travel corridors, so they
were not included in the nonattainment area.  EPA’s boundary for
Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the areas with violating
monitors, and the nearby contributing areas.  

Based on speciation data provided by CARB, organic carbon and nitrates
were identified as the major components of PM2.5 where violations
occurred, which were attributed to residential woodburning and mobile
sources, respectively.  As both sources are associated with urban areas,
the Sacramento nonattainment areas is intended to capture the full
extent of the urban areas associated with the City of Sacramento so that
sources potentially contributing to the violating monitors are included.
 Even though violations are not recorded in the surrounding counties,
such as Placer County, the Sacramento urban area clearly extends into
the surrounding counties.  

With respect to the most recent residential wood burning emissions data
for El Dorado County provided in CARB’s October 15 letter, EPA agrees
that this data suggests significantly less emissions than given in
ARB’s Almanac (updated August 8, 2007). EPA relied on data from CARB,
and some of that information is in dispute or is incorrect, but the new
information doesn’t change EPA’s final determination which was based
on including contributing emissions from population centers and the
transportation network . 

Finally, while EPA agrees that wood smoke emissions are more localized,
the Agency does not agree that the contribution of mobile sources can be
discounted.  EPA views mobile source emissions as a significant
component of regional PM2.5 levels in the Sacramento Valley, and it
appears that the combination of this regional pollution and local wood
smoke emissions in the Sacramento area lead to violations of the PM2.5
standard, particularly during stagnant conditions.  Considering this,
EPA looked at the location of the violating monitors and the sources of
both wood smoke and nitrates to determine the appropriate nonattainment
boundary. This includes Sacramento and the surrounding urban areas where
there could be significant emissions from residential wood burning.  It
also includes the major transportation and commuting corridors
associated with Sacramento and the surrounding urban areas which can be
a significant source of the nitrate component.

3.49.  Salt Lake City, UT

Comment:

One commenter (0117) requests EPA to extend the public comment deadline
for Box Elder County, UT.  The commenter requests that EPA allow
additional time to possibly eliminate data uncertainties for this
county.  

EPA Response:

See section 1.0 for comments regarding the extension of the public
comment period.  

Comment:

37 commenters (0032, 0036, 0037, 0038, 0049, 0051, 0054, 0056, 0065,
0069, 0071, 0072/0156, 0073, 0076, 0077, 0074/0078, 0081, 0087, 0090,
0105, 0112, 0115, 0117, 0126, 0141, 0143, 0145, 0147, 0153, 0154, 0156,
0157, 0159, 0160, 0168, 0169, 0174) request that EPA designate the Salt
Lake and Provo in Utah as two separate nonattainment areas instead of
one.  The commenters are concerned about the possible conformity lapse
with two MPO areas.  The commenters support the recommendations from
Utah State Division of Air Quality and the technical information
submitted by the State.  One of the commenters (0062) claim that they
hold the utmost importance, to develop and produce viable and
sustainable long term transportation plans.  The commenter provides
historical information and additional monitor data.  One of the
commenters (0153) strongly urged EPA to separate the Utah County portion
of the nonattainment area along the Wasatch Front from Salt Lake, Davis
and Weber Counties (as is the PM10 designations), citing studies that
show little mixing of air under the influence of strong temperature
inversions episodes.  The commenter is concerned that the pollution rose
developed by EPA’s wind model is not consistent with the data
submitted by the Utah State DAQ and recommended that the local data
should be followed.

EPA Response:

EPA has amended our August 18, 2008 proposal, relative to separating or
combining Utah County and Salt Lake County.  EPA has given further
consideration to the State recommendation to separate the two counties
and agrees to Utah County (partial) as being a separate nonattainment
area.  This decision is based on a broader evaluation of jurisdictional
issues that the State claims will facilitate SIP planning.  Regardless
of whether they are a single or separate nonattainment area, both Utah
County and Salt Lake County are violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards and have similar design values.  EPA anticipates that the
State of Utah will have to insure that these two areas work closely
together to develop a consistent strategy for attaining the NAAQS,
including a combined modeling demonstration and consistent control
measures.  However, EPA’s analysis of speciated data, pollution roses,
and other analytical tools indicates that these two areas are
interconnected and thus we expect that SIPs for both areas will fully
account for this influence.

Comment:

16 of the commenters (0056, 0065, 0069, 0071, 0073, 0076, 0077, 0081,
0087, 0090, 0115, 0117, 0145, 0157, 0160, 0169) also disagree that Box
Elder County, UT be designated as nonattainment with some of the
commenters supporting the recommendations from Utah State Division of
Air Quality and the technical information submitted by the State.  11 of
the commenters (0056, 0069, 0071, 0076, 0077, 0105, 0115, 0117, 0145,
0160, 0174) requests that Tooele County also is not designated
nonattainment, with some of the commenters supporting recommendations
from Utah State Division of Air Quality and the technical information
submitted by the State.  The commenters (0090, 0115) believe that
emissions from Box Elder County do not contribute to any exceedances in
Brigham City.  The commenters question the “pollution rose” rose
data used by the EPA for Box Elder County and the Google maps used.  The
commenter (0115) endorses comments from commenter 0069.  Another
commenter (0174) also disagrees with EPA’s proposed designation for
Tooele County, UT, as nonattainment because monitoring data is below the
standard.  The commenter indicates that although approximately 43
percent of Tooele County commutes to the Salt Lake Area this accounts
for only 1.2 percent of the half of the maximum observed design value
(49 μg/m3) or roughly a quarter to a third of 1 μg/m3.

EPA Response:

With regard to including portions of Box Elder and Tooele Counties in
the Salt Lake City nonattainment area, EPA is required under section
107(d) to designate not only violating areas, but nearby areas that
contribute to those violations.  Thus, a key objective of the
designation process was to ascertain those nearby areas with emissions
sources or emissions activities that contribute to violations.   EPA
based its evaluation of these two areas on the types of information
recommended in EPA’s guidance and additional relevant information,
including traffic and commuting, growth, meteorology, topography, and
emissions.  Taken together, this information supports the conclusion
that both Box Elder and Tooele contribute to the PM2.5 violations in
adjacent counties.  The fact that neither area is currently monitoring
nonattainment does not address whether they contribute to violations in
nearby areas.  

	We note there are no topographical barriers between Brigham City and
Salt Lake City; the two areas are part of a single very large air basin.
 Based on emission transport during long periods of stagnation under
persistent temperature inversions, sufficient mixing occurs allowing
both Box Elder and Tooele Valley emissions to reach the maximum
concentration monitors in Salt Lake City and Ogden and contribute to
NAAQS violations.

	The monitor in Box Elder County has shown significant daily exceedances
of the PM2.5 standard as well as three-year design values near the level
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (and above that level for some periods
historically).  In Box Elder, the 2004-2006 design value was 35 g/m3
and the 2005-2007 design value was 29 g/m3; in Tooele the 2005-2007
design value was 31 g/m3.  While not violations, these values
demonstrate that these areas are subject to poor air quality at times,
and it is likely that these high concentrations contribute to violations
in adjacent counties on days when winds blow from this direction towards
the rest of this area, and contribute to area wide ambient levels during
inversions.  If exceedances are caused by local emissions, it indicates
emission levels high enough to leave very little margin to the NAAQS and
that area emissions are high enough to contribute to the overall air
quality issues of the larger basin.  If exceedances are from transport
from Salt Lake City then it demonstrates that Box Elder and Tooele
County are in the same air shed, with sufficient mixing for the central
and outlying areas to interact.

Comment:

One commenter (0090) is concerned about ATK’s Promontory facility
emissions.  The commenter cites the following issues:

The commenter requests that all of Box Elder County, Utah, and in
particular that portion of Box Elder County, Utah upon which ATK Launch
Systems operates an industrial facility, be excluded from the
nonattainment area which will include Salt Lake City.  The commenter
believes that EPA has not provided the necessary evidence to prove that
emissions from Box Elder County contribute to PM2.5 violations occurring
in other counties of Utah.  The commenter refers to EPA’s approach to
designations for the PM2.5 annual standard in the guidance document
Technical Support Document for State and Tribal Air Quality Fine
Particle (PM2.5) Designations (“2004 Technical Support Document”).

EPA Response:

The guidance document cited was used by EPA in a previous round of PM2.5
designations in 2004, primarily for areas which do not attain the annual
form of the PM2.5 standard.  The cited guidance was not used for the
current round of designations.  Instead, Guidance for the current
designations was provided in the June 8, 2007 letter from Robert J.
Meyers, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation to the
Regional Administrators of Regions 1 through 10 entitled Area
Designations for the Revised 24-hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air
Quality Standard; and hereafter termed the 2006 Designation Guidance.

Comment:

The commenter (0090) states that EPA’s “urban excess methodology”
and “weighted emissions scores” show that Box Elder County does not
contribute significantly to Salt Lake City violations.

EPA Response:

The “urban excess methodology” and “weighted emissions scores”
were methods used in the 2004 designations for the annual PM2.5 standard
(for which all of Utah was designated attainment), but were not used in
this round of designations.  The commenter assumed that Box Elder County
is represented by the “Regional” as opposed to “local”
emissions; this is a misinterpretation of the 2004 analysis.  For the
2004 analysis, regional PM2.5 was determined at remote IMPROVE PM2.5
monitors at National Parks in southern Utah.  This data is not
representative of Box Elder County concentrations, within the same air
basin as Salt Lake City.  The assumption that Box Elder County emissions
are represented by the “Regional” portion of the Salt Lake City
PM2.5 is not supported by the previous analysis methodology. 

The CES was one tool used by EPA to compare relative emission, but was
not meant to modify the State’s proposed nonattainment area boundaries
separately from the complete nine factor analysis.  The CES served as an
initial starting point for EPA to begin assessing what a potential
nonattainment area could look like.  EPA used various pieces of
information to help inform its designation decisions including the nine
factors and comments from the State air agencies.  There was no sole
factor or tool that was considered to be outcome determinative.  As for
the interpretation of the score itself, it is true that any score
greater than zero would indicate contribution.  The CES, however, is
unique to each area and cannot be compared to counties with similar
scores in other areas.  There is also no magnitude threshold which
dictates that a particular county would be considered to be in or out of
a nonattainment area.  The CES simply highlights nearby counties that
contribute to the violation and provides information along with data and
analyses from the nine factors as well as information specific to the
individual area provided by the States to designate the nonattainment
area boundaries.  

Comment:

The commenter (0090) believes that Box Elder County presumptively should
be excluded from the nonattainment area unless data are available to
demonstrate that it contributes significantly to nonattainment in Salt
Lake County based on the 2004 designation guidance in EPA’s 2004
Technical Support Document.

EPA Response:

The guidance document issued by EPA for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS states that
“When determining boundaries in urban areas for the annual PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA applied a presumption that the boundaries for urban
nonattainment areas should be based on metropolitan area boundaries as
defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.  For the PM2.5
24-hour NAAQS, EPA is establishing no such presumption.”  Thus, EPA
indicated that areas are not excluded presumptively for these
designations merely because they are located outside of a metropolitan
or other statistical area, and instead that such areas should be
evaluated and included or excluded based on whether the areas contribute
to nearby violations, as determined through the evaluation of the
recommended 9 factors and other relevant information or analytical
tools, based on the facts and  circumstances specific to a particular
nonattainment area.  In this instance, for example, Box Elder is located
immediately adjacent to, within the distance that PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors can transport, and within the same airshed as the remainder
of the designated Salt Lake City area.  Under the facts and
circumstances of this area, any such presumption would easily have been
overcome.

Comment:

The commenter (0090) provides the following issues with the technical
analysis:

Factor 1 – The commenter believes that the emissions do not support
inclusion of Box Elder County in the Salt Lake nonattainment area.  The
commenter questions whether the transports of emissions have been
modeled by EPA.

EPA Response:

Box Elder County is adjacent to Weber County, a county with a violating
PM2.5 monitor and emissions similar to Box Elder County.  The urbanized
area of Box Elder County, where emissions are concentrated, is only 16
miles from a violating Weber County monitor, with no intervening
topographic barrier.  Box Elder County emissions are therefore relevant
to nearby exceedances.  In addition, the secondary aerosol of the
Wasatch Front is dominated by ammonium nitrate; Box Elder County has
ammonia emissions constituting 33 percent of the total ammonia emissions
in the Northern Wasatch Front area.  Neither EPA nor the state provided
a modeling analysis to support either including or excluding Box Elder
County.

Comment:

Factor 2 – The commenter (0090) believes that the air quality data do
not support inclusion of Box Elder County in the Salt Lake nonattainment
area.  

EPA Response:

The Act requires that “for each monitor or group of monitors that
indicate violations of a standard, EPA will establish nonattainment
boundaries that cover a sufficiently large area to include both the area
that violates the standard and the areas that contribute to the
violations.” While the Brigham City monitor in Box Elder County does
not have NAAQS violations for 2005-2007 data, this does not exclude it
from a nonattainment designation if it is contributing to violations in
nearby counties.

EPA considered the individual facts and circumstances of each area in
determining whether to include a county or part of a county as
contributing to a particular nonattainment problem.  Neither the CAA nor
EPA’s designations guidance establishes thresholds for determining the
designation status of an area.  For example, the guidance does not
identify a set amount of a pollutant, or a specific level of commuting
between counties, that would automatically require a county or part of a
county to be included in a nonattainment area.  Nor does the CAA or
EPA’s guidance provide a bright line for what constitutes a nearby
area which contributes to a violation.  In order to assess what areas
are contributing, for purposes of designations, requires an evaluation
of the facts and circumstances of each area.  EPA considered the
geography of each area, meteorological data, speciated data, and other
information in light of the distances across which PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors can be transported.

Comment:

Factor 3 – The commenter (0090) believes that population density and
degree of urbanization does not support inclusion of Box Elder County in
the Salt Lake nonattainment area.  

EPA Response:

While Box Elder County is more rural than its nearby neighboring
counties (Weber and Davis), its population is approaching 50,000 people.
 Its county-wide emissions, concentrated in the eastern 1/3 of the
county, are comparable to its more urban neighbors with larger
populations.  The population density and degree of urbanization in the
eastern 1/3 of the county justify a partial county designation of
nonattainment.  The rural, unpopulated western parts of the county have
been excluded from the nonattainment area.

	

With regard to decisions on nonattainment boundaries in other parts of
the country, either for the prior round of designations or the current,
EPA’s designations guidance for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard states
that the criteria for determining appropriate boundaries is to be made
on a case-by-case basis considering the recommended nine factors.  Not
every factor was relevant in each area (e.g., in many eastern locations
topography is not an issue), nor was every factor equally important to
each area.  Due to the complex and variable nature of PM2.5, the
important factors varied from one area to another based on local
circumstances.  Moreover, EPA consciously did not impose any mandatory
“bright line” tests for any of the recommended nine factors.

Comment:

Factor 4 – The commenter (0090) believes that traffic and commuting
patterns do not support inclusion of Box Elder County in the Salt Lake
nonattainment area Public Comment:

EPA Response:

No new data on traffic and commuting was included by the commenter.  Box
Elder County is included as part of the Salt Lake City Combined
Statistical Area by the Office of Management and Budget due to
consideration of the degree of employee interchange between Box Elder
County and the counties to the south.  A county with numerous commuters
is generally an integral part of an urban area and is likely
contributing to fine particle concentrations in the area.  In Box Elder
County 24.1 percent of commuters are traveling to the counties of Weber,
Davis and Salt Lake which shows that emissions related to traffic and
commuting are contributing to violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 
EPA’s analysis of this factor, in combination with the other nine
factors leads to a conclusion that traffic and commuting patterns
support a designation of nonattainment for Box Elder County. 

Comment:

Factor 5 – The commenter (0090) believes that growth rates and
patterns do not support inclusion of Box Elder County in the Salt Lake
nonattainment area.  The commenter believes that the projections are
overstated.

EPA Response:

By 2015 Box Elder County is predicted to have a 22.3 percent change in
population growth and a 45.3 percent change in Vehicle Miles Travel
(VMT).  EPA used growth rate data and projections provided by the State
of Utah’s 9 factor analysis (12/18/07 Governor’s recommendation
letter to EPA) and VMT growth was provided by the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Budget. These growth projections currently reflect the best
available information.  

Comment:

Factor 6 – The commenter (0090) believes that meteorology (weather/
transport patterns) do not support inclusion of Box Elder County in the
Salt Lake nonattainment area.  The commenter includes additional
information on wind patterns during the periods of elevated
concentrations.

EPA Response:

The meteorological conditions leading to PM2.5 nonattainment along the
Wasatch front of Utah are persistent strong temperature inversions
throughout the area, which can last from several days to as long as 3
weeks.  During these periods, light and variable winds can lead to
mixing throughout the large basin area represented by the Great Salt
Lake and its surrounding communities.  During long periods of inversion
there is some degree of diurnal uniformity of flow over the basin with
light oscillatory behavior, contributing to mixing of emissions across
the Wasatch front.  The persistence of the inversion periods combined
with the lack of topographic barriers between Box Elder County and the
violating monitors in Weber, Davis and Salt Lake means that Box Elder
emissions will migrate to violating monitors over time.

	

Additional wind data provided by the commenter is different from the
wind rose data EPA used from the Salt Lake International airport.  The
difference between these two wind roses is not unexpected given the
influence of local topography.  The Salt Lake International wind rose
used by EPA is likely more representative of large scale wind patterns
in the basin, given the relative distance of the airport from
topographic features.

Comment:

Factor 7 – The commenter (0090) believes that geography/topography do
not support inclusion of Box Elder County in the Salt Lake nonattainment
area.  

EPA Response:

The persistent, multi-day nature of the temperature inversions leading
to PM2.5 violations allow for low velocity mixing of pollutants across
the Wasatch Front.  There is no apparent physical barrier that impedes
the influence and contribution of emissions from Brigham City and
eastern Box Elder County to the Wasatch Front area.  The migration of
pollutants south can contribute to the nearest violating monitor in
Weber County located 4 miles southeast of the Box Elder County line. 

EPA identified a western topographic airshed barrier for eastern Box
Elder County which is the Promontory Mountains and North Promontory
Mountains.  The Promontory Mountains are located approximately 24 miles
west of both Brigham City and Ogden and show approximate altitudes of
5,600 ft. mean sea level (MSL) in the south (extending into the Great
Salt Lake), areas of over 6,000 ft. MSL in the middle, and 5,000 ft. to
the North where they meet the southern end of the North Promontory
Mountains.  The southern end of the North Promontory Mountains are
approximately 5,000 ft. MSL and are also approximately 5,000 ft. MSL to
the north (northwest of Howell, UT).

The topography of the area acts as a barrier to air movement during the
conditions which lead to elevated concentrations of fine particulate; it
also acts as the primary factor in determining where the population is
located.  Basically, the low lying valleys which trap air during
winter-time temperature inversions are also the regions within which
people chose to live producing the emissions which lead to fine
particulate formation.

Comment:

Factor 8 – The commenter (0090) believes that jurisdictional
boundaries do not support inclusion of Box Elder County in the Salt Lake
nonattainment area.  

EPA Response:  

The analysis of jurisdictional boundaries considered the planning and
organization of the Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield CSA, which includes
Box Elder County, to determine if the implementation of controls can be
carried out in a cohesive manner.  EPA is satisfied that the UDAQ in
conjunction with the Utah Air Quality Board has State-wide overall
planning and SIP development authority.     

Comment:

Factor 9 – The commenter (0090) believes that the level of control
does not support inclusion of Box Elder County (and specifically the ATK
Promontory Facility) in the Salt Lake nonattainment area.  

EPA Response:

The technical analysis established that Box Elder emissions were
contributing to violations in nearby counties, and a boundary was
established which utilized natural topographic barriers.  Under factor 1
of the TSD, EPA evaluated emissions based upon the 2005 National
Emission Inventory which includes any control strategies in place at
that time.

Comment:

One commenter (0115) requests EPA to extend the public comment deadline
for an additional 60 days, to follow State's recommendation to designate
the Salt Lake City and Provo areas as two separate nonattainment areas
instead of one, and to designate Box Elder, UT as attainment.  The
commenter endorses comments from another commenter (0069).  The
commenter (0069) believes a source or a transportation project in
sparsely populated Box Elder County would be affected or constrained by
a source or a transportation project in Utah County.

EPA Response:

Nationwide, there are several areas that are multi-state and
multi-jurisdictional that have been designated as one nonattainment area
and are able to coordinate together to address common air pollution
issues.  The transportation conformity analysis has a collaborative
process formally outlined in Section XII “Transportation Conformity
Consultation” of Utah’s SIP and addresses issues such as;
transportation conformity consultation, specific roles and
responsibilities, interagency collaboration and consultation process,
and the dispute resolution process.

There are options available to administer the transportation conformity
requirements in the entire boundary area for the Salt Lake City CSA
which includes Box Elder County (or any other geographic area).  To
address these transportation conformity issues, and many other
situations, EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has
produced two documents; “Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004,
Final Transportation Conformity Rule; Conformity Implementation in
Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing
and New Air Quality Standards” (EPA420-B-04-012, July, 2004) and
“Interim Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity
Provisions in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)” (EPA420-B-06-90,
February, 2006.)

The “Companion Guidance” document (EPA420-B-04-012) outlines options
for establishing the PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) on a
nonattainment area-wide basis or subarea basis.  In addition, the
MPO/States may revert from using nonattainment area-wide budgets to
demonstrate conformity by meeting selected respective subarea emission
budgets if the MPO/States make concurrent conformity determinations that
demonstrate consistency of their respective plans and programs with
their individual subarea budgets.  Likewise, at any time in the future,
the MPO/States may switch from using subarea budgets to using
nonattainment area-wide budgets.  This is allowed as long as they once
again perform a joint conformity determination and the sum of their
subarea motor vehicle emissions are equal to or less than the
established nonattainment area-wide PM2.5  MVEBs.  This process is
allowed provided that it is established in the respective SIPs.  The
guidance provides great flexibility for the MPO/States to jointly meet
the necessary SIP budget(s) and represents a unified process for
addressing transportation conformity.  See 1.0 above for comments
regarding the extension of the public comment period.  Please refer to
the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s
decisions.

Comment:

Two commenters (0129) support EPA recommendations to create a single
nonattainment area respective to the Wasatch Front, and is particularly
adamant about including the eastern portions of Tooele and Box Elder
counties.  The commenters agree that there is a substantial amount of
mixing between Tooele County and the Wasatch Front.

EPA Response:

EPA has amended our August 18, 2008 proposal, relative to separating or
combining Utah County and Salt Lake County.  EPA has given further
consideration to the State recommendation to separate the two counties
and agrees to Utah County (partial) as being a separate nonattainment
area.  This decision is based on a broader evaluation of jurisdictional
issues that the State claims will facilitate SIP planning.  Regardless
of whether they are a single or separate nonattainment area, both Utah
County and Salt Lake County are violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards and have similar design values.  EPA anticipates that the
State of Utah will have to insure that these two areas work closely
together to develop a consistent strategy for attaining the NAAQS,
including a combined modeling demonstration and consistent control
measures.  However, EPA’s analysis of speciated data, pollution roses,
and other analytical tools indicates that these two areas are
interconnected and thus we expect that SIPs for both areas will fully
account for this influence.

3.50.  St. Louis, MO-IL

Comment:

One commenter (0100) supports EPA’s recommendation and requests that
EPA designate Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Randolph (partial)
counties in Illinois as nonattainment.  The commenter cites negative
health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this supporting comment and has made a determination
based on the technical analysis and information provided to designate
Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Randolph (partial) counties in Illinois
as nonattainment as part of the St. Louis nonattainment area.

Comment:

One commenter (0108) asserts that no area in Missouri should be
designated as nonattainment.  The states the following:

There is no violating monitor of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in
Missouri; 

The one violating monitor in the Bi-State area is located in Madison
County, IL; and 

The violating monitor is heavily influenced by a local point sources
located in close proximity to the violating monitor.

EPA Response:  

Pursuant to section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA must designate as
nonattainment those areas that violate the NAAQS and those nearby areas
that contribute to violations.  EPA’s review of the nine factors for
the four counties and the City of St. Louis (including five counties in
Illinois) shows that the Missouri portion of the bi-State area
contributes to both (Granite City and Alton) violating monitors.  A
detailed description of this analysis is outlined in EPA’s TSD for
Missouri and outlined again in EPA’s response to the State of
Missouri’s comments.

There is evidence to support the claim that there is a local
contribution to the Granite City violating monitors from a limited
number of local sources in Granite City.  However, Missouri also
indicates in its comment, that there are likely monitored episodes which
are Regional in nature.  Missouri has not provided information that
confirms that that the preponderance of the mass captured on the PM2.5
filter (at the violating monitors) for all exceedance days is from local
sources; nor has Missouri provided conclusive evidence that nearby
Missouri counties are not contributing to these violations.  In
addition, Missouri’s submittal does not address the 2005-2007
violations at the Alton monitor, which is located approximately 20 miles
away.  Therefore, the analysis is not only inconclusive, but is also
incomplete, and does not provide a basis for concluding that emissions
from the Missouri portion of the metropolitan area do not contribute to
the violations.  In contrast, EPA’s full analysis as explained in the
TSD supports the conclusion that sources in Missouri do contribute to
the violating monitor.  

Comment:

The commenter (0108) asserts that based on a pollution rose shown in
EPA’s August 18, 2008, 120-day letter to the State, “most of the
exceeding 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations occur with a wind from the
south-southeast.  That is, when an exceedance is recorded at the Madison
County, IL monitor it is downwind of the large industrial facility.”

EPA Response:

	EPA’s 120-day letter states that the pollution rose shows an average
prevailing surface wind direction for high PM2.5 days in Madison County,
IL from the southeast, southwest.  EPA asserts that winds coming from
the south or southwest would be coming from the direction of the
Missouri portion of the Bi-State area toward the county with the
violating monitors (Madison County, IA.)

Comment:

The commenter (0108) notes that EPA did not mention an estimate of
“total urban contribution” in regards to NOX emissions and gives an
estimate that the SO2 component of the total urban contribution during
cooler months is less than 10 percent.  The commenter cites these
reasons as indicative of low Missouri culpability in regards to SO2 and
NOX emissions toward the violating monitor.

EPA Response:  

EPA has included five Missouri counties located in the St. Louis
metropolitan area (St. Louis, St. Louis City, St. Charles, Jefferson,
and Franklin) as part of the PM2.5 nonattainment area for St. Louis
because they have significant emissions and other factors which
contribute to exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  In the St. Louis
area, about 65 percent of the high PM2.5 days occur in the warm season,
and 35 percent occur in the cool season.  On the high days in the warm
season, the fine particle composition in the area is 76 percent sulfate,
22 percent carbon, 3 percent crustal, and 0 percent nitrate.  On the
high days in the cool season, the fine particle composition is 40
percent nitrate, 36 percent sulfate, 21 percent carbon, and 3 percent
crustal.  These data indicate that sources of SO2, NOx, and direct PM2.5
carbon emissions are the main contributors to exceedances of the 24-hour
standard in St. Louis.  On an annual average basis, the fine particle
composition is 47 percent sulfate, 37 percent carbon, 11 percent
nitrate, and 5 percent crustal.  The annual emissions from the five
Missouri counties together are significant, amounting to 199,000 tons
SO2, 135,000 tons NOx, and 15,000 tons PM2.5.  Along with supporting
meteorological information, EPA finds that these nearby counties within
the metro area contribute to the violating monitors in St. Louis.

In addition, these five counties also were included in the boundary for
the 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area as well.  The St. Louis area, with an
annual design value of 16.5 ug/m3 for 2005-2007, still has not attained
the annual standard.  The five counties were designated as part of the
original nonattainment area on the basis of their contribution to annual
average fine particle concentrations in St. Louis.  The major components
of fine particle mass on an annual average basis and on the highest days
are sulfate, nitrate, and carbonaceous PM2.5.  EPA finds it is
reasonable to conclude that the same sources which were found to
contribute to a violation of the annual standard also contribute to the
high PM2.5 days.  For the reasons above and based on additional analysis
described in the area-specific TSD for the St. Louis area, EPA finds
that it is reasonable and consistent to include the five Missouri
counties as part of the St. Louis nonattainment area for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.   

Comment:

The commenter asserts that the generation of sulfates and nitrates from
SO2 and NOX do not occur immediately after emission of SO2 and NOX;
their formation requires reaction time.  The commenter finds the
relevancy of locally emitted SO2 and NOX total PM2.5 concentrations
suspect.

EPA Response: 

Missouri indicates in its comments that there are likely monitored
episodes which are Regional in nature.  Missouri has not provided
information that confirms that the preponderance of the mass captured on
the PM2.5 filter (at the violating monitors) for all exceedance days is
from local sources; nor has Missouri provided conclusive evidence that
nearby Missouri counties are not contributing to these violations.  

The State utilized Community Multi-scale Air Quality modeling (CMAQ) to
estimate the effectiveness of control strategies on future PM2.5
concentrations in the area of the violating monitors using strategies
being considered for the 2012 annual PM2.5 attainment demonstrations. 
Four monitored PM2.5 exceedance days (at one of the Granite City sites)
during 2002 were selected for evaluation.  In addition, three future
(2012) emission scenarios were evaluated: a baseline scenario (NOX and
SO2 reductions at several area facilities); a scenario that included a
90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions at Herculaneum (a lead smelter in
the area); and a scenario that included both of the SO2 reductions
previously described plus a 16 percent reduction in primary PM2.5
emissions for US Steel Granite City.  The results are described in Table
1.  

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 .  From the MDNR 10-18-08 response.

The State modeling study relies on Missouri emission reductions of PM2.5
precursors that are not yet federally enforceable and for the most part,
not yet State enforceable.  It is therefore, not appropriate to rely on
these reductions to eliminate sources or areas from consideration in
establishing nonattainment boundaries.  EPA must make designations based
on current conditions and cannot consider additional controls that are
not already in place and federally enforceable.  However, if one could
assume that these reductions were permanent, enforceable and
quantifiable, the modeling indicates that SO2 and NOX reductions
(including reductions from sources on the Missouri side of the
metropolitan area) in combination with reductions of direct PM2.5
emissions from local sources in Granite City could result in a reduction
of on average of 1 μg/m3 at the violating Granite City monitors.  

Consequently, the model confirms that both localized emissions
reductions and regional emissions reductions (some of which may
originate from the Missouri side of the metropolitan area) could be
effective in addressing PM2.5 violations for the 24-hour standard.  The
analysis therefore provides further support for inclusion of the
Missouri portion of the area in the nonattainment area.

Comment:

One commenter (0091) agrees that Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair and
Randolph (partial) counties in Illinois, and the City of St. Louis, and
Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis counties in Missouri
contribute to the violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
Illinois.  The commenter supports EPA recommendations that counties in
Illinois and Missouri be designated as nonattainment in the St. Louis,
MO-IL area.  

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this supporting comment and has made a determination
based on the technical analysis and information provided to designate
all the identified counties as part if the St. Louis nonattainment area.

Comment:

Three commenters (0107, 0091, 0100) disagree with EPA’s recommended
designations.  The commenters recommend that EPA designate Washington
County, IL and Ste.  Genevieve County, MO as nonattainment due to large
emission sources under construction.  The commenters state that
Washington County is adjacent to the proposed nonattainment area.  The
commenters state the Prairies State Generating coal-fired 1600 megawatt
power plant (Washington County) is scheduled to go online in 2011.  The
commenters state that Ste.  Genevieve is adjacent to Jefferson County
and sits immediately across the Mississippi River from Monroe and
Randolph counties in Illinois.  The commenters state that both counties
are upwind the proposed nonattainment area.  The commenters believes
that the coal-fired Holcim cement kiln (Ste.  Genevieve) will emit
significant amounts of direct and precursor PM2.5 pollutants to the
proposed nonattainment area and is scheduled to be operational within
only a few months.  The commenters state additional facilities that are
being built in Madison County and St. Clair County, including the
expansion of the ConocoPhillips refinery in Wood River to process tar
sands, a new coke plant in Granite City, and several ethanol plants,
will add significantly to the amount of direct and precursor PM2.5
pollutants in the proposed nonattainment area.  The commenters cite lung
health risks to residents in the States, as well as the fact that there
is no evidence of a safe level of PM2.5.

EPA Response:

EPA excluded Washington County, Illinois from the St. Louis
nonattainment area.  EPA designated it as attainment based on the
current information, as EPA is required to do by the Act.  EPA found
that Washington County has limited current emissions: 801 tpy of PM2.5
emissions, 118 tpy of SO2, and 1,750 tpy of NOX.  The county has 14,946
residents and 361 million VMT per year.  Both of these figures rate low
in the St. Louis area.  The data also shows that just 1,630 workers
commute into the St. Louis metropolitan area which includes St. Clair
County.  There is no air quality monitoring data for Washington County. 
EPA concluded that Washington County does not currently contribute to
the violations in the St. Louis.  Therefore, EPA designated Washington
County as attainment as required by the Act.  The construction of a
power plant in a county adjacent to the St. Louis nonattainment area
does have the potential to greatly increase Washington County emissions.
 From meteorological data for the St. Louis area, EPA concluded that the
wind can carry emissions from all directions toward the violating
monitors.  Illinois and Missouri will need to consider the potential
emissions from the Washington County power plant when they develop plans
to bring the St. Louis area into attainment of the fine particulate
standards.  However, EPA can not designate the county nonattainment now
as it does not have evidence that the county currently contributes to
the violations.

μg/m3 calculated for 2005-2007, which is below the NAAQS of 35 μg/m3
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  Based upon information provided by
Missouri and analyzed by EPA, EPA has determined that the amount of
current emissions and stringency of controls on newly permitted sources
in the count do not support designating Ste. Genevieve County as
nonattainment either based on violations or contribution.  

Additionally, as required by CAA the State’s new source permitting
process includes the assessment of new source impacts on air quality in
both attainment and nonattainment areas.

3.51.  San Francisco Bay Area, CA

See section 2.2 for general comments relating to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.52.  San Joaquin Valley, CA

See section 2.2 for general comments relating to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.53.  Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for the State of Ohio.
 The commenter requests that EPA designate Jefferson County as
nonattainment.  This is the same county that EPA has proposed as a
candidate for a designation of nonattainment.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional
haze.

EPA Response:

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of the recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.  Please refer to the TSD and
the State and Tribal RTC document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.54.  Tacoma, WA

See section 2.2 for general comments relating to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.55.  Vincennes, IN

Comment:

One commenter (0106) supports EPA’s recommendation and requests that
EPA designate Knox County, IN, as nonattainment.  The commenter cites
negative health impacts from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional
haze.

EPA Response:

EPA made the final designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS using
an evaluation of recommended nine factors described in the June 2007
guidance as well as other relevant information in determining
appropriate nonattainment area boundaries and has designated Knox county
as nonattainment.  Please refer to the TSD and the State and Tribal RTC
document which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.56.  York, PA

See section 2.2 for general comments relevant to this particular
nonattainment area.  

3.57.  Youngstown, OH

Comment:

23 commenters (0033, 0031, 0030, 0021, 0028, 0067, 0014, 0146, 0027,
0046, 0023, 0025, 0118, 0017, 0020, 0048, 0015, 0047, 0016, 0026, 022,
0029, 0140) believe that if the most recent data from 2008 is used, the
Youngstown, OH area is likely to be able to be in compliance.  The
commenters also requested additional time for the Ohio EPA to provide
the most up-to-date information possible and delay the decision until
after that material has been reviewed.  The commenters indicate an
economic hardship in the area.  

EPA Response:

EPA recognizes that many areas in the country are making improvements in
their air quality, and believes that it is important to recognize such
improvements.  In making decisions about whether an area is meeting the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA also believes that it is important to use the
most recent air quality data.  EPA will be unable to use 2008 data air
quality data for the designation decisions that will be made in December
2008.  However, all States will still have the opportunity to benefit
from their efforts to improve air quality by using 2008 air quality data
to demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Prior to the effective date of final 24-hour PM2.5 designations, States
will have the opportunity to provide more recent data showing that an
area is attaining the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  To do so, a State must
submit its complete, quality assured, certified 2008 air quality data to
EPA earlier than the usual June 30 deadline.  This early submittal
deadline will be approximately 45 days prior to the 90-day effective
date of publication of the final 24-hour PM2.5 designations.  If EPA
agrees that a change of designation status is appropriate based on
2006-2008 air quality data, EPA would withdraw the nonattainment
designation prior to the 90-day effective date of final 24-hour PM2.5
designations and the area would be designated as in attainment. Please
see section 2.3 above for EPA’s response regarding the submission of
2008 data.  

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for Mahoning and
Trumbull counties in Ohio.  The commenter cites negative health impacts
from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the final determination that
Mahoning and Trumbull counties in Ohio should be included in the
boundary for the Youngstown, OH nonattainment area.  Please refer to the
TSD which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.58.  Yuba City-Marysville, CA

See section 2.2 for comments regarding this particular nonattainment
area.  

4.0.  Comments Specific To Region

4.1.  Region IV

4.1.1.  Georgia

Comment:

One commenter (0101) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designation for
Georgia. The commenter recommends that EPA adopted the original
recommendation dated December 18, 2007, from the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division.  The commenter believes that all of the Atlanta
area counties and partial counties stated in the December 18, 2007,
letter should be designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS.
The commenter believes that’s emissions from Georgia Power Plant
Scherer in Monroe County should be reanalyzed in the Atlanta area. The
commenter disagrees with EPA's review of exceptional events for several
areas in Georgia and feels that Atlanta and partial counties stated by
Georgia Environmental Protection Division on the December 18, 2007,
letter should be designated as nonattainment.  

The commenter believes that there was no quantification of contribution
and states although there was a forest fire it does not eliminate the
possibility of an excession due to local emissions that was inflated by
the forest fire contribution.  The commenter believes that the most
accurate way of assigning the quantification of concentrations is
through modeling.  The commenter recommends that the SE U.S. be modeled
during this May 2007 period using VISTAS emission inventory with the
forest fire emissions and CMAQ/WRF modeling system to apportion these
concentrations.  The commenter also thinks the modeling protocol for
this project should be open for public comment.  The commenter states
that the 2005-2007 design values (DV) be used only to expand the areas
of nonattainment based on the original 2004-2006 DV submittal and not to
expand the areas of attainment because the commenter does not know the
true quantity of the excession.

The commenter believes that because the exceptional events were
eliminated the 2005-2007 design values show attainment.  The commenter
states that the previous 5 design values show the Atlanta Area as
nonattainment.  The commenter believes that it is illogical that Atlanta
be nonattainment for the annual standard and attainment for the 24-hr
standard when the short term standard is harder to meet.

μg/m3, which was 3 and 4 times less than all the other monitors
operating on that date.

EPA Response: 

Attached to the August 19th letter from EPA to Governor Perdue ( 
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_GA_EPAMO
D.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_GA_EPAMOD
.pdf ) is a very detailed analysis of the 112.7 μg/m3 reading at the
Albany site. (See pages 19-21). Included in this analysis is an
assessment of the estimated concentration that would have occurred
“but-for” the impact of the fire as required by EPA’s Exceptional
Events rule.  This analysis utilized several sources of information
including modeled trajectories, PM2.5 concentrations at nearby locations
and historical PM2.5 values. EPA determined that these sources of
information were sufficient to judge the event to be exceptional and
additional modeling such as the one suggested by the commenter was not
required.  This investigation concluded that that the 24-hour average
PM2.5 concentration observed on May 27 (112.7 μg/m3) was 87.7 μg/m3
greater than the 95th percentile concentration observed at the site
during the month of May in 2004-2006. This indicates that PM2.5
concentrations in the Albany area far exceeded the normally expected
range of concentrations.

μg/m3 value was eliminated, it would not have any effect on the
computation of the design value for the South DeKalb monitor. Only the
highest 2 percent of measured concentrations contribute to the 24-hour
design value. While EPA agrees that the value appears to be unusually
low, it occurred during a time of the year when the highest
concentrations do not typically occur.  Furthermore, for the
investigation of nonattainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2005-2007 data was used for the computed design value. 

The designations promulgated today are for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5.

 NAAQS.  Although designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 (70 FR 944)
under 107(d) of the CAA are currently in Georgia, today’s rule is only
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA believes that nonattainment designations should be based on the most
recent air quality monitoring data available.   EPA identifies
violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on the basis of three years
of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data from an
eligible air quality monitor.  At the time of Georgia’s initial
recommendation in December 2007, the state based its recommendation on
monitoring data from 2004-2006.  For 2004-2006, there was a violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  However in 2008, EPA based designations, on
2005-2007 which is the most recent quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data.  For 2005-2007, monitoring data showed no violations of
the standard in the Georgia. Further, in establishing nonattainment area
boundaries, the agency is required to identify the area that does not
meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and any nearby area that is
contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.  Based on
2005-2007 monitoring data, all areas in Georgia meet the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.  EPA is not required under CAA section 107(d) to seek public
comment during the designation process.

EPA conducted a thorough analysis of exceptional events requests
submitted by Georgia.  More detail on EPA’s analysis for exceptional
events for Georgia can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_GA_EPAMOD
.pdf.  Based on the monitoring data available to EPA and the State of
Georgia, no monitors in or nearby to Georgia areas are in violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and thus no areas of Georgia are being
designated nonattainment.  The analysis of emission sources in Monroe
County would potentially be considered as part of EPA’s analysis if
there are violating monitors for the 24-hour standard in or around that
county but EPA’s and the state’s monitoring data indicates that
monitors in or nearby to Monroe County are meeting the 24-hour standard.
 

Although not related to today’s action, it is important to note that
Georgia Power Plant Scherer in Monroe County is included in the Macon
PM2.5 nonattainment and 8-hour ozone maintenance areas for the 1997
standards so the State of Georgia through the SIP process is already
considering emissions from this plant and other sources in Monroe County
for air quality planning related to particulate matter and 8-hour ozone.
 

4.1.2.  Kentucky

Comment:

One commenter (0114) requests that EPA deny the request for concurrence
of exceptional event flags from Kentucky Division of Air Quality on
PM2.5 data, citing negative health impacts from PM2.5.  The commenter
requests that EPA designate Bell, Fayette, Hardin and the other counties
that exceed or contribute to violations of the NAAQS as nonattainment.

Draft EPA Response:  

Attached to the August 19th letter from EPA to Governor Beshear ( 
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_KY_EPAMO
D.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_KY_EPAMOD
.pdf ) is a very detailed analysis of all the Kentucky requests for EPA
to approve flagged data as exceptional events.  These assessments are
provided in enclosure 3, for claimed event days for the Louisville and
Paducah areas.  All of the included analyses were performed in
accordance with the requirements of EPA’s exceptional events rule. 
EPA did not concur on the claim that the Louisville area was impacted by
smoke from Kansas/Northwestern wildfires , Arkansas, Mississippi and
Texas wildfires, Kansas wildfires, Kentucky and surrounding States’
wildfires, Southeast Georgia and Northeast Florida wildfires, Canadian
and Northwestern wildfires or Idaho, Montana and Central U.S. 
wildfires.  Similarly, for the Paducah area monitoring sites, EPA did
not concur with the claims about western Kentucky fires,
Arkansas/Mississippi wildfires or Arkansas/Mississippi wildfires. 
However, EPA did concur with the claimed impact on May 24, 2007 from the
extreme Southeast Georgia/Florida wildfires.  

Comment:

μg/m3.  The commenter believes that the surrounding counties are
contributing and/or in the MSA with Fayette

Draft EPA Response: 

The computed 2005-07 design value for Fayette County is 33 μg/m3.  See 
  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/values.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/values.html   Kentucky requested
concurrence for exclusion of data influenced by the Southeast Wildfires
that burned in Georgia and Florida in 2007.  These wildfires had
widespread impact throughout the Southeast.  Multiple requests were
submitted from States thought-out the region for exclusion of data
impacted on June 2, 2007 by these Georgia/Florida “Roundabout”
wildfires.  EPA granted concurrence for several flagged values that met
the requirements as found in §50.14(c)(3)(iii) of which the Lexington
Primary (AQS # 21-067-0012) and U.K Lexington (AQS # 21-067-0014) were
included.  Nevertheless, exclusion of the June 2 exceptional event only
changed the Lexington Primary design value from 34 μg/m3 to 33 μg/m3. 
Bell, Fayette and Hardin counties in Kentucky are not being designated
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard because neither of these
counties has a violating monitor or has been found to contribute to an
area with a violating monitor

4.2.  Region VIII

4.2.1.  Montana

Comment:

One commenter (0123) believes that the EPA proposal to designate
Missoula, MT as attainment rejects the State recommendation.  The
commenter believes the use of exceptional events for 2005-2007 design
value is arbitrary.  The commenter states that the county had 24-hour
design values of 39 μg/m3 and 41 μg/m3 in 2003-2005 and 2004-2006,
respectively, well over the NAAQS.  The commenter states that there are
significant sources in the county.  

EPA Response:  

The most recent 3 years of complete, certified, quality assured data are
used in designations in order to make designations reflective of current
air quality conditions.  The data for Missoula, Montana for 2007 were
certified complete and accurate in June, 2008, so the 2005-2007 data set
are the most recent data available at the time of the designations for
2008.  The data shows attainment for the area.  Since this data was not
available for the State to use in its recommendation, EPA’s final
designation is different from the State’s recommendation.

Regarding exceptional event flags on wildfire influence on PM2.5 data
from 2007 in Missoula, 40 CFR Section 50.14(b)(1) states that “EPA
shall exclude data from use in determinations of exceedances and NAAQS
violations where a State demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that an
exceptional event caused a specific air pollution concentration in
excess of one or more national ambient air quality standards at a
particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies the
requirements of this section.” This is in accordance with Appendix N
to 40 CFR 50. The State of Montana submitted a demonstration that PM2.5
exceedances from the summer of 2007 met the definition of an exceptional
event and the other requirements of 40 CFR Section 50.14, and EPA
concurred that these data were exceptional events.  In accordance with
the CFR, EPA has excluded those impacted data from a determination of
violation in Missoula.

g/m3) was not greater than the level of the 24-hour NAAQS, the
Missoula area is not judged to be in violation with the standard.

For additional information on the exceptional events please see,
“Letter dated December 14, 2007 to Callie Videtich, Director Air and
Radiation Program EPA Region VIII, from Charles Homer, Air Resources
Management Bureau of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
providing exceptional events data and demonstrations impacting Montana's
air monitoring data for designating areas attaining and not attaining
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS" submitted to the docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562: available online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov ).

4.2.2.  Utah

Comment::

Two commenters (0129) request that EPA expand the nonattainment area
designations.  The commenter believes that EPA should designate Uintah
and Duchesne counties in Utah as nonattainment.  The commenters state
the Vernal monitor was offline for two years and believes that available
data indicates that monitors in both counties are exceeding or
contributing to exceedences of NAAQS for PM2.5.  The commenters believe
that failing to designate these counties as nonattainment would reward
Utah for not monitoring in areas where monitoring is most essential.  

EPA Response:

The Utah DAQ has not provided EPA with the information necessary to
allow EPA to assess the siting and operation of the Vernal PM2.5 monitor
in Uintah County.  EPA knows of no PM2.5 monitoring data from Duchesne
County.  EPA’s understanding is that the monitor in Vernal was a PM2.5
Federal Reference Method monitor.  Utah DAQ has not submitted the raw
data and associated QA data from the Vernal monitor to the EPA AQS
database, and has not provided siting and other information to EPA to
allow EPA to assess whether the operation of the monitor met all
necessary 40 CFR Part 58 requirements to allow comparison to the NAAQS. 

Base on the data at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm" 
http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm , the Vernal
PM2.5 monitor operated from December 10, 2006 to December 14, 2007.  The
2006 monitoring rule, effective December 18, 2006, provided the
following provision for monitors designated by states as Special Purpose
Monitors (SPM) and which subsequently receive approval from EPA Regional
Administrators as monitors of that monitoring type:

§ 58.20   Special purpose monitors (SPM).

(c) All data from an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM which has operated
for more than 24 months is eligible for comparison to the relevant
NAAQS, subject to the conditions of §58.30, unless the air monitoring
agency demonstrates that the data came from a particular period during
which the requirements of appendix A, appendix C, or appendix E to this
part were not met in practice.

(d) If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM is discontinued within 24 months
of start-up, the Administrator will not base a NAAQS violation
determination for the PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS solely on data from the SPM.

痏

矢

硘

;

ž

õ

Z

Ã

4

5

6

8

9

:

;

<

=

Y

Z

[

\

{

|

}

—

˜

™

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

 

¼

½

¾

¿

Ò

Ó

Ô

î

ï

ð

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

 

!

"

#

7

8

9

S

T

U

W

X

Y

Z

[

\

x

y

z

{

 

¡

¢

¼

j¸

j;

¼

½

¾

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

á

â

ã

ä

ó

ô

õ

j¬

j/

j

 h /

h~

h~

h~

	㜀$␸䠀$摧烃

 hÃp

hÃp

hÃp

 hÃp

h

hÃp

 hÃp

☊଀ᭆ㜀$␸䠀$摧烃

 hÃp

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

ༀ킄ጂ碤᐀碤㜀$␸䠀$葞ː摧匒¿

 hÃp

 hÃp

h]E

h]E

萏ː葞ː摧ੁØ

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧䕝

hÓ

 hÃp

h]E

6

7

-

J7

ༀ梄㜁$␸䠀$葞Ũ摧林Ö

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧䕝

 hÃp

萏ː葞ː摧丏9

 hÖ

옍

옍

1

萏ː葞ː摧任½

摧任½ጀ1

5

•

™

Ñ

ø

萏ː葞ː摧⠋

hsu

h

(

h

摧䍴+ࠀ.萏֠葞֠摧㢜A

㜀$␸䠀$摧ᒶÝ

☊଀ⵆഀ߆栁āː༆킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧ⴅþ

摧䍴+	㜀$␸䠀$摧ᒶÝ

h

摧㸘ëЀ摧๽ç

h

h

 h

 h

 h

 h

摧䰅m

옍

hS

hža

옍

hS

hS

hža

hža

摧߰ñЀ摧絇o

 h

h

h

h

 h

h

h

 h

 h

 h

:

D

ƒ

†

Å

Ë

摧䶺m

@

༂킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧Ꮱn"̤̀옍)

摧ᐿ9

萏ː葞ː摧䜡c

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

h‰

᐀

h‰

 h

h

 h

 h

h

h

 h

hß

฀킄༂ꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葝ː葞֠摧疄û

hß

;

>

 

/

2

®

»

¼

÷

ú

®

¼

R

R

R

h

☊଀⡆ഀ߆栁āː༆킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧ⴅþ

摧爴H

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧㶯v

摧爴H

	㜀$␸䠀$摧窮

摧爴H

hx

 hx

hx

Ѐ摧⨴°

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧⋕O

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧൸¬

؀Ĥ摧❟

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧磝

萏ː葞ː摧੪µ

 h

h

h

h

ༀꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葞֠摧ൿº

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

	㜀$␸䠀$摧⽂(

摧扃äЀ摧絇o

¤

¥

	

-

-

£

¤

¥

©

´

µ

Ü

"¥

µ

hV

hC

hC

hC

hC

	㜀$␸䠀$摧䗛þ

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

萏ː葞ː摧Ⴣ$Ⰺༀ킄㄂Ĥ葞ː摧Ⴣ$Ⰶ㄀Ĥ摧䗛þ

摧䗛þ

hC

hC

hC

 h

萑ː葠ː摧㿥´	㜀$␸䠀$摧㿥´

萏ː葞ː摧恮

摧疠ÅЀ摧絇o

 h

hn`

 hn`

hn`

hn`

਀&䘋

萏ː葞ː摧恮

hn`

 hn`

hn`

 h

 

+

P

R

U

f

©

È

+

摧犙

	㜀$␸䠀$摧犙

摧Ꮞ

h™r

 h

h™r

h™r

 h

摧犙

 h

hC

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧஬â

਀&䘋

摧䰅m

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧僖

h¬

hÁ

hC

 hÁ

h¬

 h

h¬

h¬

h¬

h¬

摧⃢	

 hJ4

 h

 h

摧㝠ú

Ѐ摧絇o

 h

摧◠

摧敶D

摧៾!

ༀ梄㜁$␸䠀$葞Ũ摧៾!

Q

R

«

S

V

W

Ý

û

v

z

{

萏ː葞ː摧〜U

摧ᣭ¾

萏ː葞ː摧彏

h7,

h7,

hO_

hO_

hO_

	㜀$␸䠀$摧敤c

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧彏

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

h7,

h7,

h7,

摧䡅^Ѐ摧絇o

萑ː葠ː摧岄 	㜀$␸䠀$摧岄 

☊ଁⱆഀ߆蔁Ăː༆킄ᄂ预㟾$␸䠀$葞ː葠ﺘ摧ⴅþ
㜀$␸䠀$摧⼃q

옍#

਀&䘋"옍#

hÈ

hÈ

hÈ

摧◠Ѐ摧絇o

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧⪮ð

 h

 h

摧䚎tЀ摧絇o

옍

摧哺ß

”

˜

 hÃp

摧瀵GЀ摧瀵G

摧秞Ñ

 h£

 h£

 h£

h£

摧ঢ়³

 h£

h£

 hE

 h£

h£

䢝

䢞

䰪

䰫

䱺

䱻

伴

伵

傩

傪

傳

勗

勘

勦

坃

坄

垀

嬄

嬅

gd£

䠀

䠂

䣦

䣩

䤝

䤟

䤾

䥁

䨀

䨂

䨈

䨊

䨨

䨬

䪊

䪎

䫂

䫄

䫊

䫌

䫪

䫮

䰞

䰡

䱞

䱡

䲍

䲐

䳽

䳾

䴣

䵕

䷧

伵

体

俎

俩

俾

倁

傩

傪

傳

僂

僆

僪

h£

DAQ did not request that EPA approve the monitor as an SPM, the above
restriction on the use of the first 24 months of data from the monitor
does not apply.

g/m3 in 2006 (the 1st maximum, recorded December 22, 2006), and a
98th percentile value of 51.8 g/m3 in 2007 (the 3rd maximum value
recorded on February 8, 2007).  40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, section
4.2(a) provides the data requirements in order to show a violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5  NAAQS:

40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, Section 4.2  24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS (emphasis
added).

(a) The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24-hour standard design
value at each monitoring site is less than or equal to 35 µg/m3.  This
comparison shall be based on 3 consecutive, complete years of air
quality data.  A year meets data completeness requirements when at least
75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid
data.  However, years shall be considered valid, notwithstanding
quarters with less than complete data (even quarters with less than 11
samples), if the resulting annual 98th percentile value or resulting
24-hour standard design value (rounded according to the conventions of
section 4.3 of this appendix) is greater than the level of the standard.

Thus the fact that the Utah DAQ collected monitoring data in Vernal only
in calendar years 2006 and 2007 effectively prevents EPA from using the
data to establish the existence of a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, even
though the State did not opt to ask EPA to approve the Vernal monitor as
an SPM and receive the data use protections provide through 40 CFR
Section 58.20.

Comment:

One commenter (0011) believes that Washington and Uintah Counties in
Utah should also be designated as nonattainment.  The commenter claims
data that shows trends and sometimes exceedences of the PM2.5 in these
counties.  The commenter suggested that the monitoring stations at Saint
George and Vernal be restored, that all valid monitoring data be placed
on the State’s and EPA’s national databases, and that EPA use the
Air Monitoring Section for data collection if monitoring stations are
not available or do not provide accurate/adequate data.

EPA Response:

Utah DAQ did operate a PM2.5 Federal Reference Method monitor in Saint
George, Washington County, Utah from July 2, 2004 through Dec. 14, 2007,
and a monitor in Vernal, Uintah County, Utah from December 10, 2006
through December 14, 2007.  The Vernal monitor is addressed in the
response to the preceding comment.  The Utah DAQ has not provided EPA
with the information necessary to allow EPA to assess the siting and
operation of the Saint George PM2.5 monitor.  Utah DAQ has not provided
either the raw data collected or the quality assurance data that would
be necessary to assess the quality of the collected data to the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) database.  EPA has requested that Utah DAQ provide
this data through AQS; Utah DAQ’s position is that monitors were not
required by Federal regulations contained in 40 CFR Part 58 in Saint
George or in Vernal, and that Utah did not use Federal Funds in
monitoring in Saint George or Vernal.  Utah DAQ concludes that they are
not bound by the data reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR Section
58.16 with respect to the Saint George or Vernal PM2.5 monitors:

40 CFR § 58.16   Data submittal and archiving requirements.

(a) The State, or where appropriate, local agency, shall report to the
Administrator, via AQS all ambient air quality data and associated
quality assurance data for SO2; CO; O3; NO2; NO; NOY; NOX; Pb; PM10 mass
concentration; PM2.5 mass concentration; for filter-based PM2.5 FRM/FEM
the field blank mass, sampler-generated average daily temperature, and
sampler-generated average daily pressure; chemically speciated PM2.5
mass concentration data; PM10–2.5 mass concentration; chemically
speciated PM10–2.5 mass concentration data; meteorological data from
NCore and PAMS sites; and metadata records and information specified by
the AQS Data Coding Manual
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/manuals.htm).  Such air
quality data and information must be submitted directly to the AQS via
electronic transmission on the specified quarterly schedule described in
paragraph (b) of this section.

g/m3, collected on July 1, 2006.  Thus, had Utah submitted the data
to EPA along with appropriate quality assurance data, and assuming the
siting and other operational requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 were met,
the available data collected between July 2, 2004 and December 14, 2007
would appear to show a site which attains the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Because the
appropriate data were not submitted to EPA, EPA cannot make a positive
statement that in fact Saint George attains the NAAQS, so instead a
designation of unclassifiable/attainment is appropriate for Washington
County, Utah.

Regarding the comment that EPA should rely on the Air Monitoring Section
of the Utah DAQ for data collection and information, EPA works closely
with all sections of the Utah DAQ, including the Air Monitoring Section,
but respects and supports the management structure implemented by the
State, and will rely upon the management of the DAQ for all formal
information submittals.

4.3.  Region X

4.3.1.  Idaho

Comment:

One commenter (0123) believes that EPA’s proposal to designate Lemhi
County, ID as unclassifiable is unlawful.  The commenter believes that
the most recent complete data (2003-2005) shows a violation.  The
commenter believes that EPA is avoiding a nonattainment designation in
the proposal by stating that the data is incomplete (monitor
malfunctions).  The commenter states the data that is available shows a
98th percentile value of 65.5 μg/m3.  

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that 2007 air quality data for Lemhi, ID (from the FRM at
monitoring site# 160590004) show a 98th percentile value of 65.5 ug/m3. 

μg/m3.  However, EPA based designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS on data for 2005-2007.  In instances where 2005-2007 data were
incomplete, EPA evaluated 2004-2006 data and 2003-2005 data.  

Due to the nature of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, areas may m僪

僫

儧

優

兹

兼

円

冎

冑

刞

刣

勖

勗

勘

勤

勥

勦

勭

勿

匃

吣

听

咨

咫

咽

啽

喝

喥

嗅

噿

嚟

圵

圸

堧

堨

堯

堰

場

堵

堽

堾

塂

塃

塋

塍

塤

塧

墏

墒

墓

夣

夦

奂

奈

奴

奺

娑

娩

 h£

9娩

婈

嬅

嬒

孕

孵

宾

寁

尌

對

導

小

尛

展

屗

屘

屙

岓

岔

峛

峞

帀

市

师

帊

恊

恍

憁

憙

懚

懲

抉

投

押

抽

抿

拀

拃

拌

拎

拏

拑

拔

拚

 hE

  hE

 hE

+嬅

慂

慃

抽

拌

拚

拣

效

敊

敦

時

榎

痎

痏

盘

矡

矢

矤

知

矧

옍

萏ː葞ː摧嗛7ጀ拚

拣

挄

挦

捐

捓

措

掭

撄

撊

擾

攂

收

攸

放

敀

敊

敤

敦

昝

星

晻

晾

栂

栈

栊

桾

梄

槔

槚

樀

琀

甕

甯

甽

畋

疂

痁

痂

症

痎

痏

痐

痗

瘡

瘣

癣

白

盘

盙

盠

眪

眬

睬

瞆

矡

矢

 h£

h£

ove into and out of attainment depending on meteorology and other
factors in a given year.  EPA believes that using data prior to the
2004-2006 data years would be inappropriate, as earlier years of data
would not necessarily accurately reflect an area’s current air
quality.  Section 107(d)(1)(A)(iii) requires that EPA designate as
“unclassifiable” any area that cannot be classified on the basis of
available information as meeting or not meeting” the NAAQS.

 e.g., The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant
Emissions by Abt Associates for the Clean Air Task Force, October 2000;
and Introduction to Visibility by W.C.  Malm, National Park Service
Visibility Program, Colorado State University, 1999.

 e.g., The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant
Emissions by Abt Associates for the Clean Air Task Force, October 2000;
and Introduction to Visibility by W.C.  Malm, National Park Service
Visibility Program, Colorado State University, 1999.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  vi 

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  xi 

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  164