2U12JUL23 AM1O:E5 

OFFiCE OF THE

EXECUTiVE SECRE1ARiAT

jjcerely, 

ssie Medlin 

President, DeSoto County Board of Supervisors 

L)eSoto C 'ountt Mississfrpi 

Office of the Board of Supervsors 

Ms. Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USEPA Headquarters 

Arid Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

DeSoto County, Mississippi Petition for Reconsideration of the 2008

8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Designation for

the Northern Portion ofDeSoto County, Mississippi 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

Please let this letter and attachment serve as DeSoto County's Petition for 

Reconsideration of EPA 2008 8-hour ozone non-attainment designation for the northern portion 

of DeSoto County. DeSoto County fully adopts and incorporates into the present Petition the 

attached Petition for Reconsideration submitted by the Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality in this matter. 

DeSoto County requests that EPA reconsider its decision to the include the northern 

portion of DeSoto County in the Memphis non-attainment area. DeSoto County was excluded 

from the Memphis non-attainment area in 2004 and we believe air quality within DeSoto County 

has improved since that time. Forcing DeSoto County into the Memphis non-attainment area 

will not help Shelby and Crittenden counties achieve compliance with the ozone standard and 

will unduly punish DeSoto County from an economic and regulatory perspective. 

We ask that you please reconsider your designation of the northern portion of DeSoto 

County as non-attainment and declare the entire county to be in attainment. 

Jessie Medlin • Mark Gardner Bill Russell • Lee Caidwell • Harvey Lee 

District One	District Two	District Three	District Four	District Five

365 Losher Street I Suit 310 

Hernando, MS 3 632 

phone 662.429. 590 

fax 662.449. 422 

www.desoton?s corn
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") respectfully 

requests that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") reconsider its designation of 

nonattainment for the northern portion of DeSoto County, Mississippi. In support of its 

request, MDEQ addresses each of the factors set forth in the December 4, 2008 guidance 

memorandum "Area Designation for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards" as the nine factors are grouped by EPA in its designation Technical 

Support Document. In addition, MDEQ provides additional, general objections and 

comments. 

A. Failure to rely on or to otherwise consider most recent certified data 

Prior to making its final designations, EPA indicated that in order for it to consider air 

quality data for the most recent time period of 2009-2011, it would need to receive the 

states' certified data by February 29, 2012. Mississippi certified its data for the 2009-

2011 time period on January 31, 2012. Tennessee also certified its data for the 2009-

2011 time period. However, because Arkansas did not certify its data for 2009-2011, 

EPA only considered the 2008-2010 data in making its designation for the MS-TN-AR 

designations. 

Mississippi asserts that EPA should have considered the most recent data, as it is the 

best scientific evidence of air quality in Mississippi and Tennessee at the current time. 

EPA stated unequivocally, indeed reiterated, in its Responses to Significant Comments 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, April 30, 2012: "As stated in the previous response, we are relying 

on the most recent three years of certified data to designate areas for the 2008 NAAQS." 

Nonetheless, EPA ignored the most recent three years of certified data from Mississippi 

and Tennessee in making its designations. 

Even if EPA did not rely on the 2009-20 11 data exclusively in making its 

designation, it could and should have relied on the data as proof of the facts and data 

asserted by Mississippi in its significant comments to the EPA preliminary designations. 

The most recent data demonstrates conclusively that DeSoto County does not impact the 

air quality in Tennessee as all of the Tennessee monitors have been certified to be in 

attainment during the 2009-20 11 time period. 

Mississippi is and has always been in attainment. The most recent certified data 

demonstrates overwhelmingly that despite growth in population in DeSoto County, the 

Tennessee monitors are not affected by Mississippi. Indeed, both Mississippi and 

Tennessee demonstrated by certified data that both states are in attainment. It defies 

logic for EPA to ignore this most recent data and draw conclusions based on old data 

when those conclusions are proven unequivocally to be wrong by the most recent 

certified data. The result is unnecessarily punitive to Mississippi and DeSoto County.
B. Failure to give DeSoto County creditfor voluntary measures, as promised in 

EPA's visit to I)eSoto County in 200Z 

In 2007, EPA Region 4 representatives came to DeSoto County and met with its 

leadership. At that meeting, EPA stressed the importance of having local voluntary 

measures in place, thoroughly documenting those efforts and providing the information to 

EPA. EPA said that the information would be used for boundary determinations. 

Since that time, DeSoto County has not only had those measures in place, but the data 

indicate that DeSoto is making great strides in its control of emissions, as is evidenced by 

the numbers provided in MDEQ's TSD. Despite representations of EPA staff, and 

despite the proof of the success of those voluntary initiatives, EPA failed to recognize the 

significance of the reduced emissions or to give DeSoto County any consideration 

thereof. 

The approach which EPA has taken in making its boundary determinations is only 

specified in the CAA for serious areas. DeSoto County has complied with all EPA 

requests to voluntarily reduce ozone emissions, and relied on EPA's representations that 

the same would be favorably considered when designation boundaries were determined. 

EPA should reconsider it designation of nonattainment for DeSoto County, and designate 

it as attainment. At a bare minimum, EPA should designate DeSoto County as 

attainment/unclassifiable. 

C. EPA 's designation of nonattainment in 2012 is evidence of the arbitrary 

and capricious nature of the agency's action after the designation of attainment in 

2004.

EPA responded to Mississippi's argument that DeSoto County was not included 

within the boundary for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, and therefore should not be included in the 2012 boundary designations by 

stating two things, both of which are in error. 

First, EPA asserts that "EPA must analyze the situation anew for purposes of the 

new, more stringent NAAQS promulgated in 2008, based on the most recent information 

now available." As set forth above, EPA did not rely on the most recent information 

available for DeSoto County, instead relying on information that is three years old. The 

most recent information available demonstrates conclusively that not only is DeSoto 

County meeting the more stringent standard, its numbers continue to trend downward. 

Second, EPA asserts that "[t]here has been growth throughout the entire Memphis 

area since EPA last designated ozone areas and the technical information [EPA] is 

relying on now, in 2012, is different than the information we relied on in 2004 for the 

1997 NAAQS." Mississippi maintains that the numbers presented refute the conclusion 

that EPA has drawn - despite the population growth and increase in VMT's - the 

numbers for DeSoto County have gone down. Not only are the numbers at least as good 

as those from the 2004 decision, they are better.
DeSoto County should be able to rely on past precedent to determine what actions 

EPA will take. Such consistency is what guides the public and the regulatory agencies in 

the actions they take. DeSoto County relied on previous EPA decisions, and on 

representations from EPA staff, as discussed above, to take actions to reduce emissions. 

Having not only maintained their attainment status, DeSoto County improved upon it and 

met the newer, more stringent standards. EPA should reconsider its 2012 decision and be 

consistent with previous decisions, given DeSoto County's proof as set forth in MDEQ's 

TSD.

II. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC FACTOR ANALYSIS 

Factor 1—Air Quality Data 

In consideration of this factor, only air quality data should be used to provide a 

rationale for determining nonattainment boundaries. Meteorological conditions should 

not be analyzed under this factor; however, because EPA did include it, these comments 

will be addressed. 

In EPA's TSD, EPA cites comments from Arkansas concerning the ArkansasTennessee-Mississippi Ozone Study (ATMOS). EPA states that a key point of this 

analysis indicates that the monitoring site with the maximum design value for the area 

varies from year to year based on the frequency of meteorological conditions that are 

conducive to high ozone concentrations at the specific monitoring sites. However, EPA 

failed to acknowledge that DeSoto County has never had the highest ozone design value 

in the Memphis area for any year, going back to at least the 1995-1997 period. Further, 

the results of the ATMOS study also showed that DeSoto County had less than a 1 ppb 

contribution to the ozone levels in the Memphis area. MDEQ asserts this is not a 

sufficient contribution, even when combined with the other nine factors, to warrant a 

designation of nonattainment. Because EPA cites this study as part of their rationale to 

include DeSoto County in the Memphis nonattainment area, all of the results of this study 

should be used - not just the parts that seem to justify their position. If it is so used, the 

study will plainly support Mississippi's position that DeSoto County does not sufficiently 

contribute to the emissions in Shelby County, Tennessee. 

The following table from the ATMOS study' shows the projected 2010 ozone 

design value at the Memphis-Frayser monitor would be 88.14 ppb including DeSoto 

County emissions. The projected design value at the same site with no DeSoto County 

emissions would be 87.35 ppb. This means that DeSoto County's contribution to the 

ozone concentrations at the Memphis-Frayser monitoring site was 0.79 ppb. However, 

the actual 2010 design value at the Frayser monitor was 76 ppb, meaning that the model 

greatly over estimated ozone concentrations, thus DeSoto County's actual contribution is 

likely even lower. While the modeling was based on a 1999 episode, DeSoto County's 

'The ATMOS information can be found at http: atmossainticorn. The results are in an interactive 

software format, where inquiries can be made by the user. It can also be found in the MDEQ TSD 

submitted to EPA on January 27, 2004.
2010 Sensitty. Zero


Anthropogenic Emissions from


DeSoto County 

Re4sed Baseline-2010 

(NONROAD 2002 Update)

VOC emissions have decreased by 26% and NOx emissions have increased only 3% 

since that time. 

Estimated Design Value (99DV = 95 ppb) for 9-Cell


Daily Peak 8-Hr Ozone Concentration (ppb) at the 


Memphis, TN Monitor 

Concentration (ppb) 

The ATMOS results show a minimal contribution 0.79 ppb to the MemphisFrayser monitor in 1999. Based on the latest available data, DeSoto County VOC 

emissions decreased and NOx emissions remained about the same. Thus, the DeSoto 

County ozone contribution should be less than 0.79 ppb currently. 

It is clear that the ATMOS projected design values were overestimated; however 

the model overestimated the amount of ozone produced by the emissions because it 

started with a higher baseline. In short, that means that ozone concentrations were much 

higher at that time. This also demonstrates that more emission reductions have occurred 

since that time than what the model accounted for, resulting in lower ozone 

concentrations. 

The ATMOS model demonstrates how negligible contributions from DeSoto 

County were, even when ozone values were higher. The emissions have stayed the same 

for NOx and are lower for VOCs since the model was run. Therefore, DeSoto County's 

ozone contribution is even lower now. 

Factor 2— Emissions and Emissions Related Data
A. Emissions Data (location of sources and contribution to ozone 

concentrations) 

EPA's TSD only addressed the general comparative amounts of emissions from 

DeSoto, Crittenden, and Shelby Counties. It did not address particular activities that 

make up the emissions or their locations. 

In MDEQ's TSD, a map (designated as Figure 2 in MDEQ's TSD) was included 

which showed the locations of the monitors in the area along with both the major 

emissions sources the locations of major interstates, railways, waterways, ports and truck 

centers. The map and supporting narrative demonstrates conclusively that the areas and 

activities - point sources, rail centers, river ports, major interstate intersections and truck 

centers- that generate significant emissions are not only concentrated in Shelby and 

Crittenden Counties, but also are in very close proximity to the monitors in Shelby and 

Crittenden Counties with the highest ozone readings. 

In particular, the amount of commerce-related activities in the area that are primarily 

in Shelby and Crittenden Counties rather that DeSoto County is shown. This information 

was, in summary: 

• Interstate 40 which is one of the largest trucking routes in the nation and 1-55 

intersect in Shelby and Crittenden Counties. 

• Crittenden County is the number one point of diesel sales in the country with nine 

truck centers in relatively close proximity to the Crittenden county monitor. 

• The Memphis International Airport with the FedEx "super hub" is located in 

Shelby County. 

• Memphis is the number three rail center in the United States with large intermodal 

facilities in Shelby and Crittenden Counties. 

• The International Port of Memphis is the fourth largest inland port in the United 

States. 

This puts the large majority of emissions generating activities in Shelby and 

Crittenden Counties, and not in DeSoto County. In the final TSD, EPA stated it 

"considered all the additional information provided by the states in the analysis"; 

however, EPA did not specifically address or comment on these emissions sources and 

their contribution to the ozone levels in the area. 

EPA has recognized that raw numbers and percentages of commuters and VMT's 

"does not adequately take into account ... [a] large volume of diesel truck traffic[J on the 

major highways running through th{e] area." ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA, 669 

F. 3d 330 (D.C. Cir., 2O1). Because these factors are factors on which EPA substantially 

relied in making its boundary determination, it is incumbent upon EPA to recognize and 

properly assess the impact of this commerce- related traffic in Shelby and Crittenden 

Counties.
As such, MDEQ asserts that there is overwhelming evidence that activities in 

Crittenden County, Arkansas and Shelby County, Tennessee are negatively impacting 

the air quality in the region - not emissions from DeSoto County, Mississippi. 

B. Population Density and Degree of Urbanization 

DeSoto County has experienced moderate growth, approximately five percent (5%) 

per year since 2000. However, the growth rate has slowed significantly since 2006. The 

EPA-TSD cites a growth rate of 48% over the last decade, but using a percentage based 

rate is misleading due to the county's relatively low 2000 population. The actual 

increase in numbers is 53,000 people over the last decade. Compared to the population 

of Shelby County (927,000) or the entire Memphis MSA (1,316,000), the growth is not 

significant. Consider if the population of DeSoto County were only 100 people, but that 

100 doubled to 200 over the same ten (10) year period. Even though the growth rate 

would be 100%, that 100% would still be so minimal that the overall impact would not 

even register. Using growth rate percentages is not a reasonable measure of sufficient 

contribution - raw numbers are by far the best scientific evidence. 

EPA states that "Rapid population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth in a 

county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integration with the core urban area, 

and indicates that it may be appropriate to include the county/area associated with the 

area source and mobile source emissions as contributing to the area violation, even if the 

monitor in that county is attaining the ozone NAAQS." However, EPA provided no 

documentation or reference in support of this statement. Further, while DeSoto County 

has experienced growth, the ozone values in the County, as well as other monitors in the 

area, have actually steadily decreased. The following chart (designated as Chart 7 of 

MIDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 Day Letter) shows the growth trend and the ozone 

values since 2000. If the population growth in DeSoto County were a contributing factor, 

then it would be evidenced by increased ozone readings by the DeSoto County monitor, 

which obviously hasn't occurred.
DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Va'ues 

—4-- DeSoto	Shelby - Orgill - Shelby - Frayser - Crtttenden - - DeSoto Population 

Chart 7: DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Values 

Simple deductive reasoning therefore disproves EPA's unsupported claim that the 

increase in population contributes to increased ozone levels. Not only has the increased 

population of DeSoto County not resulted in increased monitor readings, DeSoto County 

has maintained the lowest averaged monitor reading within the area. EPA failed to 

acknowledge this error of fact and reason, as supported by the best available science. 

C. Traffic and Commuting Patterns 

Again, EPA states that "Rapid population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth in 

a county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integration with the core urban area, 

and indicates that it may be appropriate to include the county/area associated with the 

area source and mobile source emissions as contributing to the area violation, even if the 

monitor in that county is attaining the ozone NAAQS." Again, EPA provided no 

documentation or reference in support of this statement. Further, while DeSoto County 

has experienced growth, the ozone values in the County, as well as other monitors in the 

area, have actually steadily decreased. EPA's conclusion is simply not supported by the 

best scientific evidence. 

EPA also failed to examine or address the much higher than average commercial 

heavy duty diesel traffic in both Shelby County, TN and Crittenden County, AR. Heavy 

duty diesel truck emissions are a significant source of NOx emissions. The following 

figure (designated as Figure 3 of MDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 Day Letter) shows the 

truck traffic along the interstates across the southeast portion of the country.
National Highway System Routes 

Interstate 

Non-Interstate 

FAF Truck Volume/Day 

Figure 3: Average Daily Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Traffic (2007 

Interstate 40 is one of the busiest routes for heavy duty diesel truck traffic in the 

nation, and passes directly through Shelby and Crittenden Counties. Along 1-40 over 

50% of the traffic in Crittenden County and 35% in Shelby County is from heavy duty 

diesel trucks. In DeSoto County, 18% of the rural interstate traffic along 1-55 is from 

heavy duty diesel trucks, which is slightly below the national rural interstate average of 

19%. It should be noted that, as seen in Figure 2 of MDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 

Day Letter, the Shelby County - Frayser monitor and the Crittenden County Monitor are 

both in close proximity to Interstate 40. 

In addition to 1-40, Shelby County and Crittenden County have significant 

commerce related traffic. The Memphis International Airport is located approximately 

three miles south of the central business district of Memphis and is home to the main 

FedEx Express global "Super Hub', which processes a significant portion of the freight 

carrier's packages. The airport also serves as a hub for Delta Airlines. 

The International Port of Memphis is fourth largest inland Port in the United 

States and covers the Tennessee and Arkansas sides of the Mississippi River. The
Memphis! West Memphis area is the number three rail center in the United States with 

significant intenriodal rail facilities in both Crittenden and Shelby Counties. West 

Memphis Arkansas also has the highest diesel sales in the nation with nine diesel fuel 

truck centers. Many of the truck centers are grouped together and are in close proximity 

to the Crittenden County monitor. This commerce activity poses a much more 

significant emissions contribution to the violating monitors than emissions in DeSoto 

County.

EPA also relied on the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NET) to supply the 

emissions data. The 2008 NEI incorrectly lists DeSoto County as having higher heavy 

duty diesel truck emissions than Crittenden County. Since the amount of heavy duty 

diesel truck traffic, and associated heavy duty diesel truck VMT is higher in Crittenden 

County, the 2008 NEI is incorrect in representing DeSoto County as having higher 

emissions associated with this sector. Thus, EPA relied in part on erroneous information 

in making its boundazy designation. 

D. Growth Rates and Patterns 

DeSoto County has experienced moderate growth, approximately 5% per year since 

2000. However, the growth rate has slowed significantly since 2006. The EPA-TSD 

cites a growth rate of 48% over the last decade, but using a percentage based rate is 

misleading because of the counties relatively low 2000 population. The real increase in 

numbers is 53,000 people over the last decade. Compared to the population of Shelby 

County (927,000) or the entire Memphis MSA (1,316,000), the growth is not significant. 

EPA states that "Rapid population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth (see 

below) in a county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integration with the core 

urban area, and indicates that it may be appropriate to include the county/area associated 

with the area source and mobile source emissions as contributing to the area violation, 

even if the monitor in that county is attaining the ozone NAAQS." However, EPA 

provided no documentation or reference to prove this statement. While DeSoto County 

has experienced growth, the ozone values in the County, as well as other monitors in the 

area, have actually decreased steadily. The following chart (designated as Chart 7 of 

MDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 Day Letter) shows the growth trend and the ozone 

values since 2000. If the population growth in DeSoto County were a contributing factor, 

then it would be evidenced by increased ozone readings by the DeSoto County monitor, 

which obviously hasn't occurred.
DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Values 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


Ynr 

—+--DeSoto	* Shelby - Orgill	Shelby - Frayser - Crittenden	- DeSoto Population 

Chart 7: DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Values 

E. Level of Control of Emission Sources 

EPA's technical support document did not address this factor at all. As stated in 

MDEQ's factor analysis, there are few major sources in the county to control. The few 

facilities located in Mississippi are well controlled. Southaven Power is a newer gas 

cogeneration plant that meets BACT standards, Rexam Beverage Can has VOC capture 

arid control devices to control emissions beyond NSPS requirements, and Texas Gas has 

voluntarily opted to include operational restrictions in its permit that reduces NOx 

emissions during Ozone Season. Thus, while there are only a few major sources to 

control, those sources have worked with MDEQ through their permits to engage controls 

that far exceed any state andlor federal requirements. 

Mobile and area sources are the largest category of emissions in the area and MIDEQ 

and the governances in the area have put measures in place to reduce those emissions to 

improve the air quality in DeSoto County. Mississippi has revised the Air Pollution 

Regulations to prohibit all open burning on Ozone Action Days. Open Burning is banned 

on all days in Hernando. Also, DeSoto County and the cities within the county have 

enacted strict idle reduction policies to reduce mobile source emissions from the county. 

A marginal non attainment designation will not require further controls from mobile 

or area sources in DeSoto County, nor will local controls be necessary to reduce 

emissions in the area. As previously stated, mobile source emissions will be drastically 

reduced over the next several years due to national emission control standards effecting 

mobile sources.
MDEQ asserts that EPA unsoundly applied its analysis of meteorology in its use 

of the HYSPLIT model and its use of wind roses as indicators of atmospheric transport. 

MDEQ showed conclusively the following factors: 

• On most days, 24-hour back trajectories were less than 200 miles long for the 

Memphis-Frayser site during the period of 2006-2010, indicating that the average 

wind speeds were less than 8 mph. 

• When there is a light wind regime, wind directions can vary significantly at the 

surface. 

• HYSPLIT uses surface and upper air wind conditions to calculate back 

trajectories. In this case, surface winds from the Memphis NWS station were 

used, but the closest upper-air wind data site is located in Little Rock, Arkansas - 

—130 miles from Memphis. 

• HYSPLIT is not accurate under light wind conditions because of the light wind 

direction variability. 

Because of these issues, a back trajectory analysis using HYSPLIT is patently 

unreliable in determining if transport was occurring on most ozone exceedance days. 

EPA also included surface wind roses for the Memphis area as additional 

analyses. Even while EPA conceded in its Response to Significant Comments that the 

use of wind roses as the sole indicator of atmospheric transport is not the preferable 

approach, EPA's use of wind roses showed wind direction variability, which EPA then 

wholly failed to factor into their analysis. 

Finally, EPA cites comments from Arkansas concerning the ATMOS study 

(discussed in under Factor 1 - Air Quality Data). EPA states that a key point of this 

analysis indicates that the monitoring site with the maximum design value for the area 

varies from year to year based on the frequency of meteorological conditions that are 

conducive to high ozone concentrations at the specific monitoring sites. EPA further 

states that their analyses indicated that the maximum ozone design value monitor moves 

based on the predominant winds during a three-year period and all monitors should be 

considered. Significantly, EPA failed to state that DeSoto County has never had the 

highest ozone design value in the Memphis area for any year, going back to at least to the 

1995-1997 period. 

Thus, EPA failed to apply the best available scientific evidence in a sound 

manner, as a sound application cannot prove by any reasonable deduction that DeSoto
County is sufficiently contributing to violations at the offending monitor - or at any other 

monitor in the designated boundary. 

EPA stated that sources in DeSoto County could possibly have contributed to 

elevated ozone locations at the Shelby County Frayser ozone monitor. Given the 

significance of a designation of nonattainment, "possible" contribution should not be 

equated with "sufficient" contribution. In addition, the back trajectories shown in the 

TSD travel over areas of Memphis prior to arriving at the Frayser monitor with much 

higher NOx and VOC emissions density than DeSoto County. This infonnation was not 

taken into consideration by EPA. 

The TSD also states that "EPA's analysis of meteorology and the conceptual 

model for high ozone events in the Memphis area suggests that DeSoto County is 

contributing to the violation in Shelby County..." Again, a "suggestion" is not a strong 

basis for including DeSoto County in the non-attainment area based on sufficient 

contribution. 

In its Responses to Significant Comments, EPA states "In those cases where 

timing constraints and the lack of additional information prevented a more detailed 

assessment, EPA believes the default wind rose analyses, in conjunction with the 

remainder of the multi-factor analysis, can provide an adequate assessment of appropriate 

boundaries." MDEQ believes this statement indicates that EPA rushed to judgment, 

thereby falling to base its decision on the best available scientific knowledge. MDEQ 

went to great lengths to provide EPA with detailed information in order that EPA could 

adequately evaluate the significance the best available science has on its decision. While 

MDEQ is aware of and understands time constraints, for EPA to ignore the best available 

science when it is fairly presented results in a punitive decision for Mississippi and 

DeSoto County, which decision should be reconsidered. 

Factor 4- Geography / Topography 

All parties agree that this factor is not a significant factor in the analysis. 

Factor 5— Jurisdictional Boundaries 

EPA's Final TSD states "[o]nce EPA identified the general areas that the Agency 

anticipated would be included in the non-attainment area, EPA then considered existing 

jurisdictional boundaries for the purpose of providing a clearly defmed legal boundary 

and to help identify the areas appropriate for carrying out the air quality planning and 

enforcement functions for non-attainment areas." While state and county barriers do not 

stop the flow of air from one area to another, they should be given greater consideration 

in the case of DeSoto County. 

As previously noted, the monitor in DeSoto County has always attained the 

Ozone standard. Section 181 of the Clean Air Act sets forth the requirements for areas 

that are designated as non-attainment and the methods for coming back into attainment
and being reclassified as attainment. Section 126 of the CAA even gives a non-attaining 

area the ability to address emissions from upwind sources. While EPA asserts that 

DeSoto County is contributing to the violations in Shelby County, they do so based on 

DeSoto County's growth, having the second highest population, VMT, and emissions in 

the area, even though they are a distant second compared to Shelby County. It is clear 

that EPA included DeSoto County because it "may be" or "appears" to "possibly" be 

contributing. 

Since DeSoto County is in a separate state from the counties with the violating 

monitor and the bulk of the emissions, if it is designated as non-attainment, it would be 

stuck with the designation without being afforded the provisions in the CAA to get back 

into attainment. The county's monitor is attaining the standard and there is no indication 

that even the most stringent controls put in place in the County would help Shelby 

County, Tennessee attain the standard. Accordingly, DeSoto County should only be 

included if there is viable strong evidence that it is significantly contributing to the 

exceedences in Crittendon and Shelby - a non-attainment designation should not be 

based on mere suggestion or speculation that DeSoto County may be contributing to 

exceedences in the other counties.. The information presented under the other factors 

demonstrates that DeSoto County is not sufficiently impacting or contributing to the 

violations in Shelby County. The boundary for the nonattainment area should be state 

line and DeSoto County should not be included in the nonattainment area. 

DeSoto County has no defined legal authority for the purpose of carrying out the 

air quality planning and enforcement functions for adjacent nonattainment areas. 

Commercial traffic on 1-40 and other industrial sources near the offending monitor are all 

under control of Tennessee and Arkansas. The consideration of this factor points most 

strongly in excluding DeSoto County from the nonattairiment designation. 

For the reasons set forth above, Mississippi hereby petitions EPA to reconsider its 

decision to include the northern portion of DeSoto County, Mississippi, in the boundary 

for its nonattainment designation. EPA can, within its discretion, recognize the errors it 

made in its designation decision, and more appropriately apply the best and most recent 

scientific data to exclude DeSoto County. Exclusion would be consistent with prior EPA 

decisions, and would be well supported by the scientific evidence adduced by MIDEQ. 

Further, the case-by-case evaluation of the guidance factors supports the exclusion of 

DeSoto County and would not be inconsistent with the treatment of any other entities 

within EPA's regulatory control.
Si ncerelv 

( 

Jessie Medlin 

President. DeSoto County Board of Supervisors 

DeSoto Cou,iii Mississii 

Office of the Board of Superviors 

Ms. Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

DeSoto County, Mississippi Petition for Reconsideration of the 2008

8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Designation for

the Northern Portion ofDeSoto County, Mississippi 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

Please let this letter and attachment serve as DeSoto County's Petition for 

Reconsideration of EPA 2008 8-hour ozone non-attainment designation for the northern portion 

of DeSoto County. DeSoto County fully adopts and incorporates into the present Petition the 

attached Petition for Reconsideration submitted by the Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality in this matter. 

DeSoto County requests that EPA reconsider its decision to the include the northern 

portion of DeSoto County in the Memphis non-attainment area. DeSoto County was excluded 

from the Memphis non-attainment area in 2004 and we believe air quality within DeSoto County 

has improved since that time. Forcing DeSoto County into the Memphis non-attainment area 

will not help Shelby and Crittenden counties achieve compliance with the ozone standard and 

will unduly punish DeSoto County from an economic and regulatory perspective. 

We ask that you please reconsider your designation of the northern portion of DeSoto 

County as non-attainment and declare the entire county to be in attainment. 

Jessie Medlin • Mark Gardner • Bill Russell • Lee CaIdwell • harvey Lee 

District One	District Two	District Three	District Four	District Five

365 Losher Street Suite31O

Hernando, MS 3632

phone 662.429.5590


far 662.449.422


www. desotoms.bom
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") respectfully 

requests that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") reconsider its designation of 

nonattainment for the northern portion of DeSoto County, Mississippi. In support of its 

request, MDEQ addresses each of the factors set forth in the December 4, 2008 guidance 

memorandum "Area Designation for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards" as the nine factors are grouped by EPA in its designation Technical 

Support Document. In addition, MDEQ provides additional, general objections and 

comments. 

A. Failure to rely on or to otherwise consider most recent certified data 

Prior to making its fmal designations, EPA indicated that in order for it to consider air 

quality data for the most recent time period of 2009-2011, it would need to receive the 

states' certified data by February 29, 2012. Mississippi certified its data for the 2009-

2011 time period on January 31, 2012. Tennessee also certified its data for the 2009-

2011 time period. However, because Arkansas did not certify its data for 2009-20 11, 

EPA only considered the 2008-20 10 data in making its designation for the MS-TN-AR 

designations. 

Mississippi asserts that EPA should have considered the most recent data, as it is the 

best scientific evidence of air quality in Mississippi and Tennessee at the current time. 

EPA stated unequivocally, indeed reiterated, in its Responses to Significant Comments 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, April 30, 2012: "As stated in the previous response, we are relying 

on the most recent three years of certified data to designate areas for the 2008 NAAQS." 

Nonetheless, EPA ignored the most recent three years of certified data from Mississippi 

and Tennessee in making its designations. 

Even if EPA did not rely on the 2009-2011 data exclusively in making its 

designation, it could and should have relied on the data as proof of the facts and data 

asserted by Mississippi in its significant comments to the EPA preliminary designations. 

The most recent data demonstrates conclusively that DeSoto County does not impact the 

air quality in Tennessee as all of the Tennessee monitors have been certified to be in 

attainment during the 2009-20 11 time period. 

Mississippi is and has always been in attainment. The most recent certified data 

demonstrates overwhelmingly that despite growth in population in DeSoto County, the 

Tennessee monitors are not affected by Mississippi. Indeed, both Mississippi and 

Tennessee demonstrated by certified data that both states are in attainment. It defies 

logic for EPA to ignore this most recent data and draw conclusions based on old data 

when those conclusions are proven unequivocally to be wrong by the most recent 

certified data. The result is unnecessarily punitive to Mississippi and DeSoto County.
B. Failure to give DeSoto County creditfor voluntary measures, as promised in 

EPA's visit to DeSoto County in 2007. 

In 2007, EPA Region 4 representatives came to DeSoto County and met with its 

leadership. At that meeting, EPA stressed the importance of having local voluntary 

measures in place, thoroughly documenting those efforts and providing the information to 

EPA. EPA said that the information would be used for boundary determinations. 

Since that time, DeSoto County has not only had those measures in place, but the data 

indicate that DeSoto is making great strides in its control of emissions, as is evidenced by 

the numbers provided in MDEQ's TSD. Despite representations of EPA staff, and 

despite the proof of the success of those voluntary initiatives, EPA failed to recognize the 

significance of the reduced emissions or to give DeSoto County any consideration 

thereof. 

The approach which EPA has taken in making its boundary determinations is only 

specified in the CAA for serious areas. DeSoto County has complied with all EPA 

requests to voluntarily reduce ozone emissions, and relied on EPA's representations that 

the same would be favorably considered when designation boundaries were determined. 

EPA should reconsider it designation of nonattainment for DeSoto County, and designate 

it as attainment. At a bare minimum, EPA should designate DeSoto County as 

attainment/unclassifiable. 

C. EPA 's designation of nonattainment in 2012 is evidence of the arbitrary 

and capricious nature of the agency's action after the designation of attainment in 

2004.

EPA responded to Mississippi's argument that DeSoto County was not included 

within the boundary for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, and therefore should not be included in the 2012 boundary designations by 

stating two things, both of which are in error. 

First, EPA asserts that "EPA must analyze the situation anew for purposes of the 

new, more stringent NAAQS promulgated in 2008, based on the most recent information 

now available." As set forth above, EPA did not rely on the most recent information 

available for DeSoto County, instead relying on information that is three years old. The 

most recent information available demonstrates conclusively that not only is DeSoto 

County meeting the more stringent standard, its numbers continue to trend downward. 

Second, EPA asserts that "[t]here has been growth throughout the entire Memphis 

area since EPA last designated ozone areas and the technical information [EPA] is 

relying on now, in 2012, is different than the information we relied on in 2004 for the 

1997 NAAQS." Mississippi maintains that the numbers presented refute the conclusion 

that EPA has drawn - despite the population growth and increase in VMT's - the 

numbers for DeSoto County have gone down. Not only are the numbers at least as good 

as those from the 2004 decision, they are better.
DeSoto County should be able to rely on past precedent to determine what actions 

EPA will take. Such consistency is what guides the public and the regulatory agencies in 

the actions they take. DeSoto County relied on previous EPA decisions, and on 

representations from EPA staff, as discussed above, to take actions to reduce emissions. 

Having not only maintained their attainment status, DeSoto County improved upon it and 

met the newer, more stringent standards. EPA should reconsider its 2012 decision and be 

consistent with previous decisions, given DeSoto County's proof as set forth in MI)EQ's 

TSD.

II. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC FACTOR ANALYSIS 

Factor 1 —Air Quality Data 

In consideration of this factor, only air quality data should be used to provide a 

rationale for determining nonattainment boundaries. Meteorological conditions should 

not be analyzed under this factor; however, because EPA did include it, these comments 

will be addressed. 

In EPA's TSD, EPA cites comments from Arkansas concerning the ArkansasTennessee-Mississippi Ozone Study (ATMOS). EPA states that a key point of this 

analysis indicates that the monitoring site with the maximum design value for the area 

varies from year to year based on the frequency of meteorological conditions that are 

conducive to high ozone concentrations at the specific monitoring sites. However, EPA 

failed to acknowledge that DeSoto County has never had the highest ozone design value 

in the Memphis area for any year, going back to at least the 1995-1997 period. Further, 

the results of the ATMOS study also showed that DeSoto County had less than a 1 ppb 

contribution to the ozone levels in the Memphis area. MDEQ asserts this is not a 

sufficient contribution, even when combined with the other nine factors, to warrant a 

designation of nonattainment. Because EPA cites this study as part of their rationale to 

include DeSoto County in the Memphis nonattainment area, all of the results of this study 

should be used - not just the parts that seem to justify their position. If it is so used, the 

study will plainly support Mississippi's position that DeSoto County does not sufficiently 

contribute to the emissions in Shelby County, Tennessee. 

The following table from the ATMOS study' shows the projected 2010 ozone 

design value at the Memphis-Frayser monitor would be 88.14 ppb including DeSoto 

County emissions. The projected design value at the same site with no DeSoto County 

emissions would be 87.35 ppb. This means that DeSoto County's contribution to the 

ozone concentrations at the Memphis-Frayser monitoring site was 0.79 ppb. However, 

the actual 2010 design value at the Frayser monitor was 76 ppb, meaning that the model 

greatly over estimated ozone concentrations, thus DeSoto County's actual contribution is 

likely even lower. While the modeling was based on a 1999 episode, DeSoto County's 

The ATMOS information can be found at li mos.saint!.com. The results are in an interactive 

software format, where inquiries can be made by the user. It can also be found in the MDEQ TSD 

submitted to EPA on January 27, 2004.
2010 SensitAty Zero


Anthropogenic Emissions from


DeSoto County 

Revised Baseline-2010 

(NONROAD 2002 Update)

VOC emissions have decreased by 26% and NOx emissions have increased only 3% 

since that time. 

Estimated Design Value (99DV = 95 ppb) for 9-Cell


Daily Peak 8-Hr Ozone Concentration (ppb) at the 


Memphis, TN Monitor 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Concentration (ppb) 

The ATMOS results show a minimal contribution 0.79 ppb to the MemphisFrayser monitor in 1999, Based on the latest available data, DeSoto County VOC 

emissions decreased and NOx emissions remained about the same. Thus, the DeSoto 

County ozone contribution should be less than 0.79 ppb currently. 

It is clear that the ATMOS projected design values were overestimated; however 

the model overestimated the amount of ozone produced by the emissions because it 

started with a higher baseline. In short, that means that ozone concentrations were much 

higher at that time. This also demonstrates that more emission reductions have occurred 

since that time than what the model accounted for, resulting in lower ozone 

concentrations. 

The ATMOS model demonstrates how negligible contributions from DeSoto 

County were, even when ozone values were higher. The emissions have stayed the same 

for NOx and are lower for VOCs since the model was run. Therefore, DeSoto County's 

ozone contribution is even lower now. 

Factor 2— Emissions and Emissions Related Data
A. Emissions Data (location of sources and contribution to ozone 

concentrations) 

EPA's TSD only addressed the general comparative amounts of emissions from 

DeSoto, Crittenden, and Shelby Counties. It did not address particular activities that 

make up the emissions or their locations. 

In MDEQ's TSD, a map (designated as Figure 2 in MDEQ's TSD) was included 

which showed the locations of the monitors in the area along with both the major 

emissions sources the locations of major interstates, railways, waterways, ports and truck 

centers. The map and supporting narrative demonstrates conclusively that the areas and 

activities - point sources, rail centers, river ports, major interstate intersections and truck 

centers- that generate significant emissions are not only concentrated in Shelby and 

Crittenden Counties, but also are in very close proximity to the monitors in Shelby and 

Crittenden Counties with the highest ozone readings. 

In particular, the amount of commerce-related activities in the area that are primarily 

in Shelby and Crittenden Counties rather that DeSoto County is shown. This information 

was, in summary: 

• Interstate 40 which is one of the largest trucking routes in the nation and 1-55 

intersect in Shelby and Crittenden Counties. 

• Crittenden County is the number one point of diesel sales in the country with nine 

truck centers in relatively close proximity to the Crittenden county monitor. 

• The Memphis International Airport with the FedEx "super hub" is located in 

Shelby County. 

• Memphis is the number three rail center in the United States with large intermodal 

facilities in Shelby and Crittenden Counties. 

• The International Port of Memphis is the fourth largest inland port in the United 

States. 

This puts the large majority of emissions generating activities in Shelby and 

Crittenden Counties, and not in DeSoto County. In the final TSD, EPA stated it 

"considered all the additional information provided by the states in the analysis"; 

however, EPA did not specifically address or comment on these emissions sources and 

their contribution to the ozone levels in the area. 

EPA has recognized that raw numbers and percentages of commuters and VMT's 

"does not adequately take into account ... [a] large volume of diesel truck traffic[] on the 

major highways running through th[e] area." ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA, 669 

F.3d 330 (D.C. Cir., 2012). Because these factors are factors on which EPA substantially 

relied in making its boundary determination, it is incumbent upon EPA to recognize and 

properly assess the impact of this commerce- related traffic in Shelby and Crittenden 

Counties.
As such, MDEQ asserts that there is overwhelming evidence that activities in 

Crittenden County, Arkansas and Shelby County, Tennessee are negatively impacting 

the air quality in the region - not emissions from DeSoto County, Mississippi. 

B. Population Density and Degree of Urbanization 

DeSoto County has experienced moderate growth, approximately five percent (5%) 

per year since 2000. However, the growth rate has slowed significantly since 2006. The 

EPA-TSD cites a growth rate of 48% over the last decade, but using a percentage based 

rate is misleading due to the county's relatively low 2000 population. The actual 

increase in numbers is 53,000 people over the last decade. Compared to the population 

of Shelby County (927,000) or the entire Memphis MSA (1,316,000), the growth is not 

significant. Consider if the population of DeSoto County were only 100 people, but that 

100 doubled to 200 over the same ten (10) year period. Even though the growth rate 

would be 100%, that 100% would still be so minimal that the overall impact would not 

even register. Using growth rate percentages is not a reasonable measure of sufficient 

contribution - raw numbers are by far the best scientific evidence. 

EPA states that "Rapid population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth in a 

county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integration with the core urban area, 

and indicates that it may be appropriate to include the county/area associated with the 

area source and mobile source emissions as contributing to the area violation, even if the 

monitor in that county is attaining the ozone NAAQS." However, EPA provided no 

documentation or reference in support of this statement. Further, while DeSoto County 

has experienced growth, the ozone values in the County, as well as other monitors in the 

area, have actually steadily decreased. The following chart (designated as Chart 7 of 

MDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 Day Letter) shows the growth trend and the ozone 

values since 2000. If the population growth in DeSoto County were a contributing factor, 

then it would be evidenced by increased ozone readings by the DeSoto County monitor, 

which obviously hasn't occurred.
DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Values 

2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2006	2009	2010	2011


Veir 

-- DeSoto	. Shelby - Orgill -- Shelby - Frayser - Crittenden - - DeSoto Population 

Chart 7: DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Values 

Simple deductive reasoning therefore disproves EPA's unsupported claim that the 

increase in population contributes to increased ozone levels. Not only has the increased 

population of DeSoto County not resulted in increased monitor readings, DeSoto County 

has maintained the lowest averaged monitor reading within the area. EPA failed to 

acknowledge this error of fact and reason, as supported by the best available science. 

C. Traffic and Commuting Patterns 

Again, EPA states that "Rapid population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth in 

a county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integration with the core urban area, 

and indicates that it may be appropriate to include the county/area associated with the 

area source and mobile source emissions as contributing to the area violation, even if the 

monitor in that county is attaining the ozone NAAQS." Again, EPA provided no 

documentation or reference in support of this statement. Further, while DeSoto County 

has experienced growth, the ozone values in the County, as well as other monitors in the 

area, have actually steadily decreased. EPA' s conclusion is simply not supported by the 

best scientific evidence. 

EPA also failed to examine or address the much higher than average commercial 

heavy duty diesel traffic in both Shelby County, TN and Crittenden County, AR. Heavy 

duty diesel truck emissions are a significant source of NOx emissions. The following 

figure (designated as Figure 3 of MDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 Day Letter) shows the 

truck traffic along the interstates across the southeast portion of the country.
National Highway System Routes 

Interstate 

Non-Interstate 

FAF Truck VolumelDay 

Figure 3: Average Daily Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Traffic (2007 

Interstate 40 is one of the busiest routes for heavy duty diesel truck traffic in the 

nation, and passes directly through Shelby and Crittenden Counties. Along 1-40 over 

50% of the traffic in Crittenden County and 35% in Shelby County is from heavy duty 

diesel trucks. In DeSoto County, 18% of the rural interstate traffic along 1-55 is from 

heavy duty diesel trucks, which is slightly below the national rural interstate average of 

19%. It should be noted that, as seen in Figure 2 of MDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 

Day Letter, the Shelby County - Frayser monitor and the Crittenden County Monitor are 

both in close proximity to Interstate 40. 

In addition to 1-40, Shelby County and Crittenden County have significant 

commerce related traffic. The Memphis International Airport is located approximately 

three miles south of the central business district of Memphis and is home to the main 

FedEx Express global "Super Hub", which processes a significant portion of the freight 

carrier's packages. The airport also serves as a hub for Delta Airlines. 

The International Port of Memphis is fourth largest inland Port in the United 

States and covers the Tennessee and Arkansas sides of the Mississippi River. The
Memphis! West Memphis area is the number three rail center in the United States with 

significant intermodal rail facilities in both Crittenden and Shelby Counties. West 

Memphis Arkansas also has the highest diesel sales in the nation with nine diesel fuel 

truck centers. Many of the truck centers are grouped together and are in close proximity 

to the Crittenden County monitor. This commerce activity poses a much more 

significant emissions contribution to the violating monitors than emissions in DeSoto 

County.

EPA also relied on the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NET) to supply the 

emissions data. The 2008 NET incorrectly lists DeSoto County as having higher heavy 

duty diesel truck emissions than Crittenden County. Since the amount of heavy duty 

diesel truck traffic, and associated heavy duty diesel truck VMT is higher in Crittenden 

County, the 2008 NET is incorrect in representing DeSoto County as having higher 

emissions associated with this sector. Thus, EPA relied in part on erroneous information 

in making its boundary designation. 

LI. Growth Rates and Patterns 

DeSoto County has experienced moderate growth, approximately 5% per year since 

2000. However, the growth rate has slowed significantly since 2006. The EPA-TSD 

cites a growth rate of 48% over the last decade, but using a percentage based rate is 

misleading because of the counties relatively low 2000 population. The real increase in 

numbers is 53,000 people over the last decade. Compared to the population of Shelby 

County (927,000) or the entire Memphis MSA (1,316,000), the growth is not significant. 

EPA states that "Rapid population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth (see 

below) in a county on the urban perimeter signifies increasing integration with the core 

urban area, and indicates that it may be appropriate to include the county!area associated 

with the area source and mobile source emissions as contributing to the area violation, 

even if the monitor in that county is attaining the ozone NAAQS." However, EPA 

provided no documentation or reference to prove this statement. While DeSoto County 

has experienced growth, the ozone values in the County, as well as other monitors in the 

area, have actually decreased steadily. The following chart (designated as Chart 7 of 

MDEQ's Response to EPA's 120 Day Letter) shows the growth trend and the ozone 

values since 2000. If the population growth in DeSoto County were a contributing factor, 

then it would be evidenced by increased ozone readings by the DeSoto County monitor, 

which obviously hasn't occurred.
DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Values 

2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011


Year 

—+— DeSoto	• Shelby - Orgill	Shelby - Frayser - Crittenden - - DeSoto Population 

Chart 7: DeSoto County Growth versus Ozone Design Values 

E. Level of Control of Emission Sources 

EPA's technical support document did not address this factor at all. As stated in 

MDEQ's factor analysis, there are few major sources in the county to control. The few 

facilities located in Mississippi are well controlled. Southaven Power is a newer gas 

cogeneration plant that meets BACT standards, Rexam Beverage Can has VOC capture 

and control devices to control emissions beyond NSPS requirements, and Texas Gas has 

voluntarily opted to include operational restrictions in its permit that reduces NOx 

emissions during Ozone Season. Thus, while there are only a few major sources to 

control, those sources have worked with MDEQ through their permits to engage controls 

that far exceed any state andlor federal requirements. 

Mobile and area sources are the largest category of emissions in the area and MDEQ 

and the governances in the area have put measures in place to reduce those emissions to 

improve the air quality in DeSoto County. Mississippi has revised the Air Pollution 

Regulations to prohibit all open burning on Ozone Action Days. Open Burning is banned 

on all days in Hernando. Also, DeSoto County and the cities within the county have 

enacted strict idle reduction policies to reduce mobile source emissions from the county. 

A marginal non attainment designation will not require further controls from mobile 

or area sources in DeSoto County, nor will local controls be necessary to reduce 

emissions in the area. As previously stated, mobile source emissions will be drastically 

reduced over the next several years due to national emission control standards effecting 

mobile sources.
MIDEQ asserts that EPA unsoundly applied its analysis of meteorology in its use 

of the HYSPLIT model and its use of wind roses as indicators of atmospheric transport. 

MDEQ showed conclusively the following factors: 

. On most days, 24-hour back trajectories were less than 200 miles long for the 

Memphis-Frayser site during the period of 2006-2010, indicating that the average 

wind speeds were less than 8 mph. 

When there is a light wind regime, wind directions can vary significantly at the 

surface. 

HYSPLIT uses surface and upper air wind conditions to calculate back 

trajectories. In this case, surface winds from the Memphis NWS station were 

used, but the closest upper-air wind data site is located in Little Rock, Arkansas - 

—130 miles from Memphis. 

HYSPLIT is not accurate under light wind conditions because of the light wind 

direction variability. 

Because of these issues, a back trajectory analysis using HYSPLIT is patently 

unreliable in determining if transport was occurring on most ozone exceedance days. 

EPA also included surface wind roses for the Memphis area as additional 

analyses. Even while EPA conceded in its Response to Significant Comments that the 

use of wind roses as the sole indicator of atmospheric transport is not the preferable 

approach, EPA's use of wind roses showed wind direction variability, which EPA then 

wholly failed to factor into their analysis. 

Finally, EPA cites comments from Arkansas concerning the ATMOS study 

(discussed in under Factor 1 - Air Quality Data). EPA states that a key point of this 

analysis indicates that the monitoring site with the maximum design value for the area 

varies from year to year based on the frequency of meteorological conditions that are 

conducive to high ozone concentrations at the specific monitoring sites. EPA further 

states that their analyses indicated that the maximum ozone design value monitor moves 

based on the predominant winds during a three-year period and all monitors should be 

considered. Significantly, EPA failed to state that DeSoto County has never had the 

highest ozone design value in the Memphis area for any year, going back to at least to the 

1995-1997 period. 

Thus, EPA failed to apply the best available scientific evidence in a sound 

manner, as a sound application cannot prove by any reasonable deduction that DeSoto
County is sufficiently contributing to violations at the offending monitor - or at any other 

monitor in the designated boundary. 

EPA stated that sources in DeSoto County could possibly have contributed to 

elevated ozone locations at the Shelby County Frayser ozone monitor. Given the 

significance of a designation of nonattainment, "possible" contribution should not be 

equated with "sufficient" contribution. In addition, the back trajectories shown in the 

TSD travel over areas of Memphis prior to arriving at the Frayser monitor with much 

higher NOx and VOC emissions density than DeSoto County. This information was not 

taken into consideration by EPA. 

The TSD also states that "EPA's analysis of meteorology and the conceptual 

model for high ozone events in the Memphis area suggests that DeSoto County is 

contributing to the violation in Shelby County..." Again, a "suggestion" is not a strong 

basis for including DeSoto County in the non-attainment area based on sufficient 

contribution. 

In its Responses to Significant Comments, EPA states "In those cases where 

timing constraints and the lack of additional information prevented a more detailed 

assessment, EPA believes the default wind rose analyses, in conjunction with the 

remainder of the multi-factor analysis, can provide an adequate assessment of appropriate 

boundaries." MDEQ believes this statement indicates that EPA rushed to judgment, 

thereby failing to base its decision on the best available scientific knowledge. MDEQ 

went to great lengths to provide EPA with detailed information in order that EPA could 

adequately evaluate the significance the best available science has on its decision. While 

MDEQ is aware of and understands time constraints, for EPA to ignore the best available 

science when it is fairly presented results in a punitive decision for Mississippi and 

DeSoto County, which decision should be reconsidered. 

Factor 4- Geography / Topography 

All parties agree that this factor is not a significant factor in the analysis. 

Factor 5— Jurisdictional Boundaries 

EPA's Final TSD states "[o]nce EPA identified the general areas that the Agency 

anticipated would be included in the non-attainment area, EPA then considered existing 

jurisdictional boundaries for the purpose of providing a clearly defined legal boundary 

and to help identify the areas appropriate for carrying out the air quality planning and 

enforcement functions for non-attainment areas." While state and county barriers do not 

stop the flow of air from one area to another, they should be given greater consideration 

in the case of DeSoto County. 

As previously noted, the monitor in DeSoto County has always attained the 

Ozone standard. Section 181 of the Clean Air Act sets forth the requirements for areas 

that are designated as non-attainment and the methods for coming back into attainment
and being reclassified as attainment. Section 126 of the CAA even gives a non-attaining 

area the ability to address emissions from upwind sources. While EPA asserts that 

DeSoto County is contributing to the violations in Shelby County, they do so based on 

DeSoto County's growth, having the second highest population, VMT, and emissions in 

the area, even though they are a distant second compared to Shelby County. It is clear 

that EPA included DeSoto County because it "may be" or "appears" to "possibly" be 

contributing. 

Since DeSoto County is in a separate state from the counties with the violating 

monitor and the bulk of the emissions, if it is designated as non-attainment, it would be 

stuck with the designation without being afforded the provisions in the CAA to get back 

into attainment. The county's monitor is attaining the standard and there is no indication 

that even the most stringent controls put in place in the County would help Shelby 

County, Tennessee attain the standard. Accordingly, DeSoto County should only be 

included if there is viable strong evidence that it is significantly contributing to the 

exceedences in Crittendon and Shelby - a non-attainment designation should not be 

based on mere suggestion or speculation that DeSoto County may be contributing to 

exceedences in the other counties.. The information presented under the other factors 

demonstrates that DeSoto County is not sufficiently impacting or contributing to the 

violations in Shelby County. The boundary for the nonattainment area should be state 

line and DeSoto County should not be included in the nonattainment area. 

DeSoto County has no defmed legal authority for the purpose of carrying out the 

air quality planning and enforcement functions for adjacent nonattainment areas. 

Commercial traffic on 1-40 and other industrial sources near the offending monitor are all 

under control of Tennessee and Arkansas. The consideration of this factor points most 

strongly in excluding DeSoto County from the nonattainment designation. 

For the reasons set forth above, Mississippi hereby petitions EPA to reconsider its 

decision to include the northern portion of DeSoto County, Mississippi, in the boundary 

for its nonattainment designation. EPA can, within its discretion, recognize the errors it 

made in its designation decision, and more appropriately apply the best and most recent 

scientific data to exclude DeSoto County. Exclusion would be consistent with prior EPA 

decisions, and would be well supported by the scientific evidence adduced by MDEQ. 

Further, the case-by-case evaluation of the guidance factors supports the exclusion of 

DeSoto County and would not be inconsistent with the treatment of any other entities 

within EPA's regulatory control.