8­
1
8.
Responses
to
Comments
EPA
Region
8
(
Colorado,
Montana,
North
Dakota,
South
Dakota,
Utah,
and
Wyoming)
8­
2
Comment:
1047­
1
Region:
8
State:
MT
Area:
Libby,
MT
Comment:
Governor
Martz
disagrees
with
EPA's
intention
to
identify
the
entire
state
as
a
single
attainment
Section
107(
d)
area
with
the
exception
of
Lincoln
County.
She
is
disappointed
by
EPA's
position
as
the
State
of
Montana
has
committed
considerable
resources
in
developing
the
appropriate
method
for
defining
Section
107(
d)
areas
that
best
suits
Montana's
unique
mix
of
sources,
meteorology,
and
geography.
She
reiterates
Montana's
original
recommendation.
She
submits
additional
information
illustrating
the
PM2.5
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
defined
by
the
Universal
Transverse
Mercator
(
UTM)
coordinate
system
using
10,000
meter
grid
intervals
and
additional
information
clarifying
Montana's
intended
use
of
the
UTM
Grid
coordinate
system
for
describing
PM2.5
attainment
Section
107(
d)
areas
and
for
potential
tracking
of
increment
within
baseline
areas.

Governor
Martz
disagrees
with
EPA
that
defining
attainment
area
boundaries
for
purposes
of
increment
tracking
is
premature.
In
fact,
planning
for
PM2.5
increment
tracking
as
part
of
the
initial
designation
process
is
appropriate
and
has
been
approved
by
EPA
for
another
Region
8
state.
In
closing,
the
governor
expresses
adamant
opposition
to
EPA's
intended
action
to
modify
the
Section
107(
d)
attainment
areas
from
Montana's
original
geographic
area
descriptions.
Designation
of
the
entire
state
results
in
one
unmanageable
Section
107(
d)
attainment
area.

EPA
Response:
EPA's
initial
recommendation
was
to
designate
the
entire
state
of
Montana
as
one
single
attainment/
unclassifiable
area.
However,
based
on
recent
conversations
with
the
State
and
a
letter
from
the
State
dated
November
10,
2004
in
which
the
State
modified
their
recommendation
to
designate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
using
county
boundaries,
EPA
has
agrees
to
define
the
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
in
Montana
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis,
consistent
with
the
EPA's
8
hour
ozone
designations.
At
this
time
it
would
be
premature
to
subdivide
the
entire
State
into
over
4,000
10
km
by
10
km
squares,
as
Montana
has
recommended.
While
the
state
continues
to
assert
that
the
rest­
of­
state
or
even
county­
by­
county
delineation
is
unmanageable
for
tracking
increment
consumption,
it
has
been
used
in
many
states
for
many
years.
We
have
also
made
designations
based
on
county
boundaries
and
states
have
used
these
boundaries
to
track
increment
consumption
for
many
years
as
well.
On
the
other
hand,
we
are
concerned
that
the
creation
of
4,000
plus
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
could
make
it
difficult
to
effectively
track
increment
consumption.
We
are
also
concerned
about
the
general
policy
and
legal
implications
for
the
PSD
program.
We
have
never
dealt
with
the
subdividing
of
a
state
on
this
scale,
and
we
are
not
prepared
to
do
so
until
we
have
had
a
sufficient
chance
to
determine
the
adequacy
of
such
an
approach.

In
reaching
our
decision,
we
have
carefully
considered
Montana's
response
to
our
July
20,
2004
letter
as
well
as
discussions
that
followed
this
letter.
Based
on
Montana's
response,
we
are
relatively
comfortable
with
the
use
of
Universal
Transverse
Mercator
8­
3
(
UTM)
coordinates
to
define
geographic
boundaries.
As
Montana
points
out,
we
have
approved
the
use
of
UTM
coordinates
to
define
other
designation
boundaries
in
Montana.

Montana's
response,
however,
has
not
convinced
us
(
1)
that
the
extent
of
subdividing
proposed
by
Montana
is
appropriate
to
a
PM2.5
increment
that
has
not
been
established,
(
2)
that
Montana
could
effectively
track
increment
consumption
in
multiple
baseline
areas
with
multiple
baseline
dates,
(
3)
that
the
proposed
level
of
subdivision
is
consistent
with
the
purposes
of
the
PSD
program.

At
this
point,
we
don't
know
which
pollutants
or
precursors
would
have
to
be
tracked
under
an
increment
for
PM2.5
or
at
what
level
such
an
increment
or
significant
ambient
impacts
would
be
set.
We
have
no
basis
to
conclude
that
thousands
of
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
10,000
meters
on
a
side
would
be
appropriate
for
PM2.5.

Montana
indicates
it
currently
tracks
increment
consumption
in
approximately
40
baseline
areas.
Montana
makes
no
projection
of
the
number
of
baseline
areas
that
might
result
if
its
recommendations
were
accepted.
Theoretically,
with
a
starting
point
of
over
4,000
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas,
hundreds
or
perhaps
even
thousands
of
baseline
areas
could
result.
The
state
has
presented
no
evidence
that
it
could
effectively
administer
tracking
of
increment
consumption
in
so
many
areas.

We
note
that
Montana
previously
requested
the
redesignation
of
its
attainment
areas
for
other
pollutants
into
10,000
meter
by
10,000
meter
squares
across
the
entire
state.
EPA,
per
a
December
13,
2000
memorandum
signed
by
John
Seitz,
then
head
of
EPA's
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
stated
concerns
regarding
Montana's
and
other
states'
requests
and
a
need
for
EPA
to
reexamine
its
relevant
rules
and
policies.
Among
other
things,
the
Seitz
memo
stated
a
concern
that
redesignating
PSD
baseline
areas
to
only
encompass
the
impact
area
of
a
PSD
source
"
could
allow
for
unexamined
growth
in
emissions,
with
possible
deterioration
of
air
quality
up
to
the
level
of
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS.)"
The
Seitz
memo
went
on
to
state
that
the
"
proposed
actions
do
not
appear
to
be
consistent
with
Congressional
intent
or
the
PSD
mandates
of
the
Act,
as
allowing
baseline
areas
of
such
size
might
jeopardize
air
quality
and
could
be
difficult
to
administer
in
some
cases."
Montana's
February
25,
2004
and
August
30,
2004
recommendations
for
PM2.5
designations
are
analogous
to
the
redesignations
the
Seitz
memo
addressed.

While
the
Governor
indicates
we
are
being
inconsistent
in
our
treatment
of
other
states,
we
note
that
Utah
and
Wyoming's
situations
are
distinguishable
from
Montana's.
Wyoming
primarily
recommended
county
boundaries
to
define
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
for
PM2.5,
with
further
subdivision
based
on
the
boundaries
of
a
limited
number
of
cities
and
towns.
This
is
not
equivalent
to
Montana's
recommendation
to
establish
over
4,000
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
Wyoming's
recommendation
is
largely
equivalent
to
the
use
of
county
boundaries
to
define
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
that
we've
historically
been
willing
to
accept
and
that
states
have
used
to
track
increment
consumption.
As
stated
above,
EPA
and
the
State
of
Montana
recently
came
to
an
agreement
to
identify
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis.
8­
4
We
recently
learned
that
when
we
issued
our
July
20,
2004
letter
stating
our
agreement
with
the
State
of
Utah's
recommended
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
boundaries,
we
misinterpreted
Utah's
recommendation.
While
we
thought
that
Utah
was
primarily
recommending
designations
according
to
county
boundaries,
with
some
smaller
areas
covering
metropolitan
areas
along
the
Wasatch
Front,
Utah
was
actually
recommending
designations
by
township
boundaries.
Townships
are
six­
mile
by
six­
mile
squares.
Thus,
Utah's
original
recommendation
would
have
resulted
in
thousands
of
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
within
the
State.

However,
in
recent
discussions,
EPA
and
Utah
have
come
to
agree
that
EPA's
original
interpretation
of
Utah's
recommended
boundaries
is
appropriate
at
this
time.
As
with
Wyoming,
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
in
Utah
are
being
defined
largely
by
county
boundaries,
with
subdivision
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
along
the
Wasatch
Front
into
two
areas.
This
is
not
equivalent
to
Montana's
initial
recommendation
which
recommended
4,000
10
km
by
10
km
squares.
We
note
that
EPA
has
committed
to
work
with
Utah
in
the
future
to
define
a
process
for
identifying
boundary
areas
for
when
a
major
source
locates
in
an
area.

Montana
indicated
that
tracking
increment
consumption
within
county
boundaries
would
provide
little
advantage
over
entire
state
designations
due
to
the
large
size
of
counties
in
Montana
and
the
diverse
topography.
However,
Utah,
Wyoming
and
other
states
in
Region
8
and
across
the
country
could
make
similar
claims.
As
we
explained
in
response
to
comments
regarding
the
boundary
designations
for
Utah
and
Wyoming,
we
believe
the
boundary
designations
we're
making
for
Utah
and
Wyoming
will
allow
for
adequate
tracking
of
increment
consumption
and
be
consistent
with
the
purposes
of
the
PSD
program.

Given
our
actions
on
Wyoming,
Utah,
and
the
other
Region
8
states,
Montana
has
not
been
singled
out.
Also,
because
we
have
not
established
a
PM2.5
increment,
the
State
should
not
face
any
immediate
effects
from
our
decision.
Before
we
establish
a
PM2.5
increment,
we
can
revisit
this
issue.
At
that
time,
we
would
have
a
better
sense
of
the
implications
of
Montana's
proposal
for
PM2.5
specifically.
In
the
meantime,
it
would
be
appropriate
to
further
study
the
possible
effects
of
subdividing
the
State
into
many,
many
small
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
We
welcome
Montana's
input
on
these
issues.

Comment:
1012­
1
Region:
8
State:
MT
|
WY
|
UT
Area:

Comment:
1st
Comment:
Commenters
express
concern
about
the
recommendations
that
several
western
states
have
made
to
designate
unreasonably
small
areas
as
nonattainment/
unclassifiable
areas
for
PM2.5.
Montana,
Utah,
and
Wyoming
recommended
dividing
the
portions
of
their
states
that
were
not
designated
as
nonattainment
for
PM2.5
into
many
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
Commenters
suggest
that
these
state
proposals
would
undermine
the
Clean
Air
Act's
prevention
of
significant
8­
5
deterioration
(
PSD)
program.
The
commenters
disagree
with
EPA's
intended
approval
of
Utah
and
Wyoming's
recommended
designations.
If
EPA
fails
to
disallow
the
recommendations,
it
will
disregard
Congress's
intent
to
protect
existing
air
quality
that
is
better
than
the
NAAQS
through
PSD,
since
failing
to
trigger
PSD
increment
protections
in
significant
portions
of
these
states
would
result
in
those
areas
simply
being
governed
by
the
NAAQS.
The
designation
of
PM2.5
areas
based
on
arbitrary
grid
or
jurisdictional
boundaries
within
a
state
would
also
constitute
arbitrary
and
capricious
action
because
such
boundaries
bear
no
conceivable
relationship
to
any
of
the
relevant
requirements
or
purposes
of
the
CAA.
In
order
to
make
PSD
protections
meaningful,
EPA
should
promulgate
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
as
required
under
Section
166
of
the
CAA.

2nd
Comment:
The
commenter
believes
that
EPA's
action
approving
the
states'
request
is
premature
and
arbitrary
and
capricious.
Congress
pointedly
required
EPA
to
issue
regulations
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality
for
PM2.5
in
tandem
with
or
prior
to
the
air
quality
status
designations
under
section
107.
This
reflects
the
obvious
interlocking
statutory
linkages
between
the
PSD
program
and
the
107
designations.
We
respectfully
request
that
EPA
swiftly
carry
out
its
long
overdue
statutory
responsibility
to
issue
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
and
reject
or
at
the
very
least
hold
in
abeyance
any
final
action
on
Utah
and
Wyoming
as
well
as
Montana's
recommendations
until
it
has
promulgated
the
framework
regulations
required
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
with
respect
to
PM2.5,
so
that
the
implications
of
the
proposed
boundaries
can
be
meaningfully
assessed.

EPA
Response:
EPA's
Response
to
1st
Comment:
We
are
approving
Wyoming's
recommendation
for
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
based
on
the
boundaries
of
counties
and
ten
cities/
towns.
For
Utah,
we
are
defining
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
as
county
boundaries,
with
the
exception
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
along
the
Wasatch
Front,
which
are
being
divided
in
two.
1
For
Montana
we
are
approving
a
recommendation
for
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
based
on
the
boundaries
of
county­
by­
county.
We
believe
this
is
reasonable
for
the
following
reasons.

First,
while
attainment
areas
have
often
been
delineated
as
"
rest­
of­
state",
we
have
also
commonly
used
county
boundaries
to
designate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
For
example,
for
TSP,
county­
by­
county
designations
were
used
for
the
states
of
Kentucky
and
Kansas.
In
certain
limited
instances,
we
have
redesignated
portions
of
counties
as
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
For
example,
in
the
Powder
River
Basin,
parts
of
Converse
and
Campbell
Counties,
Wyoming
are
designated
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
for
PM10.

There
is
no
requirement
in
the
CAA
or
our
regulations
that
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
encompass
an
entire
state.
Second,
Utah
and
Wyoming's
further
limited
delineation
of
areas
within
a
county
should
not
unreasonably
complicate
the
tracking
of
increment
within
the
States
or
subdivide
the
States
to
such
a
degree
as
to
undermine
the
PSD
program.
It
is
worth
noting
that
the
extent
of
a
baseline
area
for
tracking
increment
consumption
is
not
limited
by
the
initial
designation
of
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
8­
6
boundaries.
Instead,
all
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
in
which
the
triggering
source's
emissions
would
have
a
significant
ambient
impact
are
included
in
the
baseline
area.

We
note
commenters'
support
for
our
July
20,
2004
letter
regarding
Montana's
recommendations.
Based
on
further
discussions
with
the
State
of
Montana
and
a
letter
from
the
State
dated
November
10,
2004,
we
are
approving
a
recommendation
to
define
the
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
within
Montana
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis,
similar
to
that
which
was
done
under
EPA's
8­
hour
ozone
designations.

Footnote
1:
We
recently
learned
that
when
we
issued
our
July
20,
2004
letter
stating
our
agreement
with
the
State
of
Utah's
recommended
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
boundaries,
we
misinterpreted
Utah's
recommendation.
While
we
thought
that
Utah
was
primarily
recommending
designations
according
to
county
boundaries,
with
some
smaller
areas
covering
metropolitan
areas
along
the
Wasatch
Front,
Utah
was
actually
recommending
designations
by
township
boundaries
for
most
of
the
state.
However,
in
recent
discussions,
EPA
and
Utah
have
come
to
agree
that
EPA's
original
interpretation
of
Utah's
recommended
boundaries
is
appropriate
at
this
time.
As
with
Wyoming,
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
in
Utah
are
being
defined
largely
by
county
boundaries,
with
subdivision
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
along
the
Wasatch
Front
into
two
areas.

EPA's
Response
to
2nd
Comment:
As
noted
above,
for
Montana
we
are
defining
the
entire
State
other
than
the
Libby
nonattainment
area
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis.
For
Wyoming,
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
delineate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
by
the
county
and
10
city/
town
boundaries
the
state
has
proposed.
For
Utah,
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
delineate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
primarily
by
county
boundaries,
with
the
division
in
two
of
Box
Elder,
Cache,
Davis,
Salt
Lake,
Tooele,
Utah,
and
Weber
counties.
These
boundary
designations
are
consistent
with
others
we
are
doing
for
PM2.5
and
have
done
for
other
pollutants,
where
we
have
commonly
used
county
boundaries
to
define
attainment
areas.
As
discussed
above,
Utah
and
Wyoming's
further
delineation
within
counties
should
not
unreasonably
complicate
the
tracking
of
increment
within
the
states
or
undermine
the
PSD
program
We
don't
anticipate
that
any
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
would
so
alter
the
basic
structure
of
the
PSD
program
so
as
to
render
these
designations
inappropriate.
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
request
that
we
quickly
issue
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5.

Comment:
1093­
1
Region:
8
State:
UT
Area:

Comment:
Utah
recommended
attainment
area
designations
in
a
February
13,
2004
letter
from
Governor
Walker
to
EPA.
We
have
learned
that
EPA
understood
Utah's
February
13,
2004
letter
to
indicate
that
county
boundaries
would
be
used
to
define
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
boundaries
for
most
of
the
state.
While
this
was
not
Utah's
original
intent,
we
can
agree
that
counties
would
be
an
initial
system
of
boundaries
that
8­
7
could
be
amended
in
the
future
using
a
collection
of
townships
to
refine
boundaries
based
on
the
EPA
designation
criteria,
PSD
rules
and
a
more
detailed
township
boundary
setting
process
to
be
developed.

Utah
does
not
propose
to
use
single
townships
as
a
nonattainment
area
or
a
PSD
air
quality
impact/
baseline
area.
We
understand
that
such
a
proposal
would
not
be
approved
by
EPA.
Townships
are
to
be
used
as
the
"
currency"
for
defining
the
boundaries
of
larger
non­
attainment
or
PSD
analysis
areas,
not
the
areas
themselves.

Utah
understands
that
its
February
13,
2004
boundary
recommendations
for
Box
Elder,
Cache,
Davis,
Salt
Lake,
Tooele,
Utah,
and
Weber
counties
are
acceptable
to
EPA.
These
boundary
recommendations
are
illustrated
in
Attachment
1
to
the
February
13,
2004
letter.

EPA
Response:
EPA
and
Utah
are
in
agreement
that
the
PM2.5
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundary
areas
to
be
identified
in
Part
81
will
reflect
EPA's
interpretation
of
Utah's
recommendation;
i.
e.,
county­
by­
county
designations,
with
subdivision
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
into
two
areas
(
Box
Elder,
Cache,
Davis,
Salt
Lake,
Tooele,
Utah
and
Weber
Counties).
EPA
commits
to
work
with
Utah
to
develop
a
process
for
identifying
boundary
areas
when
a
major
source
locates
in
an
area.

Comment:
1012­
1
Region:
8
State:
UT
|
MT
|
WY
Area:

Comment:
1st
Comment:
Commenters
express
concern
about
the
recommendations
that
several
western
states
have
made
to
designate
unreasonably
small
areas
as
nonattainment/
unclassifiable
areas
for
PM2.5.
Montana,
Utah,
and
Wyoming
recommended
dividing
the
portions
of
their
states
that
were
not
designated
as
nonattainment
for
PM2.5
into
many
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
Commenters
suggest
that
these
state
proposals
would
undermine
the
Clean
Air
Act's
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
(
PSD)
program.
The
commenters
disagree
with
EPA's
intended
approval
of
Utah
and
Wyoming's
recommended
designations.
If
EPA
fails
to
disallow
the
recommendations,
it
will
disregard
Congress's
intent
to
protect
existing
air
quality
that
is
better
than
the
NAAQS
through
PSD,
since
failing
to
trigger
PSD
increment
protections
in
significant
portions
of
these
states
would
result
in
those
areas
simply
being
governed
by
the
NAAQS.
The
designation
of
PM2.5
areas
based
on
arbitrary
grid
or
jurisdictional
boundaries
within
a
state
would
also
constitute
arbitrary
and
capricious
action
because
such
boundaries
bear
no
conceivable
relationship
to
any
of
the
relevant
requirements
or
purposes
of
the
CAA.
In
order
to
make
PSD
protections
meaningful,
EPA
should
promulgate
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
as
required
under
Section
166
of
the
CAA.

2nd
Comment:
The
commenter
believes
that
EPA's
action
approving
the
states'
request
is
premature
and
arbitrary
and
capricious.
Congress
pointedly
required
EPA
to
issue
regulations
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality
for
PM2.5
in
tandem
with
or
8­
8
prior
to
the
air
quality
status
designations
under
section
107.
This
reflects
the
obvious
interlocking
statutory
linkages
between
the
PSD
program
and
the
107
designations.
We
respectfully
request
that
EPA
swiftly
carry
out
its
long
overdue
statutory
responsibility
to
issue
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
and
reject
or
at
the
very
least
hold
in
abeyance
any
final
action
on
Utah
and
Wyoming
as
well
as
Montana's
recommendations
until
it
has
promulgated
the
framework
regulations
required
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
with
respect
to
PM2.5,
so
that
the
implications
of
the
proposed
boundaries
can
be
meaningfully
assessed.

EPA
Response:
EPA's
Response
to
1st
Comment:
We
are
approving
Wyoming's
recommendation
for
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
based
on
the
boundaries
of
counties
and
ten
cities/
towns.
For
Utah,
we
are
defining
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
as
county
boundaries,
with
the
exception
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
along
the
Wasatch
Front,
which
are
being
divided
in
two.
1
For
Montana
we
are
approving
a
recommendation
for
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
based
on
the
boundaries
of
county­
by­
county.
We
believe
this
is
reasonable
for
the
following
reasons.

First,
while
attainment
areas
have
often
been
delineated
as
"
rest­
of­
state",
we
have
also
commonly
used
county
boundaries
to
designate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
For
example,
for
TSP,
county­
by­
county
designations
were
used
for
the
states
of
Kentucky
and
Kansas.
In
certain
limited
instances,
we
have
redesignated
portions
of
counties
as
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
For
example,
in
the
Powder
River
Basin,
parts
of
Converse
and
Campbell
Counties,
Wyoming
are
designated
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
for
PM10.

There
is
no
requirement
in
the
CAA
or
our
regulations
that
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
encompass
an
entire
state.
Second,
Utah
and
Wyoming's
further
limited
delineation
of
areas
within
a
county
should
not
unreasonably
complicate
the
tracking
of
increment
within
the
States
or
subdivide
the
States
to
such
a
degree
as
to
undermine
the
PSD
program.
It
is
worth
noting
that
the
extent
of
a
baseline
area
for
tracking
increment
consumption
is
not
limited
by
the
initial
designation
of
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
boundaries.
Instead,
all
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
in
which
the
triggering
source's
emissions
would
have
a
significant
ambient
impact
are
included
in
the
baseline
area.

We
note
commenters'
support
for
our
July
20,
2004
letter
regarding
Montana's
recommendations.
Based
on
further
discussions
with
the
State
of
Montana
and
a
letter
from
the
State
dated
November
10,
2004,
we
are
approving
a
recommendation
to
define
the
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
within
Montana
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis,
similar
to
that
which
was
done
under
EPA's
8­
hour
ozone
designations.

Footnote
1:
We
recently
learned
that
when
we
issued
our
July
20,
2004
letter
stating
our
agreement
with
the
State
of
Utah's
recommended
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
boundaries,
we
misinterpreted
Utah's
recommendation.
While
we
thought
that
Utah
was
primarily
recommending
designations
according
to
county
boundaries,
with
some
smaller
areas
covering
metropolitan
areas
along
the
Wasatch
Front,
Utah
was
actually
recommending
designations
by
township
boundaries
for
most
of
the
state.
However,
in
8­
9
recent
discussions,
EPA
and
Utah
have
come
to
agree
that
EPA's
original
interpretation
of
Utah's
recommended
boundaries
is
appropriate
at
this
time.
As
with
Wyoming,
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
in
Utah
are
being
defined
largely
by
county
boundaries,
with
subdivision
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
along
the
Wasatch
Front
into
two
areas.

EPA's
Response
to
2nd
Comment:
As
noted
above,
for
Montana
we
are
defining
the
entire
State
other
than
the
Libby
nonattainment
area
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis.
For
Wyoming,
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
delineate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
by
the
county
and
10
city/
town
boundaries
the
state
has
proposed.
For
Utah,
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
delineate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
primarily
by
county
boundaries,
with
the
division
in
two
of
Box
Elder,
Cache,
Davis,
Salt
Lake,
Tooele,
Utah,
and
Weber
counties.
These
boundary
designations
are
consistent
with
others
we
are
doing
for
PM2.5
and
have
done
for
other
pollutants,
where
we
have
commonly
used
county
boundaries
to
define
attainment
areas.
As
discussed
above,
Utah
and
Wyoming's
further
delineation
within
counties
should
not
unreasonably
complicate
the
tracking
of
increment
within
the
states
or
undermine
the
PSD
program
We
don't
anticipate
that
any
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
would
so
alter
the
basic
structure
of
the
PSD
program
so
as
to
render
these
designations
inappropriate.
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
request
that
we
quickly
issue
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5.

Comment:
1012­
1
Region:
8
State:
WY
|
UT
|
MT
Area:

Comment:
1st
Comment:
Commenters
express
concern
about
the
recommendations
that
several
western
states
have
made
to
designate
unreasonably
small
areas
as
nonattainment/
unclassifiable
areas
for
PM2.5.
Montana,
Utah,
and
Wyoming
recommended
dividing
the
portions
of
their
states
that
were
not
designated
as
nonattainment
for
PM2.5
into
many
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
Commenters
suggest
that
these
state
proposals
would
undermine
the
Clean
Air
Act's
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
(
PSD)
program.
The
commenters
disagree
with
EPA's
intended
approval
of
Utah
and
Wyoming's
recommended
designations.
If
EPA
fails
to
disallow
the
recommendations,
it
will
disregard
Congress's
intent
to
protect
existing
air
quality
that
is
better
than
the
NAAQS
through
PSD,
since
failing
to
trigger
PSD
increment
protections
in
significant
portions
of
these
states
would
result
in
those
areas
simply
being
governed
by
the
NAAQS.
The
designation
of
PM2.5
areas
based
on
arbitrary
grid
or
jurisdictional
boundaries
within
a
state
would
also
constitute
arbitrary
and
capricious
action
because
such
boundaries
bear
no
conceivable
relationship
to
any
of
the
relevant
requirements
or
purposes
of
the
CAA.
In
order
to
make
PSD
protections
meaningful,
EPA
should
promulgate
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
as
required
under
Section
166
of
the
CAA.

2nd
Comment:
The
commenter
believes
that
EPA's
action
approving
the
states'
request
is
premature
and
arbitrary
and
capricious.
Congress
pointedly
required
EPA
to
issue
regulations
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality
for
PM2.5
in
tandem
with
or
8­
10
prior
to
the
air
quality
status
designations
under
section
107.
This
reflects
the
obvious
interlocking
statutory
linkages
between
the
PSD
program
and
the
107
designations.
We
respectfully
request
that
EPA
swiftly
carry
out
its
long
overdue
statutory
responsibility
to
issue
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
and
reject
or
at
the
very
least
hold
in
abeyance
any
final
action
on
Utah
and
Wyoming
as
well
as
Montana's
recommendations
until
it
has
promulgated
the
framework
regulations
required
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
with
respect
to
PM2.5,
so
that
the
implications
of
the
proposed
boundaries
can
be
meaningfully
assessed.

EPA
Response:
EPA's
Response
to
1st
Comment:
We
are
approving
Wyoming's
recommendation
for
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
based
on
the
boundaries
of
counties
and
ten
cities/
towns.
For
Utah,
we
are
defining
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
as
county
boundaries,
with
the
exception
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
along
the
Wasatch
Front,
which
are
being
divided
in
two.
1
For
Montana
we
are
approving
a
recommendation
for
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
based
on
the
boundaries
of
county­
by­
county.
We
believe
this
is
reasonable
for
the
following
reasons.

First,
while
attainment
areas
have
often
been
delineated
as
"
rest­
of­
state",
we
have
also
commonly
used
county
boundaries
to
designate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
For
example,
for
TSP,
county­
by­
county
designations
were
used
for
the
states
of
Kentucky
and
Kansas.
In
certain
limited
instances,
we
have
redesignated
portions
of
counties
as
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas.
For
example,
in
the
Powder
River
Basin,
parts
of
Converse
and
Campbell
Counties,
Wyoming
are
designated
separate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
for
PM10.

There
is
no
requirement
in
the
CAA
or
our
regulations
that
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
encompass
an
entire
state.
Second,
Utah
and
Wyoming's
further
limited
delineation
of
areas
within
a
county
should
not
unreasonably
complicate
the
tracking
of
increment
within
the
States
or
subdivide
the
States
to
such
a
degree
as
to
undermine
the
PSD
program.
It
is
worth
noting
that
the
extent
of
a
baseline
area
for
tracking
increment
consumption
is
not
limited
by
the
initial
designation
of
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
boundaries.
Instead,
all
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
in
which
the
triggering
source's
emissions
would
have
a
significant
ambient
impact
are
included
in
the
baseline
area.

We
note
commenters'
support
for
our
July
20,
2004
letter
regarding
Montana's
recommendations.
Based
on
further
discussions
with
the
State
of
Montana
and
a
letter
from
the
State
dated
November
10,
2004,
we
are
approving
a
recommendation
to
define
the
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
within
Montana
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis,
similar
to
that
which
was
done
under
EPA's
8­
hour
ozone
designations.

Footnote
1:
We
recently
learned
that
when
we
issued
our
July
20,
2004
letter
stating
our
agreement
with
the
State
of
Utah's
recommended
attainment/
unclassifiable
area
boundaries,
we
misinterpreted
Utah's
recommendation.
While
we
thought
that
Utah
was
primarily
recommending
designations
according
to
county
boundaries,
with
some
smaller
areas
covering
metropolitan
areas
along
the
Wasatch
Front,
Utah
was
actually
recommending
designations
by
township
boundaries
for
most
of
the
state.
However,
in
8­
11
recent
discussions,
EPA
and
Utah
have
come
to
agree
that
EPA's
original
interpretation
of
Utah's
recommended
boundaries
is
appropriate
at
this
time.
As
with
Wyoming,
attainment/
unclassifiable
boundaries
in
Utah
are
being
defined
largely
by
county
boundaries,
with
subdivision
of
a
limited
number
of
counties
along
the
Wasatch
Front
into
two
areas.

EPA's
Response
to
2nd
Comment:
As
noted
above,
for
Montana
we
are
defining
the
entire
State
other
than
the
Libby
nonattainment
area
on
a
county­
by­
county
basis.
For
Wyoming,
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
delineate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
by
the
county
and
10
city/
town
boundaries
the
state
has
proposed.
For
Utah,
we
believe
it
is
reasonable
to
delineate
attainment/
unclassifiable
areas
primarily
by
county
boundaries,
with
the
division
in
two
of
Box
Elder,
Cache,
Davis,
Salt
Lake,
Tooele,
Utah,
and
Weber
counties.
These
boundary
designations
are
consistent
with
others
we
are
doing
for
PM2.5
and
have
done
for
other
pollutants,
where
we
have
commonly
used
county
boundaries
to
define
attainment
areas.
As
discussed
above,
Utah
and
Wyoming's
further
delineation
within
counties
should
not
unreasonably
complicate
the
tracking
of
increment
within
the
states
or
undermine
the
PSD
program
We
don't
anticipate
that
any
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
would
so
alter
the
basic
structure
of
the
PSD
program
so
as
to
render
these
designations
inappropriate.
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
request
that
we
quickly
issue
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5.
