1



### Petition to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Redesignate as Nonattainment 57 Areas with 2012 Design Values Violating the 2008 8

- Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

I. Introduction.

A. 2012 Design Values Reveal That EPA Is Failing to Address Ozone Pollution That Threatens the Health of Millions of Americans.

In July 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released the final 201 2 Design Values (“DVs”) for the 2008 8

- hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for ozone. 1 

### The 2012 DVs revealed that there are many areas in the country where air pollution is at unhealthy levels.
Over 94 million Americans live in metropolit an areas where air quality monitors, located in places designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 2008 NAAQS, register 2012 DVs above 0.075 ppm

– a level EPA has determined to be harmful to public health and welfare. To protect the health of these 94 million people, Petitioner hereby requests that the EPA Administrator (“EPA” or “Administrator”) use her authority under Clean Air Act § 107(d)(3) to redesignate the areas listed in Table 1 as nonattainment areas. Separately and severably, Sierra Club requ ests that EPA set the boundaries of those 57 nonattainment areas as specified in Table 1.

B. Description of Petitioner Organization.

Petitioner the Sierra Club is a national environmental organization with over two million members and activists in all 50 st ates and the District of Columbia. The Sierra Club’s mission is to protect, explore, and enjoy the planet. To this end, the Sierra Club works to mobilize Americans to fight against air and water pollution and to preserve our nation’s natural beauty. Sierra Club members live and recreate near, and breathe the air in and around, the areas at issue in this petition.

II. EPA Must Redesignate as Nonattainment and Simultaneously Classify the Areas with 2012 Design Values Violating the 2008 NAAQS.

A. EPA Has Legal Authority to Redesignate Areas as Nonattainment.

The Clean Air Act (“Act”) defines a nonattainment area for a pollutant as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the

1 EPA, Design Values 2012: Ozone Detailed Information, http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/Ozone_DesignValues_20102012_FINAL_08_20_13.xlsx (July 1, 2013) [hereinafter Ozone Design Values 2010

- 12].2



### [NAAQS] for the po llutant.” 2 

### When an area meets either prong of this definition, it must be designated nonattainment. 3 

### Additionally, the Act lays out the criteria governing redesignations: air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality

- relat ed consideration. 4 

### Redesignation action can be undertaken at any time

. 5



### Interested parties such as Sierra Club are free to petition EPA to redesignate areas as nonattainment. Indeed, EPA has previously acted on such petitions to redesignate areas as nonattainment. 6 

### And EPA has also previously acted of its own accord to redesignate areas as nonattainment when air quality data reveals that areas violate the NAAQS for various criteria pollutants. 7



### Congress made clear that it intended EPA to redesignate a reas based on their air quality, as indicated by their DVs. 8 

### Accordingly, EPA must redesignate the areas with 2012 DVs violating the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS as nonattainment. As the 2012 DVs for these areas violate the NAAQS, and indeed, in many areas, mul tiple monitors violate the NAAQS by a great deal, redesignation is quite clearly required.

B. EPA Must Immediately Begin the Redesignation Process for Areas with 2012 DVs Violating the NAAQS.

Of the various statutory factors governing redesignations, air q uality data demonstrating violations of the NAAQS is dispositive that EPA must redesignate the areas at issue in this

2 Clean Air Act § 107(d)(1)(A)(i).

3 Clean Air Act § 107(d)(3)(A) grants EPA exclusive authority to redesignate areas as nonattainment.

4 Id. § 107(d)(3). That Congress intended EPA to redesignate areas as nonatta inment when they fail to attain the NAAQS is affirmed by the Act’s establishment of procedures for handling such redesignated areas. For example, the Act requires that EPA classify redesignated ozone nonattainment areas simultaneously with their redesignat ion. Id. § 181(b)(1). It further states that “[u]pon its classification, the area [subsequently redesignated to nonattainment for ozone under § 107(d)(3)] shall be subject to the same requirements ... that would have applied had the area been so classified a t the time of the [initial designations].” Id.

5 See id . §§ 107(d)(3), 181(b)(1).

6 62 Fed. Reg. 66,578, 66,579 (Dec. 19, 1997) (discussing EPA’s receipt of petitions from environmental organizations and a Congressman, which prompted the rulemaking).

7 E.g

. , 77 Fed. Reg. 32,024, 32,025 (May 31, 2012) (redesignating Pinal County, AZ, nonattainment for PM 10 ); 60 Fed. Reg. 38,726, 38,727 (July 28, 1995) (redesignating Ogden City, UT, nonattainment for PM 10 ); 59 Fed. Reg. 11,193, 11,193 (Mar. 10, 1994) (redesig nating Muscatine County, IA, nonattainment for SO 2 ); 58 Fed. Reg. 67,334, 67,334

- 35 (Dec. 21, 1993) (final redesignations for a large number of areas); 57 Fed. Reg. 43,846, 43,846 (Sept. 22, 1992) (second proposed redesignations for a large number of areas ); 56 Fed. Reg. 16,274, 16,275 (Apr. 22, 1991) (first proposed redesignations for a large number of areas).

8 As noted above, § 107(d)(3)(A) provides for EPA to redesignate areas on the basis of air quality data, along with two other factors. Clean Air Act § 107(d)(3)(A). Moreover, § 107(d)(1)(A)(i) makes clear that Congress meant for areas to be designated “nonattainment” if they do not meet (or contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the NAAQS.3



### petition. The simple fact is that ozone pollution in these areas is at levels that EPA has determined to be dangerous to human health and welfare.
Although violations of the NAAQS are dispositive, redesignation is further warranted based on planning and control considerations, which are also particularly relevant when determining the boundaries of the nonattainment areas. Existing pollution controls have not succeeded in reducing ozone to safe levels in the areas in question. Thus, although some of the areas are nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 NAAQS, the control measures currently in place are plainly insufficient to prevent them f rom violating the 2008 NAAQS. 9 

### Additionally, no other air quality factors can possibly explain such a large number of violations throughout the country

– for example, no “exceptional events” could have caused violations at all 103 monitors at issue. If any thing, as discussed below, various factors, potentially economic or meteorological, may have caused the 2010 and 2011 DVs to be unusually low. 10



### As shown below, 84 counties, listed in Table 1 and currently designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 200 8 ozone NAAQS, have 2012 DVs greater than 0.075 ppm, and are thus in violation of the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. 11 

### These 84 counties are located in 22 states, and have a total of 103 violating air quality monitors. 12



### EPA must redesignate these violating areas as nonattainment because these 84 counties now plainly violate the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. 13 

### Sierra Club requests that EPA notify the governors of the states in which such areas are located that available information indicates that redesignating the areas is warranted, pursuant to § 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act. Given the urgency of

9 Although the 2012 DVs are dispositive, another air planning and control consideration bolstering the case for redesignation is that Congress was very clear that Subpart 2 laid out the path for areas violating ozone standards and that it intended Subpart 2 to govern well into the future. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns , 531 U.S. 457, 485 (2001); Clean Air Act § 181(b)(1).

10 The 2010 and 2011 DVs include data from the core years of the 2008 recession. Additionally, in 2009 (data from which was included in the 2010 and 2011 DVs, but not the 2012 DVs), meteorological conditions were unfavorable to ozone formation in the Northeast. See EPA, Response to Comments on Implementation of the 2008 National Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifi cations Approach, Attainment Deadlines, and Revocation of the 1997 Ozone Standards for Transportation Conformity Purposes 18 (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0885

- 0065, Apr. 2012); cf. Shao

- Hang Chu, Initial Analysis of Meteorologically Adjusted Sulfate Trend and Implicat ion of the Recent Economic Slowdown 31

- 32 (Dec. 2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/specialstudies/ChuSulfatePresentation_2011AGUMeeting.pdf (concluding that lower power demand during the 2008

- 09 economic slowdown was a major factor responsibl e for accelerated SO 2 emissions decline). Moreover, current science indicates that temperatures experienced during 2012 will be common in the future due to climate change. If we do not reduce greenhouse emissions rapidly and substantially, the hottest

summ er of the 20th century is expected to occur every other year, or even more frequently, contributing to increased ozone levels. See, e.g. , Noah S. Diffenbaugh & Christopher B. Field, Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial Climate Conditions , 341 Scien ce 486, 488 (2013).

11 See Ozone Design Values 2010

- 2012, supra note 1 , tbl.2.

12 See i d.

13 The counties are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. 77 Fed. Reg. 30,088, 30,095

- 157 (May 21, 2012). The 2012 DVs for the counties are greater than the 0.075 ppm threshold. See Ozone Design Values 2010

- 2012, supra note 1 , tbl.2

.4



### protecting the health of millions of Americans living in areas with ambient ozone concentrations above the level EPA has identified as adequate to protect human health, Sierra Club requests that EPA provide such notice to the governors within 30 days of receiving this petition. After making such notification, EPA must follow the statutory timeframe for state comments and act at least as quickly as the statutory timeframe for respondi ng to state comments on the proposed redesignation, as given in § 107(d)(3)(B)

- (C) of the Act. Further, EPA must simultaneously classify all areas listed in Table 1 upon redesig n ating them because the Act requires that EPA simultaneously classify redesigna ted areas upon redesignation. 14



### As a separate, severable part of this petition, Sierra Club also requests that EPA redesignate the areas as nonattainment with boundaries to be determined in a manner consistent with EPA policies. 15 

### In this regard, Sierra Clu b notes that EPA policy is to designate as nonattainment the entire Combined Statistical Area (“CSA”) or Core Based Statistical Area (“CBSA”) where a violation has been monitored. CBSAs include metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, which can be combined into CSAs. 16 

### CSA and CBSA boundaries are determined by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). 17 

### The 2008 NAAQS implementation guidance document directs that CSAs (or CBSAs, where applicable) “associated with the violating monitor(s) serve as t he starting point or “presumptive” boundary for evaluating the geographic boundaries of an ozone nonattainment area.” 18 

### The Guidance Document cites an earlier memorandum explaining why: “In reducing ozone concentrations above the NAAQS, EPA believes it is b est to consider controls on sources over a larger area due to the pervasive nature of ground level ozone and transport of ozone and its precursors.” 19 

### Thus, as a severable element of this petition, Sierra Club requests that EPA establish the boundaries prop osed in Table 1 below, which specify that EPA should redesignate as nonattainment the entire CSA or CBSA where a violating monitor is located, with a few exceptions as noted in the Table. 20

14 Clean Air Act § 181(b)(1).

15 See Memorandum from Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, to Regional Administrators, Regions I

- X at 3

- 4 (Dec. 4, 2008) (providing guidance on determining nonattainment area b oundaries).

16 65 Fed. Reg. 82,228, 82,228, 82,237 (Dec. 27, 2000).

17 OMB, OMB Bulletin No. 13

- 01, Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas (Feb. 28, 2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13

- 01.pdf.

18 Meyers memorandum, supra note 15 , at 3.

19 Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Directors, Regions I

- X attach. 3 (Mar. 28, 2000). This memorandum refers to C/MSAs, a term that OMB replaced with “CSA” in 2000. See 65 Fed. Reg. at 82,228.

20 This element of the petition is severable. Thus, if EPA chooses to deny the petition with respect to one or more of the proposed boundaries, EPA must separately d ecide whether to grant or deny the petition with respect to the request that it redesignate the 57 areas as nonattainment.5



### Table 1: Areas Sierra Club Requests That EPA Redesignate as Nonat tainment 21

State Counties with Violating

Monitor(s) and DV at Highest Violating Monitor Proposed Boundary

Alabama Jefferson County: 0.080 ppm Entire Birmingham

- Hoover

- Talladega CSA

Arizona Pinal County (part): 0.076 ppm Add eastern Pinal County to existing Phoenix

- Mesa nonattainment area

Yuma County: 0.077 ppm Entire Yuma CBSA

Arkansas Pulaski County: 0.077 ppm Entire Little Rock

- North Little Rock CSA

Delaware Kent County: 0.078 ppm Add Kent County to existing Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- Atlantic City nonattainment area 22

Illinois Hamilton County: 0.078 ppm Redesignate all of Hamilton County as nonattainment 23

Jersey County: 0.079 ppm Add Jersey County & Lincoln County, MO, to existing St. Louis

- St. Charles

- Farmington nonattainment area 24

Indiana Clark County: 0.081 ppm

Floyd County: 0.079 ppm Entire Louisville/Jefferson County

- Elizabethtown

- Madison CSA 25

Greene County: 0.078 ppm Redesignate all of Greene County as nonattainment
La Porte County: 0.083 ppm Add La Porte County to existing Chicago

- Naperville nonattainment

area

Kansas Johnson County: 0.076 ppm Entire Kansas City

- Overland Park

- Kansas City CSA 26

Sedgwick County: 0.077 ppm Sumner County: 0.077 ppm Entire Wichita

- Arkansas City

- Winfield CSA

21 Ozone Design Values 2010

- 2012, supra note 1

, tbls.1b, 2, 4; OMB, supra note 17 (providing boundaries of CSAs and CBSAs).

22 Kent County, DE, is located between New Castle County, DE, which is in the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

Atlantic City nonattainment area, and Sussex County, DE, which is in its own Seaford nonattainment area. Because Kent County, DE, is part of the Philadelphi a

- Wilmington

- Atlantic City nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and is in the Philadelphia

- Reading

- Camden CSA, Sierra Club requests that it be added to the Philadelphia

Wilmington

- Atlantic City nonattainment area for the 2008 NAAQS. Alternatively, EPA could redesignate the entire state of Delaware (New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Counties) as a single nonattainment area, which was one of the options that Delaware itself proposed during the initial 2008 ozone NAAQS designation cycle. See EPA Region 3, D elaware Area Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1 (2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/designations/2008standards/rec/eparesp/R3_DE_tsd.pdf.

23 Although Hamilton County is not located in a CSA or CBSA, the logic e xpressed in EPA’s designation guidance documents suggests that redesignating the entire county as nonattainment will best capture all sources contributing to nonattainment in the area. See Meyers memorandum, supra note 15 , at 3; Seitz memorandum, supra note 19 , attach. 3. The same holds for the other counties that are not in or close to a CSA or CBSA: Greene County, IN; and Perry County, MO.

24 Jersey County, IL, is in the same CSA as Lincoln County, MO, which itself violates the NAAQS.

25 This is the same CSA as for Jefferson and Oldham Counties, KY, which themselves violate t he NAAQS.

26 This is the same CSA as for Clay and Clinton Counties, MO, which themselves violate the NAAQS.6

Kentucky Daviess County: 0.079 ppm

Hancock County: 0.076 ppm Entire Owensboro CBSA

Henderson County: 0.079 ppm Entire Evansville (IN) CBSA 27 Jefferson County: 0.085 ppm Oldham County: 0.086 ppm Entire Louisville/Jefferson County

- Elizabethtown

- Madison CSA 28

McCracken County: 0.077 ppm Entire Paducah

- Mayfield CSA 29

Louisiana Bossier Parish: 0.078 ppm

Caddo Parish: 0.076 ppm Entire Shreveport

- Bossier City CBSA

Pointe Coupee Parish: 0.077 ppm Add Pointe Coupee Parish to existing Baton Rouge nonattainment area

Maryland Kent County: 0.082 ppm Add Kent County to existing Baltimore nonattainment area. 30

Michigan Allegan County: 0.084 ppm

Muskegon County: 0.082 ppm Ottawa County: 0.078 ppm Entire Grand Rapids

- Wyoming

- Muskegon CSA

Berrien County: 0.082 ppm Cass County: 0.078 ppm Entire South Bend

- Elkhart

- Mishawaka CSA 31

Genesee County: 0.076 ppm Lenawee County: 0.076 ppm Macomb County: 0.079 ppm Oakland County: 0.078 ppm St. Clair County: 0.077 ppm Washtenaw County: 0.076 ppm Wayne County: 0.081 ppm Entire Detroit

- Warren

- Ann Arbor CSA

Missouri Clay County: 0.080 ppm Entire Kansas City

- Overland Park

- Kansas City CSA 32

27 This CBSA includes Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties, IN.

28 This is the same CSA as for Clark and Floyd Counties, IN, which themselves viola te the NAAQS.

29 This CSA includes Massac County, IL.

30 OMB does not include Kent County, MD, in the Washington

- Baltimore

- Arlington CSA. But EPA has historically grouped Kent as a unit with Queen Anne’s County, which is part of the Washington

- Baltimore

Arlington CSA, and the two counties were designated nonatt ainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further, although Kent County, MD

, is located adjacent to Cecil County, MD

, and New Castle County, DE, which are in the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- Atlantic City nonattainment area, and is not contiguous with the Baltimore nonat tainment area, it is just across the Chesapeake from Baltimore, and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge connects it to the Baltimore metropolitan area. Further, Maryland initially proposed that both Kent & Queen Anne’s Counties be designated as an “Upper Eastern Sho re” nonattainment area, although it later withdrew the proposal upon seeing the area’s unusually low 2010 DV, and EPA chose not to designate the counties as nonattainment, also based on the unusually low 2010 DV. See Letter from Martin O’Malley, Governor o f Maryland, to William T. Wisniewski, Acting EPA Region 3 Administrator (Mar. 10, 2009), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/designations/2008standards/rec/letters/03_MD_rec.pdf (proposing to designate Kent & Queen Anne’s Counties as an “Upper Eastern Shor e” nonattainment area); Letter from Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, to Shawn M. Garvin, EPA Region 3 Administrator (Dec. 1, 2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/designations/2008standards/rec/letters/03_MD_rec2.pdf (withdrawing proposal); Lett er from Shawn M. Garvin, EPA Region 3 Administrator to Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland (Dec. 9, 2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/rec/eparesp/R3_MD_resp.pdf (rejecting Maryland’s initial proposal to designate Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties as nonattainment).

31 This CSA includes Elkhart, Marshall, and St. Joseph Counties, IN.

32 This is the same CSA as for Johnson County, KS, which itself violates the NAAQS.7 Clinton County: 0.080 ppm Jasper County: 0.078 ppm Entire Joplin

- Miami CSA 33 Lincoln County: 0.080 ppm Add Lincoln County & Jersey County, IL, to existing St. Louis

- St. Charles

- Farmington nonattainment area 34 Perry County: 0.077 ppm Redesignate all of Perry County as nonattainment

Nevada Clark County: 0.076 ppm Entire Las Vegas

- Henderson CSA 35

North Carolina Forsyth County: 0.078 ppm

Guilford County: 0.076 ppm Entire Greensboro

- Winston

- Salem

- High Point CSA

Ohio Clark County: 0.076 ppm

Montgomery County: 0.078 ppm Entire Dayton

- Springfield

- Sidney CSA

Lucas County: 0.076 ppm Entire Toledo

- Port Clinton CSA Stark County: 0.079 ppm Add Stark County to existing Cleveland

- Akron

- Lorain nonattainment

area Trumbull County: 0.079 ppm Entire Youngstown

- Warren CSA 36

Oklahoma Cherokee County: 0.076 ppm

Creek County: 0.078 ppm Tulsa County: 0.080 ppm Entire Tulsa

- Muskogee

- Bartlesville CSA, Adair County, & Mayes County, OK 37

Canadian County: 0.076 ppm Cleveland County: 0.076 ppm Oklahoma County: 0.079 ppm Entire Oklahoma City

- Shawnee CSA & Caddo County, OK 38

Adair County: 0.076 ppm Include with Tulsa

- Muskogee

- Bartlesville CSA (as noted above) Caddo County: 0.077 ppm Include with Oklahoma City

- Shawnee CSA (as noted above) Mayes County: 0.078 ppm Include with Tulsa

- Muskogee

- Bartlesville CSA (as noted above) Ottawa County: 0.076 ppm Entire Joplin

- Miami CSA 39

33 This is the same CSA as for Ottawa County, OK, which itself violates the NAAQS.

34 L incoln County , MO, is i n the same CSA as Jersey County, IL, which itself violates the NAAQS.

35 This CSA includes Mohave County, AZ.

36 This is the same CSA as for Mercer County, PA, which itself violates the NAAQS.

37 Although Mayes County is located outside the Tulsa

- Muskogee

- Bartlesville CSA, it is immediately upwind of parts of the area, and emissions in Mayes County likely contribute to nonattainment in Tulsa. See Attachment C (map of Oklahoma and the location of M ayes County relative to the Tulsa

- Muskogee

- Bartlesville CSA; original map source, http://geo.ou.edu/images/statewells_big.jpg); see also Oklahoma Climatological Survey

, Climate of Oklahoma , http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/site/page/climate_of_oklahoma (las t visited Aug. 7, 2013) (describing prevailing wind direction in Oklahoma); Letter from Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma, to Lawrence E. Starfield, EPA Region 6 Acting Administrator (Mar. 9, 2009), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/designations/2008stand ards/rec/letters/06_OK_rec.pdf (noting NAAQS violations in the Tulsa area).

38 Although Caddo County is located outside the Oklahoma City

- Shawnee CSA, it is immediately west of the Oklahoma City area, and its substantial oil and gas operations likely contri bute to ozone nonattainment in Oklahoma City. See Attachment C. Oklahoma acknowledged NAAQS violations in the Oklahoma City area in its initial designation proposal, but EPA did not designate the area as nonattainment. See Letter from Henry to Starfield,

s upra note 37

.

39 This is the same CSA as for Jasper County, MO, which itself violates the NAAQS.8

Pennsylvania Dauphin County: 0.077 ppm

York County: 0.077 ppm Entire Harrisburg

- York

- Lebanon CSA

Erie County: 0.076 ppm Entire Erie

- Meadville CSA Indiana County: 0.079 ppm Add Indiana County to existing Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley nonattainment area 40 Mercer County: 0.079 ppm Entire Youngstown

- Warren CSA 41

Rhode Island Washington County: 0.078 ppm Entire Providence

- Warwick CBSA 42

Tennessee Hamilton County: 0.076 ppm Entire Chattanooga

- Cleveland

- Dalton CSA 43

Jefferson County: 0.078 ppm Sevier County: 0.076 ppm Add Jefferson & Sevier Counties to existing Knoxville nonattainment

area Sumner County: 0.079 ppm Entire Nashville

- Davidson

- Murfreesboro CSA

Texas Bexar County: 0.080 ppm Entire San Antonio

- New Braunfels CBSA

Gregg County: 0.079 ppm Entire Longview

- Marshall CSA Hood County: 0.077 ppm Add Hood County to existing Dallas

- Fort Worth nonattainment area Jefferson County: 0.080 ppm Entire Beaumont

- Port Arthur CBSA

Virginia Charles City County: 0.079 ppm

Hanover County: 0.076 ppm Henrico County: 0.078 ppm Entire Richmond CBSA

Hampton City: 0.076 ppm Entire Virginia Beach

- Norfolk CSA 44 Stafford County: 0.076 ppm Add Stafford County, VA, to existing Washington nonattainment area

40 Indiana County is part of the Clearfield & Indiana Counties, PA , maintenance area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. But only monitors in Indiana County now violate the NAAQS. Further, Indiana County is part of the Pittsburgh

- New Castle

- Weirton CSA, and it is adjacent to the existing Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley nonattainment area for the 2008 NAAQS. Thus, Sierra Club requests to add it to the Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley nonattainment area.

41 This is the same CSA as for Trumbull County, OH, which itself violates the NAAQS.

42 EPA supplied two 2012 DVs indicating the Boston

- Worcester

- Pr ovidence CSA should be designated nonattainment. First, it supplied data from a monitor in Washington County, RI. Second, it provided a DV for the “Boston

- Lawrence

- Worcester (E Mass)” maintenance area for the 1997 NAAQS. Both values (0.078 and 0.079
ppm, r espectively), violate the 2008 NAAQS. But no monitors within the CSA outside of Rhode Island had 2012 DVs above 0.075 ppm. Accordingly, Sierra Club requests that EPA only redesignate as nonattainment the Providence

- Warwick CBSA, which covers most of the st ate of Rhode Island and a small part of Massachusetts. Notably, both Rhode Island and Massachusetts initially proposed to designate all of the Providence

- Warwick CBSA as nonattainment. See Letter from Laurie Burt, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, to Ira W. Leighton, EPA Region 1 Acting Administrator at 1 (Mar. 11, 2009), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/designations/2008standards/rec/letters/01_MA_rec.pdf ; Letter from Donald L. Carcieri, Governor of Rhode Island, to Ira W. Leighton, EPA Region 1 Acting Administrator at 1

- 2 (Mar. 12, 2009), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/designations/2008standards/rec/letters/01_RI_rec.pdf

.

43 This CSA includes Jackson County, AL; and Catoosa, Dade, Murray, Walker, and Whitfield Coun ties, GA.

44 This CSA includes Currituck and Gates Counties, NC.9

Wisconsin Kewaunee County: 0.078 ppm Entire Green Bay

- Shawano CSA and Door & Manitowoc Counties 45

Door County: 0.078 ppm Include with Green Bay

- Shawano CSA & Manitowoc County (as noted above) Manitowoc County: 0.080 ppm Include with Green Bay

- Shawano CSA & Door County (as noted above) Milwaukee County: 0.082 ppm Ozaukee County: 0.080 ppm Racine County: 0.081 ppm Entire Milwaukee

- Racine

- Waukesha CSA



### C. EPA Based Its Initial Designations on Abnormally Low Ozone Years.

Because the 2012 DV data show that the areas listed in Table 1 are violating the ozone NAAQS, those areas must be redesignated nonattainment, regardless of whether those areas may have previously met the standard. Even if prior compliance were relevant, we note EPA issued most of the designations for the 2008 NAAQS in May 2012. 46 

### It generally used 2010 DVs for the designations, but used 2011 DVs if doing so allowed an attainment designation or lower classification. 47



### Both the 2010 and 2011 D Vs were abnormally low. Among the 2012 DVs EPA released that exceed 0.075 ppm and are located in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 2008 NAAQS, nearly 99% were below their 10

- year mean in 2010. 48 

### Similarly, nearly 93% were

45 Door, Manitowoc, and Kewaunee Counties form an unbroken line of counties and have 2012 DVs violating the 2008 NAAQS by relatively high magnitudes. Although they are not part of the same CSA (Kewaunee is part of the Green Bay

- Shawano CSA, but the others are not), they share several common attributes beyond geography. Most importantly, although relatively sparsely populated, their populations swell during the summer ozone season. For example, D oor County has a year

- round population of only about 28,000, but attracts 2 million tourists a year and has a summer population of 250,000. See Door County Wisconsin, Door County Fact Sheet

, http://www.doorcounty.com/media/door

- county

- fact

- sheet (last visited Nov. 13, 2013); LandsofWisconsin.com, County Data for Door County, Wisconsin

, http://www.landso fwisconsin.com/County

- Data

- For

- Door

- County

Wisconsin (last visited Nov. 13, 2013). Notably, one of the options that Wisconsin initially proposed for the 2008 ozone NAAQS designations was to designate Door, Manitowoc, and Kewaunee counties, along with neigh boring Brown County, as a single nonattainment area. See Wisconsin Dep’t of Natural Res., 2008 Daily Ozone Standard Nonattainment Designation Options, Technical Support Document 2 (Feb. 27, 2009), available at http://www.epa.gov/glo/designations/2008standards/rec/letters/05_WI_rec.pdf

. Designating all three counties together is important because prevailing winds blow pollution from the Green Bay area (Brown, Manitowoc, and Kewaunee County) northwest to Door Coun ty. See id. at 40. Further, taking an area

- wide approach to the ozone problems in eastern Wisconsin is critical because all eight Wisconsin counties on the western shore of Lake Michigan (Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Milwaukee, Racine, an d Kenosha) are either already designated nonattainment or have 2012 DVs violating the 2008 NAAQS.

46 77 Fed. Reg. 30,088 (May 21, 2012). EPA issued the designations for the Chicago Metro area in a separate rule a month later. 77 Fed. Reg. 34,221 (June 11, 2 012).

47 See EPA, 8

- Hour Ozone (2008 Standard) Design Value Notes

, www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/dv_ozone2008_notes.html (last updated July 31, 2013).

48 See Attachment B. Note that not all monitors had 10 years of data available. Some monitors appear to have been discontinued at various points, new monitors were added, and some monitors are missing one or more years of data. Note also that these figures include data from 103 monitors and an additional 1 DV that EPA calculated for areas that are maintenanc e for the 1997 NAAQS based on the aggregate monitors in the area.10



### below their 10

- year mean in 2011. 49 

### Indeed, over 91% experienced their lowest recorded DVs for the 10

- year period in either 2010 or 2011 (73% in 2010 and 30% in 2011). 50



### Given the abnormally low DVs that EPA used to support its designations, it is hardly surprising that a total of 103 monitors, located in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 2008 NAAQS, had 2012 DVs above 0.075 ppm. 51 

### EPA has already admitted to the Supreme Court that the 2012 DVs are cause for concern, stating that they “identif[ied] numer ous areas with ozone levels exceeding the revised [2008] 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, and show that air quality has deteriorated in many areas.” 52



### But although higher than the abnormally low 2010 and 2011 DVs, the 2012 DVs are not themselves abnormally high. Among t he 2012 DVs that exceed 0.075 ppm and are located in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 2008 NAAQS, nearly 52 % were at or below their 10

- year mean. 53 

### None were outliers based on data from the past 10 years. 54



### Thus, EPA based the current 2008 8

- h our ozone NAAQS designations on unusually low

pollution years, leaving many areas with historic and ongoing ozone problems without adequate nonattainment controls. The 2012 DVs, although not unusually high themselves, nevertheless reveal that the 2010 and 2011 DVs were anomalies, and areas nationwide designated attainment or unclassifiable now register DVs violating the NAAQS. EPA must redesignate the areas listed above in order to provide effective and legally mandated health protections to millions of Ame ricans.

III. SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

. For the reasons discussed above, Sierra Club hereby requests the following:

1. That, pursuant to its authority under Clean Air Act § 107(d)(3)(A), EPA redesignate as nonattainment the 57 areas currently designated attainment/unclassifiable that have 2012 DVs violating the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS (listed in Table 1 and Attachment A) b y informing the governors of the states where the areas are located that available information indicates that redesignation is warranted within 30 days of receiving this petition; and that

49 Id. 2010 and 2011 DVs below the 10

- year mean are highlighted in red.

50 Id. Note that 9 monitors had a tie for lowest DV in the 10

- year period between 2010 and 2011.

51 See Attachments A, B (providing a full list of the 57 areas and the Design Values registered by their monitors).

52 Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari 3

- 4, EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. , No. 12

- 1182 (U.S. June 2013).

53 See Attachment B. 2012 DVs greate r than the 10

- year mean are highlighted in green.

54 Id. Outliers (values two standard deviations above or below the mean) are in boldface.11 

### EPA simultaneously promulgate such redesignations and classify the areas at least as quickly as the timeline established by Clean Air Act § 107(d)(3); and

2. As a severable request, that EPA establish the boundaries of those 57 nonattainment areas as specified in Table 1 and in Attachment A.
Given Congress’s directive to follow precise schedules to remedy ozone nonattainment subsequent to designations and redesignations, which are tied to the date of nonattainment classification, 55 

### EPA must take expeditious action on this petition. Accordingly, Sierra Club calls on EPA to g rant this petition within 30 days of receiving it.

Sincerely,

/s/Seth L. Johnson Attorney Earthjustice 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036

- 2212 (202) 667

- 4500 sjohnson@earthjustice.org /s/Joshua Stebbins Managing Attorney The Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20001 (202) 548

- 4597 josh.stebbins@sierraclub.org

On behalf of the Sierra Club

DATED: November 14, 2013

Cc: Janet McCabe , Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation Steve Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

55 See, e.g. , Clean Air Act §§ 107(d)(3)(B)

- (C), 181(b)(1).