Enclosure

The EPA Response to Petition for Reconsider ation from Judson H. Turner, Director of Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division

By letter dated July 20, 2012, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) petitioned the EPA to reconsider the final area designation for Bartow, Cherokee, Fayette, Forsyth, Newton and Paulding Counties in the Atlanta, GA ozone nonattain ment area. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is denying the petition. For the sa ke of clarity, we have organize d this response according to the structure of the July 20, 2012, petition.

I. Response to Comments and Revi ew of Technical Analysis

Issue: The Petitioner claims that the EPA failed to ade quately respond to at le ast some of Georgia’s comments provided in its February 29, 2012, letter. In addition the Petitioner claims that the EPA did not respond at all to the “Technica l Analysis in Response to EPA’s December 8, 2011 Preliminary Nonattainment Area Boundaries” (EPD’s Technical Analysis), which they submitted to the EPA on February 29, 2012, with the GA EPD letter. Additionall y, the Petitioner claims that the EPA failed to address how EPD’s Technical Analysis was in error and/or how it did not comply with the designation guidance.

Response: The Petitioner makes only a general claim that the EPA did not addr ess its analyses or respond to its comments, and we believe that the record fully supports ou r nonattainment designation decision. Accordingly, we do not believe this is a ba sis for reconsideration. Nevertheless, the EPA did fully consider Georgia’s comments a nd technical information and, in f act, after a full evaluation agreed with Georgia that 3 of the 18 c ounties it originally recommended for nonattainment be excluded from the final designation. The EPA TSD provides the EPA’s assessment of the five factors for this area. To the extent that Georgia’s five factor assessment differs from that of the EPA’s analysis, the TSD provides sufficient notice to the Pet itioner as to where the EPA disagrees with its five factor analysis. In addition, as acknowledged by the Pe titioner, the EPA addressed the comments included with Georgia’s February 29, 2012, letter 1 in Section 3.1.5 on page 14 and on pages 38 through 42 of the EPA’s “Responses to Significant Commen ts on the State and Tribal Desi gnation Recommendations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), April 2012” (Response to Comments) and in the “Region 4 Atlanta, GA Fina l Technical Support Document (TSD).”

In addition, on page 4 of the TSD we said “[a] fter considering Georgia’s recommendation and additional technical information, and based on EPA’s reevaluation of the 18 counties as described below, the EPA is designating 15 counties in Georgia as “nonattainment” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of the Atlanta,

GA nonattainment area.” We also addressed this information in several other places in the record.

The EPA also considered EPD’s Technical Analysis during the designation proc ess but concluded that

15 counties should be included in the nonattainment area including Bart ow, Cherokee, Fayette, Forsyth, Newton and Paulding Counties and pr ovided our basis for that decisi on throughout the TSD, addressing

each of the five factors. For th e reasons provided in the TSD and as supported by the Response to

1 The EPA notes that Petitioner claims that the Agency neglected to respond to some of Georgia’s comments but failed to provide any specificity as to which comments the EPA allegedly failed to respond. As such, the EPA is unable to respond to

this claim.Comments document, the EPA determined that 11 c ounties in addition to the four recommended by the state contribute to violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQ S in the combined statistical area. Based on our consideration of Georgia’s additiona l technical information provided af ter the release of the agency’s preliminary boundary determination in December 2011, a nd other information, the EPA determined that the originally proposed 18 county nonattainment area was appropriately redu ced to the 15 county area that was ultimately designated nonattainment.

II. Economic Considerations

Issue: The Petitioner claims that in designating Ba rtow, Cherokee, Fayette, Forsyth, Newton and Paulding Counties nonattainment the EPA failed to consider whether the imposition of regulatory burdens and compliance costs in t hose counties would materially bene fit the nonattainment area’s ability to comply with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition the Petitioner also claims th at the EPA’s response to its comment regarding regulator y burdens and compliance costs of including additional counties that are not monitoring nonattainment was “inadequate, unsupported and contains circular reasoning.”

Response: This issue was raised during the comment period and was responded to by the EPA. Thus it is not a proper basis for reconsideration. Furthermore, the Petitioner fails to provide a basis for its claim that the EPA’s response is “inadequate, unsupported and contains circular reasoning.” However, we note that o n page 39 of the EPA’s Response to Comments document we stat e, “We do not believe that regulatory burden or compliance costs are pertinent considerations in de termining whether an area is violating the NAAQS or contributing to a nearby violation of the NAAQS.” Under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is required to designate as nonattainment an area that is violating a new or revised NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby violati on. . . . In determining whether an area should be designated nonattainment, the EPA does not consider economic impact s because that is not relevant for determining

whether an included area is violati ng the NAAQS or is a nearby area that is contributing to a violation as provided under CAA section 107(d). As such, the crit eria for designations in Section 107 of the CAA do not provide for the EPA to consider economic effect s. We intend for the implementation rulemaking for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to address the minimum planni ng and emissions control obligations for areas designated nonattainment. As the EP A considers the required elements of implementation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, it is our goal to propose approaches that provide flexibility and opportunity for efficiency to the extent such approaches are consis tent with the CAA and will not jeopardize expeditious attainment of the public health a nd welfare goals of the CAA. To th e extent the CAA does not mandate specific control measures, states may consider eco nomic concerns in development of their state implementation plans to address air quality. Finally, we note th at Atlanta counties designated nonattainment have continued to grow despite