Enclosure 

The EPA Response to Petition for Reconsideration 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 nonattainment area. For the reasons discussed 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. Response to Comments and Review of Technical Analysis 

Issue: The Petitioner claims that the EPA failed to adequately respond to at least 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 “Technical 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. Additionally, 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 address its analyses or 

respond to its comments, and we believe that the record fully supports our nonattainment designation 

decision. Accordingly, we do not believe this is a basis for reconsideration. Nevertheless, the EPA did 

fully consider Georgia’s comments and technical information and, in fact, after a full evaluation agreed 

with Georgia that 3 of the 18 counties 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 Petitioner as to where the EPA disagrees with its five factor analysis. In 

addition, as acknowledged by the Petitioner, the EPA addressed the comments included with Georgia’s 

February 29, 2012, letter1

 in Section 3.1.5 on page 14 and on pages 38 through 42 of the EPA’s 

“Responses to Significant Comments on the State and Tribal Designation Recommendations for the 

2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), April 2012” (Response to Comments) 

and in the “Region 4 Atlanta, GA Final 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 process but concluded that 

15 counties should be included in the nonattainment area including Bartow, Cherokee, Fayette, Forsyth, 

Newton and Paulding Counties and provided our basis for that decision throughout the TSD, addressing 

each of the five factors. For the 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 counties in addition to the four recommended by the 

state contribute to violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the combined statistical area. Based on our 

consideration of Georgia’s additional technical information provided after the release of the agency’s 

preliminary boundary determination in December 2011, and other information, the EPA determined that 

the originally proposed 18 county nonattainment area was appropriately reduced to the 15 county area 

that was ultimately designated nonattainment. 

 

II. Economic Considerations 

Issue: The Petitioner claims that in designating Bartow, Cherokee, Fayette, Forsyth, Newton and 

Paulding Counties nonattainment the EPA failed to consider whether the imposition of regulatory 

burdens and compliance costs in those counties would materially benefit the nonattainment area’s ability 

to comply with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition the Petitioner also claims that the EPA’s response 

to its comment regarding regulatory 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 on 

page 39 of the EPA’s Response to Comments document we state, “We do not believe that regulatory burden 

or compliance costs are pertinent considerations in determining 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 violation. . . . In determining whether an area should be designated 

nonattainment, the EPA does not consider economic impacts because that is not relevant for determining 

whether an included area is violating the NAAQS or is a nearby area that is contributing to a violation as 

provided under CAA section 107(d). As such, the criteria for designations in Section 107 of the CAA do 

not provide for the EPA to consider economic effects. We intend for the implementation rulemaking for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS to address the minimum planning and emissions control obligations for areas 

designated nonattainment. As the EPA 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 consistent with the CAA and will not jeopardize expeditious 

attainment of the public health and welfare goals of the CAA. To the extent the CAA does not mandate 

specific control measures, states may consider economic concerns in development of their state 

implementation plans to address air quality. Finally, we note that Atlanta counties designated 

nonattainment have continued to grow despite