# STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

PHIL BRYANT

GOVERNOR



# MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

TRUDY D. FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR



# July 17, 2012

Ms. Lisa Jackson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USEPA Headquarters

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Mississippi Petition for Reconsideration of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment

Designation for the Northern Portion of DeSoto County, Mississippi

Dear Ms. Jackson:

Attached is the Mississippi Petition for Reconsideration regarding the EPA 2008 8-hour

ozone non-attainment designation for the northern portion of DeSoto County, Mississippi. This

petition addresses each of the factors listed in the EPA Technical Support Document for the

Memphis TN-MS-AR metropolitan area.

For the reasons set forth in the petition, Mississippi requests that EPA reconsider its

decision to include the northern portion of DeSoto County in the Memphis non-attainment area.

EPA can, within its discretion, recognize the errors made in its designation decision, and more

appropriately apply the best and 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 the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. Further, the case-bycase 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.

Thank you for your consideration.

Trudy Fisl€r

Executive Director

Attachment

cc: Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 4 (w/attachment)

POST OFFICE Box 2261 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39225-2261 • TEL: (601) 961-5000 • FAx: (601) 961-5794 • www.deq.state.ms.us

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERPETITIONFORRECONSIDERATIONTheMississippiDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality(“MDEQ”)respectfullyrequeststhattheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(“EPA”)reconsideritsdesignationofnonattainmentforthenorthernportionofDeSotoCounty,Mississippi.Insupportofitsrequest,MDEQaddresseseachofthefactorssetforthintheDecember4,2008guidancememorandum“AreaDesignationforthe2008RevisedOzoneNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards”astheninefactorsaregroupedbyEPAinitsdesignationTechnicalSupportDocument.Inaddition,MDEQprovidesadditional,generalobjectionsandcomments.I.GENERALOBJECTIONSA.FailuretorelyonortootherwiseconsidermostrecentcertifieddataPriortomakingitsfinaldesignations,EPAindicatedthatinorderforittoconsiderairqualitydataforthemostrecenttimeperiodof2009-2011,itwouldneedtoreceivethestates’certifieddatabyFebruary29,2012.Mississippicertifieditsdataforthe2009-2011timeperiodonJanuary31,2012.Tennesseealsocertifieditsdataforthe2009-2011timeperiod.However,becauseArkansasdidnotcertif’itsdatafor2009-2011,EPAonlyconsideredthe2008-2010datainmakingitsdesignationfortheMS-TN-ARdesignations.MississippiassertsthatEPAshouldhaveconsideredthemostrecentdata,asitisthebestscientificevidenceofairqualityinMississippiandTennesseeatthecurrenttime.EPAstatedunequivocally,indeedreiterated,initsResponsestoSignificantComments2008OzoneNAAQS,April30,2012:“Asstatedinthepreviousresponse,wearerelyingonthemostrecentthreeyearsofcertifieddatatodesignateareasforthe2008NAAQS.”Nonetheless,EPAignoredthemostrecentthreeyearsofcertifieddatafromMississippiandTennesseeinmakingitsdesignations.EvenifEPAdidnotrelyonthe2009-2011dataexclusivelyinmakingitsdesignation,itcouldandshouldhavereliedonthedataasproofofthefactsanddataassertedbyMississippiinitssignificantcommentstotheEPApreliminarydesignations.ThemostrecentdatademonstratesconclusivelythatDeSotoCountydoesnotimpacttheairqualityinTennesseeasalloftheTennesseemonitorshavebeencertifiedtobeinattainmentduringthe2009-2011timeperiod.Mississippiisandhasalwaysbeeninattainment.ThemostrecentcertifieddatademonstratesoverwhelminglythatdespitegrowthinpopulationinDeSotoCounty,theTennesseemonitorsarenotaffectedbyMississippi.Indeed,bothMississippiandTennesseedemonstratedbycertifieddatathatbothstatesareinattainment.ItdefieslogicforEPAtoignorethismostrecentdataanddrawconclusionsbasedonolddatawhenthoseconclusionsareprovenunequivocallytobewrongbythemostrecentcertifieddata.TheresultisunnecessarilypunitivetoMississippiandDeSotoCounty.IB.FailuretogiveDeSotoCountycreditforvoluntarymeasures,aspromisedinEPA’svisittoDeSotoCountyin2007.In2007,EPARegion4representativescametoDeSotoCountyandmetwithitsleadership.Atthatmeeting,EPAstressedtheimportanceofhavinglocalvoluntarymeasuresinplace,thoroughlydocumentingthoseeffortsandprovidingtheinformationtoEPA.EPAsaidthattheinformationwouldbeusedforboundarydeterminations.Sincethattime,DeSotoCountyhasnotonlyhadthosemeasuresinplace,butthedataindicatethatDeSotoismakinggreatstridesinitscontrolofemissions,asisevidencedbythenumbersprovidedinMDEQ’sTSD.DespiterepresentationsofEPAstaff,anddespitetheproofofthesuccessofthosevoluntaryinitiatives,EPAfailedtorecognizethesignificanceofthereducedemissionsortogiveDeSotoCountyanyconsiderationthereof.TheapproachwhichEPAhastakeninmakingitsboundarydeterminationsisonlyspecifiedintheCAAforseriousareas.DeSotoCountyhascompliedwithallEPArequeststovoluntarilyreduceozoneemissions,andreliedonsrepresentationsthatthesamewouldbefavorablyconsideredwhendesignationboundariesweredetermined.EPAshouldreconsideritdesignationofnonattainmentforDeSotoCounty,anddesignateitasattainment.Atabareminimum,EPAshoulddesignateDeSotoCountyasattainment/unclassifiable.C.EPA‘sdesignationofnonattainmentin2012isevidenceofthearbitraryandcapriciousnatureoftheagency’sactionafterthedesignationofattainmentin2004.EPArespondedtoMississippi’sargumentthatDeSotoCountywasnotincludedwithintheboundaryfortheMemphis,TN-MS-ARnonattainmentareaforthe1997ozoneNAAQS,andthereforeshouldnotbeincludedinthe2012boundarydesignationsbystatingtwothings,bothofwhichareinerror.First,EPAassertsthat“EPAmustanalyzethesituationanewforpurposesofthenew,morestringentNAAQSpromulgatedin2008,basedonthemostrecentinformationnowavailable.”Assetforthabove,EPAdidnotrelyonthemostrecentinformationavailableforDeSotoCounty,insteadrelyingoninformationthatisthreeyearsold.ThemostrecentinformationavailabledemonstratesconclusivelythatnotonlyisDeSotoCountymeetingthemorestringentstandard,itsnumberscontinuetotrenddownward.Second,EPAassertsthat“[t]herehasbeengrowththroughouttheentireMemphisareasinceEPAlastdesignatedozoneareasandthetechnicalinformation[EPA]isrelyingonnow,in2012,isdifferentthantheinformationwereliedonin2004forthe1997NAAQS.”MississippimaintainsthatthenumberspresentedrefutetheconclusionthatEPAhasdrawn—despitethepopulationgrowthandincreaseinVMT’s—thenumbersforDeSotoCountyhavegonedown.Notonlyarethenumbersatleastasgoodasthosefromthe2004decision,theyarebetter.2DeSoto 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’s1 The ATMOS information

can

be found

at http://atrnos.saintl.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.

3VOCemissionshavedecreasedby26%andNOxemissionshaveincreasedonly3%sincethattime.EstimatedDesignValue(99DV=95ppb)for9-CellDailyPeak8-HrOzoneConcentration(ppb)attheMemphis,TNMonitor2010Sensith.ity:ZeroAnthropogenicEmissionsfromDeSotoCountyRevisedBaseline—2010(NONROAD2002Update)Concentration(ppb)TheATMOSresultsshowaminimalcontribution0.79ppbtotheMemphisFraysermonitorin1999.Basedonthelatestavailabledata,DeSotoCountyVOCemissionsdecreasedandNOxemissionsremainedaboutthesame.Thus,theDeSotoCountyozonecontributionshouldbelessthan0.79ppbcurrently.ItisclearthattheATMOSprojecteddesignvalueswereoverestimated;howeverthemodeloverestimatedtheamountofozoneproducedbytheemissionsbecauseitstartedwithahigherbaseline.Inshort,thatmeansthatozoneconcentrationsweremuchhigheratthattime.Thisalsodemonstratesthatmoreemissionreductionshaveoccurredsincethattimethanwhatthemodelaccountedfor,resultinginlowerozoneconcentrations.TheATMOSmodeldemonstrateshownegligiblecontributionsfromDeSotoCountywere,evenwhenozonevalueswerehigher.TheemissionshavestayedthesameforNOxandarelowerforVOCssincethemodelwasrun.Therefore,DeSotoCounty’sozonecontributionisevenlowernow.Factor2—EmissionsandEmissionsRelatedData01020304050607080901004A.EmissionsData(locationofsourcesandcontributiontoozoneconcentrations)EPA’sTSDonlyaddressedthegeneralcomparativeamountsofemissionsfromDeSoto,Crittenden,andShelbyCounties.Itdidnotaddressparticularactivitiesthatmakeuptheemissionsortheirlocations.InMDEQ’sTSD,amap(designatedasFigure2inMDEQ’sTSD)wasincludedwhichshowedthelocationsofthemonitorsintheareaalongwithboththemajoremissionssourcesthelocationsofmajorinterstates,railways,waterways,portsandtruckcenters.Themapandsupportingnarrativedemonstratesconclusivelythattheareasandactivities—pointsources,railcenters,riverports,majorinterstateintersectionsandtruckcenters-thatgeneratesignificantemissionsarenotonlyconcentratedinShelbyandCrittendenCounties,butalsoareinverycloseproximitytothemonitorsinShelbyandCrittendenCountieswiththehighestozonereadings.Inparticular,theamountofcommerce-relatedactivitiesintheareathatareprimarilyinShelbyandCrittendenCountiesratherthatDeSotoCountyisshown.Thisinformationwas,insummary:•Interstate40whichisoneofthelargesttruckingroutesinthenationand1-55intersectinShelbyandCrittendenCounties.•CrittendenCountyisthenumberonepointofdieselsalesinthecountrywithninetruckcentersinrelativelycloseproximitytotheCrittendencountymonitor.•TheMemphisInternationalAirportwiththeFedEx“superhub”islocatedinShelbyCounty.•MemphisisthenumberthreerailcenterintheUnitedStateswithlargeintermodalfacilitiesinShelbyandCrittendenCounties.•TheInternationalPortofMemphisisthefourthlargestinlandportintheUnitedStates.ThisputsthelargemajorityofemissionsgeneratingactivitiesinShelbyandCrittendenCounties,andnotinDeSotoCounty.InthefinalTSD,EPAstatedit“consideredalltheadditionalinformationprovidedbythestatesintheanalysis”;however,EPAdidnotspecificallyaddressorcommentontheseemissionssourcesandtheircontributiontotheozonelevelsinthearea.EPAhasrecognizedthatrawnumbersandpercentagesofcommutersandVMT’s“doesnotadequatelytakeintoaccount...[a]largevolumeofdieseltrucktraffic[]onthemajorhighwaysrunningthroughth[e]area.”ATKLaunchSystems,Inc.v.EPA,669F3d330(D.C.Cir.,2012).BecausethesefactorsarefactorsonwhichEPAsubstantiallyreliedinmakingitsboundarydetermination,itisincumbentuponEPAtorecognizeandproperlyassesstheimpactofthiscommerce-relatedtrafficinShelbyandCrittendenCounties.5Assuch,MDEQassertsthatthereisoverwhelmingevidencethatactivitiesinCrittendenCounty,ArkansasandShelbyCounty,Tennesseearenegativelyimpactingtheairqualityintheregion—notemissionsfromDeSotoCounty,Mississippi.B.PopulationDensityandDegreeofUrbanizationDeSotoCountyhasexperiencedmoderategrowth,approximatelyfivepercent(5%)peryearsince2000.However,thegrowthratehasslowedsignificantlysince2006.TheEPA-TSDcitesagrowthrateof48%overthelastdecade,butusingapercentagebasedrateismisleadingduetothecounty’srelativelylow2000population.Theactualincreaseinnumbersis53,000peopleoverthelastdecade.ComparedtothepopulationofShelbyCounty(927,000)ortheentireMemphisMSA(1,316,000),thegrowthisnotsignificant.ConsiderifthepopulationofDeSotoCountywereonly100people,butthat100doubledto200overthesameten(10)yearperiod.Eventhoughthegrowthratewouldbe100%,that100%wouldstillbesominimalthattheoverallimpactwouldnotevenregister.Usinggrowthratepercentagesisnotareasonablemeasureofsufficientcontribution—rawnumbersarebyfarthebestscientificevidence.EPAstatesthat“Rapidpopulationorvehiclemilestraveled(VMT)growthinacountyontheurbanperimetersignifiesincreasingintegrationwiththecoreurbanarea,andindicatesthatitmaybeappropriatetoincludethecounty/areaassociatedwiththeareasourceandmobilesourceemissionsascontributingtotheareaviolation,evenifthemonitorinthatcountyisattainingtheozoneNAAQS.”However,EPAprovidednodocumentationorreferenceinsupportofthisstatement.Further,whileDeSotoCountyhasexperiencedgrowth,theozonevaluesintheCounty,aswellasothermonitorsinthearea,haveactuallysteadilydecreased.Thefollowingchart(designatedasChart7ofMDEQ’sResponsetoEPA’s120DayLetter)showsthegrowthtrendandtheozonevaluessince2000.IfthepopulationgrowthinDeSotoCountywereacontributingfactor,thenitwouldbeevidencedbyincreasedozonereadingsbytheDeSotoCountymonitor,whichobviouslyhasn’toccurred.6DeSotoCountyGrowthversusOzoneDesignValues—---DeSoto-Shelby-Orgill—Shelby-Frayser—Crittenden——DeSotoPopulationChart7:DeSotoCountyGrowthversusOzoneDesignValuesSimpledeductivereasoningthereforedisprovesEPA’sunsupportedclaimthattheincreaseinpopulationcontributestoincreasedozonelevels.NotonlyhastheincreasedpopulationofDeSotoCountynotresultedinincreasedmonitorreadings,DeSotoCountyhasmaintainedthelowestaveragedmonitorreadingwithinthearea.EPAfailedtoacknowledgethiserroroffactandreason,assupportedbythebestavailablescience.C.TrafficandCommutingPatternsAgain,EPAstatesthat“Rapidpopulationorvehiclemilestraveled(VMT)growthinacountyontheurbanperimetersignifiesincreasingintegrationwiththecoreurbanarea,andindicatesthatitmaybeappropriatetoincludethecounty/areaassociatedwiththeareasourceandmobilesourceemissionsascontributingtotheareaviolation,evenifthemonitorinthatcountyisattainingtheozoneNAAQS.”Again,EPAprovidednodocumentationorreferenceinsupportofthisstatement.Further,whileDeSotoCountyhasexperiencedgrowth,theozonevaluesintheCounty,aswellasothermonitorsinthearea,haveactuallysteadilydecreased.EPA’sconclusionissimplynotsupportedbythebestscientificevidence.EPAalsofailedtoexamineoraddressthemuchhigherthanaveragecommercialheavydutydieseltrafficinbothShelbyCounty,TNandCrittendenCounty,AR.HeavydutydieseltruckemissionsareasignificantsourceofNOxemissions.Thefollowingfigure(designatedasFigure3ofMDEQ’sResponsetoEPA’s120DayLetter)showsthetrucktrafficalongtheinterstatesacrossthesoutheastportionofthecountry.a>Ca,a)C0(aza.0a.C0C)00U,a)020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Year7InterstateNon-InterstateFAFTruckVolumelDayI50000200012500Figure3:AverageDailyHeavyDutyDieselTruckTraffic(2007Interstate40isoneofthebusiestroutesforheavydutydieseltrucktrafficinthenation,andpassesdirectlythroughShelbyandCrittendenCounties.Along1-40over50%ofthetrafficinCrittendenCountyand35%inShelbyCountyisfromheavydutydieseltrucks.InDeSotoCounty,18%oftheruralinterstatetrafficalong1-55isfromheavydutydieseltrucks,whichisslightlybelowthenationalruralinterstateaverageof19%.Itshouldbenotedthat,asseeninFigure2ofMIJEQ’sResponsetoEPA’s120DayLetter,theShelbyCounty-FraysermonitorandtheCrittendenCountyMonitorarebothincloseproximitytoInterstate40.Inadditionto1-40,ShelbyCountyandCrittendenCountyhavesignificantcommercerelatedtraffic.TheMemphisInternationalAirportislocatedapproximatelythreemilessouthofthecentralbusinessdistrictofMemphisandishometothemainFedExExpressglobal“SuperHub”,whichprocessesasignificantportionofthefreightcarrier’spackages.TheairportalsoservesasahubforDeltaAirlines.TheInternationalPortofMemphisisfourthlargestinlandPortintheUnitedStatesandcoverstheTennesseeandArkansassidesoftheMississippiRiver.TheNationalHighwaySystemRoutes8Memphis!WestMemphisareaisthenumberthreerailcenterintheUnitedStateswithsignificantintermodalrailfacilitiesinbothCrittendenandShelbyCounties.WestMemphisArkansasalsohasthehighestdieselsalesinthenationwithninedieselfueltruckcenters.ManyofthetruckcentersaregroupedtogetherandareincloseproximitytotheCrittendenCountymonitor.ThiscommerceactivityposesamuchmoresignificantemissionscontributiontotheviolatingmonitorsthanemissionsinDeSotoCounty.EPAalsoreliedonthe2008NationalEmissionsInventory(NET)tosupplytheemissionsdata.The2008NEIincorrectlylistsDeSotoCountyashavinghigherheavydutydieseltruckemissionsthanCrittendenCounty.Sincetheamountofheavydutydieseltrucktraffic,andassociatedheavydutydieseltruckVMTishigherinCrittendenCounty,the2008NEIisincorrectinrepresentingDeSotoCountyashavinghigheremissionsassociatedwiththissector.Thus,EPAreliedinpartonerroneousinformationinmakingitsboundarydesignation.D.GrowthRatesandPatternsDeSotoCountyhasexperiencedmoderategrowth,approximately5%peryearsince2000.However,thegrowthratehasslowedsignificantlysince2006.TheEPA-TSDcitesagrowthrateof48%overthelastdecade,butusingapercentagebasedrateismisleadingbecauseofthecountiesrelativelylow2000population.Therealincreaseinnumbersis53,000peopleoverthelastdecade.ComparedtothepopulationofShelbyCounty(927,000)ortheentireMemphisMSA(1,316,000),thegrowthisnotsignificant.EPAstatesthat“Rapidpopulationorvehiclemilestraveled(VMT)growth(seebelow)inacountyontheurbanperimetersignifiesincreasingintegrationwiththecoreurbanarea,andindicatesthatitmaybeappropriatetoincludethecounty/areaassociatedwiththeareasourceandmobilesourceemissionsascontributingtotheareaviolation,evenifthemonitorinthatcountyisattainingtheozoneNAAQS.”However,EPAprovidednodocumentationorreferencetoprovethisstatement.WhileDeSotoCountyhasexperiencedgrowth,theozonevaluesintheCounty,aswellasothermonitorsinthearea,haveactuallydecreasedsteadily.Thefollowingchart(designatedasChart7ofMDEQ’sResponsetoEPA’s120DayLetter)showsthegrowthtrendandtheozonevaluessince2000.IfthepopulationgrowthinDeSotoCountywereacontributingfactor,thenitwouldbeevidencedbyincreasedozonereadingsbytheDeSotoCountymonitor,whichobviouslyhasn’toccurred.900. a0.>C0C,U,00)———DeSotoShelby-Orgill—Shelby-Frayser—Crittenden——DeSoto Populationl 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 and/or 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.20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Year

10Factor

3— Meteorology 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 11County

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 12and 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 nonattainment
designation. CONCLUSION 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.

13