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 of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, on behalf of Anderson 

County, Blount County and Knox County, Tennessee, (hereafter collectively referred to as "the 

Counties"), petitioned the 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 behalf of the Counties, sent the 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 of clarity, we have organized this response according to the structure of the 

July 20, 2012, petition. 

I. General "Grounds for Reconsideration" 

Issue: The Petitioner claims that the "EPA failed to consider a boundary recommendation analysis 

submitted by the State of Tennessee and the Counties ... " which was submitted following the close of the 

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 in December of 2011, which was 

different from the boundaries recommended by the state earlier that 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) on pages 4-5. As explained in the TSD, the EPA's analysis of the initial recommendation of the 

state "begins with the CSA [Combined Statistical Area] or CBSA [Core Based Statistical Area] areas for 

purposes of evaluating what areas violate and or contribute to a nearby violation of the ozone NAAQS 

[National Ambient Air Quality Standards]." That analysis was provided to the state in a December 2011 

letter providing how the EPA intended to modify the state's recommendation. As part of the EPA's 

analysis for the final TSD, the EPA "refmed the 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 in Tennessee ... 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 of the TSD. See, e.g., TSD at Page 11. The April2012 reanalysis submitted by the state and the 

Counties can also be found in the docket for the EPA's final designations Federal Register action. 

II. Factor by Factor "Grounds for Reconsideration" 

The five factor analysis section of the Petition consists entirely of direct excerpts from an April 5, 2012, 

letter from Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, on behalf of Anderson 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 of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). The EPA considered 

1 
the contents of the 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 on the EPA's Technical Analysis ofthe Knoxville CSA 

II. An Analysis of High-Ozone Events at Look Rock Based on What is Known from Extensive 

Monitoring and Research 

III. The Counties' Analysis of Each High-Ozone Event 

IV. CSAPR and 2008 Standard Modeling 

In response to paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section I ofthe Supplemental Petition, the EPA notes these claims 

are based upon the submission of additional technical information regarding the Knoxville 

nonattainment designation which was available prior to EPA's May 21, 2012, final designation. For 

example the Petitioner presents detailed technical arguments regarding local measurements of wind 

direction at the Look Rock CASTNET monitor and information from the airport. The Petitioner had the 

opportunity during the public comment period to provide such information. Additionally, the Petitioner 

could have provided this information to the State to consider' and provide as a part of the State's 

recommendation and technical support information. The Petitioner, however, did not provide 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 of Supplemental 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 prior to issuance of the 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 of the 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, when the 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 prior to the EPA's final designation, to 

provide such information to the Agency for consideration. The Petitioner, however, did not provide this 

information prior to the EPA's final designations, and as such, the EPA these claims do not provide an 

appropriate basis for reconsideration. 

In addition, the EPA notes that the claims found in paragraphs 1 0 and 11 of Section II of the 

Supplemental Petition are based upon new technical analyses of data that existed prior to the EPA's final 

designation. While the data existed prior to 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 of the HYSPLIT back trajectory1 conducted ori 

October 10, 2012, and a Cluster Analysis conducted in September 2012. As noted above, the underlying 

1 Based upon data from 2009 through 2011 . 

2 
data existed prior to the EPA's designation. The new analyses relied on by the Petitioner are also not an 

appropriate basis for reconsideration. 

In response to Section III of the Supplemental Petition, the EPA notes that these claims are based upon 

new technical analyses of data that existed prior to the EPA's final designation. While the data existed 

prior to 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 prior to the final designations. For example, Section III refers to a new analysis that was 

conducted by the counties using the photoc~emical age of the air mass. To the extent that the analyses 

relied on by the Petitioner provide new technical 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 of the Petition to the extent that it 

contains new information, we do not agree that technical information that was not available in time for 

the EPA to consider while complying with the procedural requirements of the 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· on EPA and thus clearly envisioned an end to the 

designation process." It is important that states are able to rely on the completed designations and to 

move forward with the planning now required for the area to achieve healthier air. 

In response to Section IV of the 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 CSAPR modeling and claims that the EPA 

should not have included the counties at issue in the nonattainment area because the Area is predicted to 

attain the standard by 2015 without the adoption of additional local controls. The EPA notes that the 

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 prior to 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 of other areas and 

addressed by the EPA in the Response to Comments. See e.g. , Response to Comments at 14-15, 39-40. 

3