THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



### Mr. Michael K. Stagg Wailer Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, Tennessee 37219

I am pleased to respond to your July 20, 2012, letter in which you filed a petition for reconsideration on behalf of Anderson County, Blount County and Knox County, Tenn., concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final rule, "Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards." See 

### 77 Federal Register 

### 30008 (May 21, 2012). The petition requests that the EPA reconsider the 2008 ozone nonattainment designation for a portion of Anderson County, all of Knox County and all of Blount County, Tenn. You filed a supplemental petition for reconsideration October 16, 2012, on behalf of Anderson, Blount and Knox counties, which provides additional technical analysis that you assert supports the arguments set forth in your petition. The EPA has carefully evaluated the issues and information in your petition and supplemental petition. For the reasons explained in the EPA's final designation action and information provided in the enclosure, the EPA is denying your petition and supplemental petition. The EPA continues to believe that the portion of Anderson, Blount and Knox counties are properly designated nonattainment because of their contribution to ozone nonattainment in the Knoxville, Tenn., ozone nonattainment area. The enclosure addresses the issues raised in your petition and supplemental petition. Along with the information provided in the EPA's final designation action, this enclosure provides the basis for the EPA's denial of your petition for reconsideration. The EPA considers the designation of nonattainment areas with appropriate boundaries to be an important step in implementing the 2008 ozone standards. We appreciate the actions you have taken in Tennessee to reduce ozone levels and provide cleaner, healthier air for millions of people. We look forward to working with you to ensure achievement of the 2008 ozone standards in the Knoxville, Tenn., area. In the meantime, I thank you for your interest in protecting the quality of our environment.

This paper is printed with vegetable-oil-based inks and is 100-percent postconsumer recycled material, chlorine-tree-processed and recyclable.Enclosure
The EPA Response to Petition for Reconsideration from Anderson County, Blount County and Knox County, Tennessee By letter dated July 20,2012, the firm ofWaller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, on behalfofAnderson County, Blount County and Knox County, Tennessee, (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Counties"), petitionedthe EPA to reconsider the final area designation for Anderson County, Blount County and Knox County in the Knoxville, 1N ozone nonattainment area. Also, on October 16, 2012, Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, on behalfofthe Counties, sentthe EPA, via email, a supplement to the July 20,2012, Petition. For the reasons provided below, the EPA is denying the Petition. For the sake ofclarity, we have organized this response according to the structure ofthe July 20, 2012, petition.
I. General "Grounds for Reconsideration"
Issue: The Petitioner claims that the "EPA failed to consider a boundary recommendation analysis submittedby the State ofTennessee and the Counties

..." which was submitted following the close ofthe public comment period associated with the ,EPA's proposed boundary determinations. Petitioner claims that the Clean Air Act (Act) affords states the right to resubmit boundary recommendations after the EPA announces an intent to modify the states' initial boundary recommendations. Petitioners claim that because the EPA announced a proposed boundary determination inDecember of2011, which was different from the boundaries recommended by the state earlierthat year, the EPA should have considered the April2012, reanalysis submitted by the state (and the Counties). Petition at 1-6. Response: The EPA did consider all boundary recommendation analyses submitted by the state (and the Counties) including the April2012 submittal. The EPA references this recommendation along with the other recommendations received for this Area 

### in the EPA's final Knoxville technical support document (TSD) onpages 4-5. As explained in the TSD, the EPA's analysis ofthe initial recommendation ofthe state "begins with the CSA [Combined Statistical Area] or CBSA [Core Based Statistical Area] areas for purposes ofevaluating what areas violate and or contribute to a nearby violation ofthe ozone NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards]." That analysis was provided to the state in a December 2011 letter providing howthe EPA intendedto modify the state's recommendation. As part ofthe EPA's analysis for the final TSD, the EPA "refmedthe evaluation made available to

... [Tennessee] in December 2011 by considering additional technical information provided by the states and tribes. After considering the information available to us for the Knoxville, 1N area, the EPA is designating two entire counties and one partial county inTennessee

...as 'nonattainment' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of the Knoxville, 1N nonattainment area." Further, the EPA discussed the April2012 submittal in other parts ofthe TSD. See, e.g., TSD at Page 11. The April2012 reanalysis submitted by the state and the Counties can also be found inthe docket for the EPA's final designations Federal Register action.
II. Factor by Factor "Grounds for Reconsideration"
The five factor analysis section ofthe Petition consists entirely ofdirect excerpts from an April 5, 2012, letter from Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, on behalfofAnderson County, Blount County and Knox County, 1N, to the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator. The letter was sent to the EPA via email from the Tennessee Department ofEnvironment and Conservation (TDEC). The EPA considered
1the contents ofthe April5, 2012, submittal in the EPA's designation analysis and the Agency's response to this information is provided in the EPA's Knoxville, TN TSD for the final designations. Because these issues were raised and addressed by the EPA during the designation process in the final TSD, they do not provide a basis for reconsideration.


### III. Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration
In addition to the July 20, 2012, Petition described above, the EPA received a "Supplemental Petition" on October 16, 2012, from the Petitioner that addresses the EPA's final designation for the Knoxville, TN Area. The Supplemental Petition raises the following issues:
I. Additional Comments onthe EPA's Technical Analysis ofthe Knoxville CSA II. An Analysis ofHigh-Ozone Events at Look Rock Based on What is Known from Extensive Monitoring and Research III. The Counties' Analysis ofEach High-Ozone Event IV. CSAPR and 2008 Standard Modeling
In response to paragraphs 4 and 5 ofSection I ofthe Supplemental Petition, the EPA notes these claims are based upon the submission ofadditional technical information regarding the Knoxville nonattainment designation which was available priorto EPA's May 21, 2012, final designation. For example the Petitionerpresents detailed technical arguments regarding local measurements ofwind direction at the LookRock CASTNET monitor and information from the airport. The Petitioner had the opportunity during the public commentperiod to provide such information. Additionally, the Petitioner could have provided this informationto the State to consider'and provide as a part ofthe State's recommendation and technical support information. The Petitioner, however, did notprovide this information prior to the EPA's final designations, and as such, these claims do not provide an appropriate basis for reconsideration. In response to the remaining portions ofSupplemental Petition Section I, regarding the Counties' April 5, 2012, submittal, the EPA notes that this information was submitted following the EPA's recommended designation and priorto issuance ofthe final designation and the EPA has previously considered these points. See the EPA's response in the TSD. TSD at 12-15.
In response to Section II ofthe Supplemental Petition, the EPA notes that these claims are based upon technical information regarding the Knoxville nonattainment designation that was available prior to April30, 2012, whenthe Administrator signed the final designations rule, but was not provided to EPA. For example the Petitioner presents detailed technical argument regarding meteorological data related to the Look Rock CASTNET monitor and wind patterns. The Petitioner had the opportunity during the public comment period, and through the state, the opportunity priorto the EPA's final designation, to provide such information to the Agency for consideration. The Petitioner, however, did notprovide this information priorto the EPA's final designations, and as such, the EPA these claims do notprovide an appropriate basis for reconsideration.
In addition, the EPA notes that the claims found in paragraphs 10 and 11 ofSection II ofthe Supplemental Petition are based upon newtechnical analyses ofdata that existedprior to the EPA's final designation. While the data existed priorto designations and could have been analyzed during the designation process, the analysis and conclusions provided in the Petition did not exist prior to the final designation. For example Section II refers to an analysis ofthe HYSPLIT backtrajectory 1 conducted ori October 10, 2012, and a Cluster Analysis conducted in September 2012. As noted above, the underlying

1Based upon data from 2009 through 2011

. 2data existed prior to the EPA's designation. The new analyses relied onby the Petitioner are also not an appropriate basis for reconsideration

. In response to Section III ofthe Supplemental Petition, the EPA notes that these claims are based upon new technical analyses ofdata that existed priorto the EPA's final designation. While the data existed priorto designations and could have been analyzed during the designation process, the analyses were presented to the EPA for the first time as part ofthe Supplemental Petition and, to the EPA's knowledge did not exist priorto the final designations

. For example, Section III refers to a newanalysis that was conducted bythe counties using the**photoc~emical** age ofthe air mass. To the extentthat the analyses relied onbythe Petitioner provide newtechnical information not available to the EPA at the time it issued the designation, such new information is not an appropriate basis for reconsideration.
With regard to the information provided in Section II and Section III ofthe Petition to the extent that it contains new information, we do not agree that technical informationthat was not available in time for the EPA to consider while complying with the procedural requirements ofthe Act provides an appropriate basis for reconsidering the designations. As noted by the Court in Catawba v. EPA, 571 F

.3d 20 at 23 "Congress imposed deadlines·onEPA and thus clearly envisioned an endto the designation process." Itis importantthat states are able to rely onthe completed designations and to move forward with the planning nowrequired for the area to achieve healthier air.
In response to Section IV ofthe Supplemental Petition, the EPA notes that these claims each contain additional technical information regarding the Knoxville nonattainment designation which was available prior to April 30, 2012, the date the Administrator signed the final designations. For example the Petition presents the EPA's 2011 conclusions regarding the CSAPRmodeling and claims thatthe EPA should not have included the counties at issue inthe nonattainment area because the Area is predicted to attain the standard by 2015 without the adoption ofadditional local controls. The EPA notes thatthe Petitioner had the opportunity during the public comment period, and through the state,the opportunity prior to the EPA's final designation, to provide such information. The Petitioner, however, did not provide this information priorto the EPA's final designations, and as such, this information does not provide an appropriate basis for reconsideration. The EPA also notes as a general matter that the issue of attainment without the need for additional local controls was raised in the context ofother areas and addressed by the EPA in the Response to Comments. See e.g. , Response to Comments at 14-15, 39-40

.

3