Enclosure

EPA Response to Petition for Reconsideration from Gas Processors Association and Texas Pipeline Association

On July 20, 2012, the Gas Processors Association and Texas Pipeline Associati on petitioned the EPA to reconsider the final area designa tion for Wise County in the Dallas- Fort Worth (DFW) area. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is denying the Petiti on. For the sake of clarity, we have organized this response according to the struct ure of the July 20, 2012 petition.

I. Emissions Trends and Inventories

Issue: The Petition states that the EPA should consider more fully emissions trends and inventories. The Petitioner also claims that a new study by Te xas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) indicates that volatile organic compounds (VOC) em issions from condensate storage tanks are likely

much lower than reflected in the em issions estimates that the EPA used.

Response: This issue was raised during the commen t period, and we responded to these comments in our Response to Comment (RTC). Thus it is not an appropriate basis for rec onsideration. We did not look at future trends, such as future reductions th at may result from new air regulations, in this designation process because that is not an appr opriate consideration unde r the Clean Air Act. See RTC at page 58 (“[w]e agree that we did not consider the impact of ne w air regulations. The implementation of new and existing regulations should result in lower ozone precursor emissions in the future; however, for purposes of designating areas, we consider whether such areas ar e “currently contributing” (i.e., current activities) to violations of the 2008 ozone National Ambien t Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and do not assess or pred ict future source emissions”). Our evaluation found that Wise County is currently contributing to violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

To clarify, we do consider past trends such as growth rates and patterns. 1 As an example, we state in the final DFW Technical Support Document (TSD) that “[r]apid growth in population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in a county on the urban perimeter si gnifies increasing integrat ion with the core urban area, and indicates that it may be appropriate to include such pe rimeter area(s) as part of the

nonattainment area” See TSD page 9. This information is helpful in the five factor an alysis to determine if an area is contributing to a violation.

With regards to condensate emissions, we considered th e most recent data available at the time that we issued the designations. We consid ered potential overestimation of emissions from condensate storage

tanks in Texas in the context of concerns raised by Matagorda County officials in March/April 2012. At that time, TCEQ indicated to the EPA they were c onducting a further study that would be available in

draft form in Fall 2012. 2 In October 2012, TCEQ provided the EPA with a report on condensate tank emission estimates but that report has not yet been finalized. This new technical information is not an appropriate basis for reconsidera tion. As noted by the Court in Catawba v. EPA , 571 F.3d 20 at 23, “Congress imposed deadlines on the EPA and thus clea rly envisioned an end to the designation process.” We do not agree that information that was not availabl e in time for the EPA to consider while complying

1 See “Factors EPA Plans to Consider in Determining Nonattainment Boundaries in Designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS”, Attachment 2 to the December 4, 2008, EPA memorandum “Area Desi gnations for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” from Robert J. Me yers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X.

2 Final HGB TSD, pages 6-7.with the procedural requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) provides an appropriate basis for reconsidering the designations . It is important that st ates are able to rely on the completed designations and to move forward with the pl anning now required for the area.

Finally, we note, as discussed in the TSD, the DF W area is nitrogen oxide (NOx) limited; thus we believe it is unlikely that changes in the VOC inve ntory would affect EPA’s determination that that Wise County emissions c ontribute to nonattainment.

II. Adequacy of Record

Issue: The Petitioner states that generally Wise County is indistinguishable from Hood County, which was excluded from the nonattainment area, and that the rationale for excluding Hood County should also apply to Wise County.

Response: As documented in the final DFW TSD, Wise County is distinguishabl e from Hood County in several ways. The 2008 Emissions Inventory (EI) with revisions submitted by Texas in October 2011 shows that Wise County has approximately twic e the amount of NOx and VOC emissions. Wise County’s emissions are 11,911 tpy NOx and 17,609 t py VOC. Hood County’s emissions are 5,515 tpy NOx and 8,739 tons per year (tpy) VOC. TSD at 7. Additionally, Hood C ounty is further from violating monitors than Wise County (figure 1, page 3). We also summarized the EPA’s evaluation of the Source Apportionment Modeling (SAM) that indicated significant differences between contributions to ozone from Hood and Wise County in terms of both the maximum impact at a vi olating monitor (2008-2010 Design Value (DV)) and the number days with impacts greater than 0.75 ppb (parts per billion). See TSD at pages 6 – 14 and RTC pages 51 - 61.

III. Response To Comments

Issue: Petitioner claims that the EPA did not re spond to all significant comme nts, particularly the detailed examples of inconsistenc ies provided by them in their comme nt letter dated February 2, 2012.

Response: While we did not provide responses to certain comments raised during the comment period, and as referenced in your Petition, we do not believe this supports reconsideration. As provided below,

as to the technical concerns raise d, our record supports and fully explai ns our decision. Furthermore,

certain of these concerns did not address whether the EPA’s five f actor analysis for the identified areas resulted in disparate treatment, but instead made comparisons between countie s in other nonattainment

areas and the three Te xas Counties (Wise, Hood, an d Matagorda Counties) only with regard to one or

two factors out of the five factors the EPA analyzed. Comparing counties from different areas based only on one or two of the factors from the five-factor analyses is not sufficient to support a disparate treatment argument. See Catawba County, North Carolina v. EPA , 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“petitioners seize upon discrete data points and ignore the very nature of the nine-factor test, which is designed to analyze a wide variety of data on a ‘case-by-case basis.’”)

We also note that unlike most other rulemaking ac tions under the CAA, C ongress did not provide a participatory role for parties other than the states and tribes. For designations, section 107(d) of the CAA sets forth a detailed and specific process between the EPA and the states. This provision provides: (i)

that Governors of states make the initial recomme ndations to the EPA for designations and boundaries; and (ii) that the EPA provide the st ates with 120 days notice of any in tended modifications to the state recommendation prior to finalizing the designation. The 120 day notification process is for the purpose of providing “such State with an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification isinappropriate.” The CAA does not expressly provid e a role for any other entity (including local governments) and, moreover, expressly waives the notice and public comment process of the

Administrative Procedure Act fo r initial designations for new or revised NAAQS. Although no public comment period is required, the EPA opted to provide such a comment period for the 2012 ozone designations.

Specific issues raised by the Petitioner are identified below. We note that a number of the comments

raised issues about the differences between the way Wise, Matagorda and H ood Counties were treated. In the final designations, the EP A designated Hood and Matagorda Counties as attainment and the present Petition raises issues solely with regard to Wise County. Thus, we summarize the issues and present our responses below only with regard to Wise County.

Issue: Petitioner claims that there is no correlation between in creased Barnett Shale exploration and production and increased ozone. The da ta illustrate that even with increased production, ozone design values are generally down.

Response: This comment was raised during the comment period. While we did not specifically respond to this comment for the DFW area, the comment was considered by the EPA. T hus it is not appropriate

for reconsideration. The central i ssue is whether emissions from Wi se County contribute to ozone violations in nearby areas. As the record indicates, monitors in the Dallas CSA are violating the ozone standard and the EPA is required to designate areas as nonattainment if they violate the standard or

contribute to a violation in a near by area. As discussed in the RTC a nd TSD, some of the highest days during the 2006-2010 period in cluded transport of Wise County em issions (including any Barnett Shalerelated emissions) to some of the highest ozone exceedances at the Eagle Mountain Lake and Keller monitors, which are two of the DFW area’s monitors with the highest ozone levels. The TCEQ’s SAM also shows that emissions from Wise County (which would include Barnett Sh ale-related emissions) are transported to the violating monitors and that the amount of contributi on could be as high as 50% of the total impact on certain days with high ozone levels. 3

Design values and design value trends are a product of a number of variables, not simply the emissions of one or more types of emissions sources, whic h is why we perform a five-factor analysis in determining whether an area contributes to a violati on of the standard in a nearby area. Decreases in design values over time can occur due to many va riables, including decrea ses in ozone precursor emissions (such as in the DFW Nonattainment area due to federal measures and measures implemented by TCEQ in past ozone attainment de monstration SIPs). The fact that th e design value is lower (i.e., that ozone has not “increased”) does not preclude a determination that emissions from Wise County

contribute to exceedances at violatin g monitors in the DFW CSA.

Issue: Petitioner claims that TCEQ has demonstrat ed through complex modeli ng that it is NOx, not manmade VOCs that drive ozone formation in the DF W area and the DFW nonattainment area (NAA) is generally NOx limited. Emissions from the Barne tt Shale are primarily VOCs and further the VOC species emitted by oil and gas industry are primarily st raight alkanes, and not the highly reactive alkenes

that are linked to ozone formation.

Response: As discussed in a previous response, we recognize in the TSD and RTC that the DFW Area is

NOx limited and that reductions in man-made VOC emissions only have small effects on ozone levels in

3 See the TCEQ source apportionment modeling files, including th e Excel Spreadsheet that was placed in the record during the final action. (Hood-Wise_DVf_Contribution_wPies.xls)the DFW area. We also recognized that VOC emissions from Barnett Shale activities are predominantly

in the form of VOCs that have low reactivit y, but would not classify them as non-reactive. 4 However, contrary to the Petitioner’s assert ion, and as documented in our emissi ons analysis in the preliminary and final TSDs and in TCEQ’s SAM, oil and gas production activity in Wise County does result in significant NOx emissions. It is pr imarily these NOx emissions that supported our determination that Wise County emissions contribute to ozone formation in the DFW area.

Issue: Petitioner claims that wind ro se charts demonstrate that, on a year ly basis, the winds rarely blow

into the DFW area from Wise C ounty. The TCEQ’s findings based on the HYSPLIT model with their endpoint analysis, demonstrate that “at most 2.87% of the trajectory endpoints from Wise County impact violating monitors.”

Response: Our response below on the HYSPLIT section of this enclosur e address the concern about the trajectory endpoints, and also di scuss why HYSPLIT modeling can be a more useful tool than annualized wind patterns esp ecially in an area like DFW that e xperiences light wind speeds and winds from variable directions. While the percentage of days when the wind carried air from Wise County was relatively low overall, our analysis indicated that the days when the air did come from Wise County, the downwind monitors had some of the highest ozone readings during the ti me period evaluated.

Issue: Petitioner claims that other EPA Regions ha ve declined nonattainment designations based simply on prevailing winds. For example, TSDs from vari ous Regions make generalized references to prevailing wind patterns, 30-year wi nd history, wind roses showing year ly average wind direction, and references to “predominant” wind direction.

Response: These comments did not address whether th e EPA’s five factor anal ysis for the identified areas resulted in disparate treatm ent, but instead focused only on me teorology. Therefore, this does not

warrant reconsideration on this issu e. As we have explained earlier , the designation process involves a five factor analysis conducted fo r each individual area. We cannot l ook at just one or two factors in

isolation to conclude there has be en disparate or inconsistent trea tment. Many of the specific issues raised by the Petitioner, and discussed below, focus on only one or two factors, without a full comparison of how the five factors were applied. EPA will not repeat this full explanation in each instance, but it applies throughout this response.

Issue: Petitioner’s comments includ e a list of 13 counties in other areas of the country that were designated as attainment/unclass ifiable. Petitioners claim th at these counties are upwind of nonattainment counties and violating monitors over 20% of the time. Petitio ner asserts that Wise, Hood, and Matagorda Counties would not be included in a nonattainment area if another EPA region

had made the decision.

Response: Petitioner’s comments iden tify only the percentage of time a county is upwind and they do not address how this information, when considered as part of a more co mprehensive five factor analysis suggests that EPA trea ted Wise County in a manner incons istent with the way we treated

other areas. Therefore, this does not warrant reconsideration on this issue.

Issue: The Petitioner indicates that the EPA Regi on 6 incorrectly and conclusively relied on HYSPLIT modeling and used it in a selective manner, while an other Region correctly disregarded HYSPLIT modeling (e.g., EPA Region 3 in the TSD for the Pittsburgh area) and based meteorological

4 DFW Final TSD, pages 6-8; Houston Final TSD, pages 5-7; RTC pages 52-56.analyses on general historical wind patterns. The Petitioner further indicates that the EPA failed to provide record support adequately justifying its conclusion that HYSPLIT modeling is a proper basis for a nonattainment designation in Wise County. The Peti tioner indicated that th e EPA Region 6 conducted a ‘nit-picking’ analysis by focusing on only the days with violations with HYSPLIT instead of using general wind patterns as have been used in othe r preliminary TSDs. The Pe titioner listed preliminary

TSDs for the areas that did not use HYSPLIT to indi cate disparate treatment of wind patterns by Region

6 in Texas.

Response: We refer generally to our responses addressing the use of the HYSPLIT modeling for the DFW area. Wise County was not treated disparatel y by the EPA’s use of HY SPLIT modeling results. HYSPLIT was used in 16 areas where it was either submitted to the EPA or the EPA performed the modeling because we believed it could provide add itional insight into the factors that contribute to

nonattainment. 5 For example, we explained in our TSD that HYSPLIT modeling is particularly useful for areas, such as Dallas, where wind speeds can be light and wind dire ction variable.

Each of our designations decisions were based on a five-factor analysis of the unique circumstances

relevant to each area. The level of detail for meteor ological analysis can vary area-to-area. For example,

in cases where counties did not have significant emissions compared to other counties in a specific area a more general meteorological appro ach may have been sufficient.

With regard to the claim that Region 3 disreg arded HYSPLIT modeling, th is is an incorrect characterization. In the preliminary TSD for Pennsylvania, the EPA stated that: “Further analysis of backward trajectories co uld prove helpful in re solving the affect of meteorology on this area. Pennsylvania’s March 2009 ozone recommendation did contain some NOAA HYSPLIT model backward trajectory informa tion, but not for monitors in the Pittsburgh area. The supplied information for a monitor in eastern Pennsylvania indicated that HYSPLIT 24-hour period back trajectories were highly va riable based upon the episode in question. Therefore, this information was not useful in determining the impact of meteorology on the Pittsburgh-New Castle CSA.” 6

EPA only determined that a HYSPLIT run in eastern Pennsylvania was not useful for evaluating the Pittsburgh area, which is located in the western portion of the state. Subsequently, as part of the analysis for the final designation decision, th e EPA Region 3 used the HYSPLIT model to further understand the meteorological transport conditions within th e region around Pittsburgh and other areas of Pennsylvania. 7

5 The EPA considered HYSPLIT analyses in the following 16 areas for the 2008 ozone designation process: AllentownBethlehem-Easton, PA; Baltimore, MD; Ba ton Rouge, LA; Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC; Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft Collins-L oveland, CO; Houston-Galves ton-Brazoria, TX; Knoxville, TN; Lancaster, PA; Memphis, TN-MS-AR ; Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic C ity, PA-NJ-MD-DE; Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA; Reading, PA; San Luis Obis po (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA; an d Washington, DC-MD-VA. The TSDs for ozone designation decisions for each of thes e areas can be found in the public dock et and on the EPA’s ozone designations website. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476 and http://epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/tsd.htm.

6 Pennsylvania Preliminary TSD “Pennsylvania Area Design ations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” December 2011, page 41 (Docket ID No. EP A-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0237). We note that Pittsburgh is in Western Pennsylvania and the March 2009 HYSPLIT analysis included in Pennsylvania’s 2009 recommendation was for an ozone episode in Eastern Pennsylvania.

7 Pennsylvania Final TSD “Pennsylvania Area Designations fo r the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” April 2012, pages 10-13, 24-28, 41-45, and 73-79 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0632).Issue: Petitioner claims that th e EPA Region 6 incorrectly and inc onsistently applied HYSPLIT to justify a nonattainment designation for Wise County. The Petitioner further claims that HYSPLIT

cannot establish a causal connection between winds in one area and ozone formation in another.

Response: We agree that HYSPLIT m odeling has limits and that its prim ary use is in showing where air has traveled before reaching a certain location at a given time, thus giving an indication of what pollution sources may have contributed to the m onitored pollution level. As noted throughout the designation process, however, the EPA analyzes meteorology, includi ng HYSPLIT where available, as one component of the meteorology factor in the five-factor analysis. Th e EPA indicated in the preliminary and Final TSDs for the DFW area that th e combination of back tr ajectories and the close proximity of large emissions of ozone precursors to the monitor supported its decision to include Wise County. TCEQ’s SAM modeling, which is based on a wide array of information, including meteorology and emissions, further confirmed that Wise County emi ssions yield increased ozone levels at monitors in

DFW. 8

Issue: Petitioner claims that EPA Region 6’s approach to performing HYSPLIT analyses was inconsistent. Specifically, Petitioner clai ms that Region 6’s use of HYSPLIT was inconsistent with other regions, as detailed below:

Response: We do note that some of the HYSPLIT an alyses were conducted at different times, and the EPA used some slightly different approaches for the different HYSPLIT analyses. For example, we varied start time for the back trajectories depend ent upon when the 8-hour exceedances occurred at the monitor being evaluated. To obtain additional insight, we also separated HYSPLIT runs for several

different hours for some of the monitors th at make up the 8-hour exceedance period since the exceedance period is made up of 8 consecutive 1-hour ozone readings. We noted our methodologies for conducting the HYSPLIT analyses in the TSD and in the individual electronic HYSPLIT output files. The meteorological data on which EP A based its HYSPLIT model analysis was available to the public. 9

On December 20, 2011 (76 FR 78872), the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment from interested parties other than states and tribes on the letters sent to states with the intended designations. The notice provided that any co mments should be received on or before January 19, 2012, but in response to requests from several parties, including Wise County, the EPA extended the public comment period to February 3, 2012. ( See 77 FR 2678, January 19, 2012). TPA requested a copy of the HYSPLIT data from the EPA on January 17, 2012. The EPA provided a copy of the meteorological and ambient monitoring data on January 19 – 24, 2012, and also posted copies of the data to the rulemaking docket.

County 1 - Issue: (Lebanon County , PA) Petitioner claims that Leba non County was considered as part of the Berks County (Reading) Pennsylvania area but was designated attainment even though the winds blew from Lebanon County into Berks C ounty 40 percent of the time during the summer, which was far more often than prev ailing winds blew from Wise Count y to the violating monitors in

the DFW area. TPA recognized that Lebanon County had somewhat lower emissions than Wise County.

8 Page 13 of TCEQ attachment to Governor Perry’s comment letter dated February 29, 2012. Source apportionment modeling files provided by TCEQ to EPA demonstrate that Wise County NOx emission impacts at other DFW monitors including Eagle Mountain Lake and Keller monitors is what makes up almost all of the ozone level changes due to Wise County emissions. Electronic files are avai lable in the electronic record for the Final designation. (EPA Document ID: EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0476-0633)

9 The meteorological data on which EPA based its HYSPLIT m odel analysis was accessible to the public at the NCAR FTP

site at ftp://arlftp.arlhq.noaa.gov/pub/archives/edas40/

.County 1 - Response: (Lebanon County, PA) The Peti tioner only discusses aspects of two factors, meteorology and emissions, and did not address how the EPA’s five factor analys is resulted in disparate treatment of Wise County. As to the emission factor, the comment re cognizes that emissions in Lebanon County were low and relies solely on the meteorology factor to suggest that Wise County was treated differently than Lebanon County. With regard to the meteorology, we note two things. First, the 40% of the time for wind direction from Lebanon County is a summertime predominant wind analysis and not specific to days on which the violating monitor was experiencing ozone exceedances. Second, based on comments received, the EPA more closely examined the meteorology using HYSPLIT and the analysis

results were included for this area in the Final PA TSD. The EPA concluded that air flow was primarily from the Southerly direction, rather than from th e Westerly direction wher e Lebanon County is located, at times when the monitor was recording ozone exceedances.

County 2 - Issue: (Lawrence County, PA) Petitione r summarized information from the EPA Region 3’s preliminary TSD that Lawrence County had 8,960 tpy NOx and 3,814 tpy VOC and is located to the west and northwest of violating monitors in the Pittsburgh area. Although Region 3 noted that winds in the area had strong westerly components, Lawrence County was designated attainment.

County 2 - Response: (Lawrence County, PA) Petitioner only discusses aspects of two factors, meteorology and emissions. This is not sufficient to demonstrate how the EPA’s five factor analysis resulted in disparate treatment of Wise County.

County 3 - Issue: (Kent County, DE) Petitioner su mmarized information fro m the EPA Region 3’s preliminary TSD that winds during ozone season come pr edominantly from the southwest. The

comment also noted that Kent County's ozone design value was 74 ppb; that its NOx and VOC tpy figures were 7,667 and 5,381, respectively; that its VMT was 1,565,000; and that its population growth was +28 percent; and that the EPA was proposing to designate the county attainment/unclassifiable because it is "unlikely to contribu te to downwind violations during most of the ozone season." The

comment concluded that the f acts supporting nonattainment desi gnation of Kent County were significantly stronger than thos e supporting the nonattainment designation of Wise County. Nonetheless, Region 3 concluded that Kent County should be proposed to be designated

unclassifiable/attainment. The co mment concluded that there is no doubt that under the Region 6 method of analysis, Kent County woul d have been designated nonattainment.

County 3 - Response: Petitioner examined aspects of three of the factors: meteorology based on general wind patterns during the ozone seaso n, emissions/emission related data and air quality monitoring data. As an initial matter, we note the circumstances rega rding Kent County raised complex issues that are

not relevant for the DFW area. Th ere are only three counties in De laware. The northernmost county, New Castle, is part of the Philadelphia-Camden-V ineland, PA-NJ-MD-DE CSA. Delaware TSD at page 4. The middle county, Kent is the Dover, DE metr opolitan statistical area a nd the southern county, Sussex, is the Seaford micropolitan st atistical area. See Delaware TSD at page 18. All three Delaware Counties were designated nonattain ment as part of the Philadel phia area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Thus, for purposes of our analysis, we evaluated all counties within the CSA and the two additional

Delaware Counties that are outside the CSA but were included as part of the Philadelphia nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In addition, we also ev aluated several counties in New Jersey that are

also outside the CSA but that we re included as part of the desi gnated nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See Delaware TSD at pages 6 & 18.The five-factor analysis for the counties being cons idered for inclusion in one nonattainment area will always be different than a five-fact or analysis for the counties being c onsidered for inclusion in another area. This is because the facts vary significantly among the areas. For example, the number of counties being considered can vary from one to more than 40. Additionally, the geogra phic extent of an area under consideration can vary greatly as well, with so me CSAs being as large as 100 or more miles from

north to south or east to west or both and some being significantly sma ller. For that reason, it is difficult to draw direct comparisons between two counties in different CSAs with regard to one factor, such as absolute emissions. As noted above, one distinguishi ng factor between Kent C ounty and Wise County is that Kent County is not part of the Philadelphia CSA while Wise Count y is part of the DFW CSA. We also identify some differences betw een Kent County and Wise County below with regard to two of the factors raised in the comment. We emphasize, howe ver, that we do not consider this information conclusive outside the five factor analysis. We pr esent it simply to rebut th e comment suggesting that

two areas are similar. We evaluated both Wise a nd Kent Counties based on whether their emissions were contributing to a nearby violat ion of a monitor, not on whether there was a monitor violating the standard in the county. We note that the distance to the closest violat ing monitor is 20 miles for Kent County and 0.5 miles for Wise County. See final DFW TSD at page 3 and final Delaware TSD at page

4.

With regard to meteorology, based on comments on the adequacy of general surface wind roses, the EPA conducted HYSPLIT analysis to further ex amine meteorology. The more detailed HYSPLIT analysis indicated a wider range of wind directions for transport to exceedances in the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City PA-NJ-DE-MD nonattainment area. The HYSPLIT analysis also showed that the winds are mostly from the south to northwest dire ctions, with the strongest direction being from the southwest during monitored ozone exceedances from 2007-2011. See Delaware TSD at pages 13-17.

With regard to emissions, out of the 19 counties ev aluated in the Philadelphi a area, Kent County ranked 14 for NOx and 17 for VOCs. Kent County ranks 14 out of 19 in VMT. While Kent County did have the highest growth rate of the counties considered, it has a relatively small population base and it had a low proportion of commuters from the county to the Phila delphia area. In comparison, Wise County’s total emissions of NOx and VOC are 11,911 tpy and 17,609 t py, respectively. Wise C ounty ranks 6 out of 19 counties in the Dallas CSA for NOx emissions and 4 out of 19 for VOC emissions. Population and VMT rankings are similar between Wise County and Kent County. See final DFW TSD, pages 6-14.

County 4 - Issue: (Roane County, TN) Petitioner summarized information from the EPA Region 4’s preliminary TSD that Roane County had emissions of 10,711 tpy NOx and 3,006 tpy VOC and was predominately upwind of nearby violating monitors.

County 4 - Response: (Roane County, TN) Petitioner only examined aspects of two factors, meteorology and emissions. This is not sufficient to demonstrate how the EPA’s five factor analysis resulted in disparate treatment of Wise County.

County 5 - Issue: (Pointe Coupee Parish, LA) Petitione r also claimed disparate treatment with regard

to Pointe Coupee Parish, which was considered for inclusion in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area. TPA notes that Pointe Coupee Parish's NOx a nd VOC emissions tpy figures were 15,733 and 2,560 respectively and that its NOx emissi ons are higher than those for Wise County. Petitioner also notes that Pointe Coupee Parish's population density was roughly equivalent with that of Wise County. Petitioner points out that Region 6 stated th at "for the five-year 2006-2010 time period only 5 percent of all days with ozone concentrations greater than 75 ppb at the LS U site had wind back trajec tories that went back through Pointe Coupee Parish." The EPA Region 6 proposed a nonattainment determination for WiseCounty even though the winds blew across Wise County toward violating monitors far less often than the "only 5 percent" figure upon which Region 6 based its propos ed attainment/unclassifiable designation for Pointe Coupee Parish in Louisiana.

County 5 - Response: (Pointe Coupee Parish, LA) Petitioner examined aspects of three factors, meteorology, air quality and emissions. I n the Final Louisiana TSD, we indicated that the Big Cajun Power Plant (which we noted in our preliminary TSD is already co ntrolled) emitted 12,119 tpy in

2008 and the rest of the Parish’s emissions of ma n-made NOx were only 3,614 tpy. Furthermore, we indicated that for the 5 years of back trajectories for ozone exceedances at the LSU monitor only two back trajectories passed over Po inte Coupee Parish. Of the two back trajecto ries, one of the back trajectories barely went through the southwest corner of Pointe C oupee Parish on the opposite corner of the Parish from the Big Cajun Po wer plant in the northeast portion of the Parish. Therefore, it is unlikely that emissions fro m the main point source in Pointe Coupee Parish c ontributed to the violating monitor for this ozone ex ceedance, leaving only one back traj ectory in 5 year s that indicates potential contribution. In comparison, 7 trajectories in 5 years for the Eagle Mountain Lake monitor in DFW passed through areas with emissions in Wise County, and five of these days were the highest monitored ozone days that helped set the monito r’s DV. We note in the RTC (page 56) that we weighed the combination of emissions and distance to a violating monitor in our evaluation comparing Hood and Wise and put more weight on contribution from Wise Count y due to Wise County’s larger emissions and closer proximity to a violating monitor. Similarly, the distance to the only Baton Rouge area violating monitor (2 008-2010 DV of 78 ppb) is approximately 18 miles for Pointe Coupee Parish (26 miles from Big Cajun) in comparison to Wise C ounty’s distance of 0.5 miles to the Eagle Mountain Lake monitor (2008-2010 DV of 85 ppb).

County 6 - Issue: (Dutchess, Putnam, Orange, and Ulster Counties, NY) Pe titioner compared Wise County with Dutchess, Putnam, Orange an d Ulster Counties, which are in the New York – New Jersey – Long Island, NY -NJ-CT nonattainment area. Petitioner pointed out that the EPA Region 2’s preliminary TSD indicated that Dutchess County was upwind 23 pe rcent during the summer; Putnam County 24 percent; Ulster County 29 per cent; and Orange County 25 percent.

County 6 - Response: Petitioner only examined meteorology and did not address how the EPA’s five factor analysis resulted in di sparate treatment of Wise County.

County 7-Issue: (Stafford County, VA) Petitioner also cited Stafford Count y Virginia, which the EPA evaluated for inclusion as part of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area . Specifically,

Petitioner pointed to the EPA Region 3’s preliminary TSD for Maryland that indicated Stafford County is upwind 22 percent of the time and th at Stafford County should be designated

attainment/unclassifiable.

County 7 - Response: Petitioner generally discussed aspects of only two factors – meteorology and emissions, and did not address how the EPA’s five fact or analysis resulted in disparate treatment of Wise County.

County 8 - Issue: (Cattaraugus Reservation – Se neca Nation) Petitioner cites meteorological and

emissions data from the EPA Region 2’s preliminary TSD that indicates that the Cattaraugus Reservation could have a small impact on the Ja mestown, NY nonattainment ar ea. However, the EPA proposed that the Reservation should be designated attainment/unclassifiable.County 8 - Response: (Cattaraugus Reservation – Seneca Nation) In determining whether a county should be included as part of th e designated nonattainm ent area, we look at whether the county

contributes to nonattainment in the area. Our analysis looks at whether the area’s contribution is at a level to have a significant ef fect on ambient ozone levels. See Catawba v. EPA at 39 (recognizing that “contribute” under section 107(d) is ambiguo us and does not necessarily mean any level of contribution.) In looking at our 5 f actors, we note that in the Jame stown Area TSD that there were no known permitted sources on the Rese rvation and that the population wa s sparse. We al so noted that

the Reservation is downwind of Jame stown and transport to the nonattainment area is likely to be low

or nonexistent. Based on our full anal ysis of all of the factors, we c oncluded that tribal lands are not contributing to the nonattainment ar ea. Jamestown TSD at 4, 9, 12.

County 9 - Issue: ( Sussex County, DE ; Berks County, PA; Calvert, Fredrick, Montgomery, Prince George’s and Loudon Counties, Washington DC-MD-VA) Petitioner summarized in formation from several of the EPA Region 3’s preliminary TSDs regarding counties that the EPA proposed to designate as nonattainment and claimed that th ey show disparate trea tment for Wise County. 10

County 9 - Response: The issue fo r each of these count ies was not whether the area should be designated as nonattainment but rath er in which nonattainment area the county should be included.

We note that each of th ese counties is located in the northeast U.S. corridor where nonattainment areas frequently adjoin, and the associated CSA and CBSA can incl ude 40 or more counties. Our consideration of which nonattainment area a county shou ld be affiliated raises different issues than the

issue of whether an area should be designated nonattainment based on contribution. For example, the jurisdictional factor often plays a mo re significant role in these cases and, in the absence of a fivefactor analysis supporting a co ntrary conclusion, we generally will defer to the state's

recommendation as to which of the two nonattainment areas should include the county. See e.g., Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection v. EPA , 429 F.3d 1125, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Our decisions for these counties do not show disparate treatment for Wise.

County 10 - Issue: (Dauphi n and York Counties, PA) Petitioner generally referred to discussion of the EPA’s meteorology factor in the EPA Region 3’s preliminary TSD. The EPA proposed to designate

these counties attainment/uncla ssifiable even though meteorology indicates that Lebanon and Dauphin may contribute to violations in Lancaster.

County 10 - Response: (Dauph in and York Counties, PA) Petitioner only discussed one factor, meteorology, and did not address how the EPA’s five fact or analysis resulted in disparate treatment of Wise County.

County 11 - Issue: (Dorchester, Wi comico, and Worcester Counties, MD) Petitioner generally referred

to the EPA’s emissions an d meteorology factors discussion in the EPA Region 3’s preliminary TSD. The EPA proposed to designate three Maryland counties attainment/unc lassifiable even though

emissions from these counties would contribute little to violations in downwind Sussex County,

Delaware.

10 These counties are: (1) Sussex County, Delaware, which was designated as a single county nonattainment area and not included as part of the Philadelphia nonattainment area; (2) Berks County, Pennsylvania, which was designated as a single county nonattainment area and not included as part of the Philadelphia nonattainment area; and (3) Calvert, Fredrick, Montgomery, Prince George’s and Loudon Counties which were included in the Washington DC-MD-VA nonattainment

area and not the Baltimo re nonattainment area.County 11 - Response: (Dor chester, Wicomico, and Worcester C ounties, MD) After a review of the EPA’s five factors, the EPA conc luded in the Final TSD “[a]lthough emissions from those counties might contribute to violations in downwind Sussex County, Delaware, the emissions levels from those

counties are so low that l ittle actual contribution is expected.” The EPA determ ined after weighing all

five factors that these countie s do not in fact contribute to ozone at a violating monitor.

County 12 - Issue: (Carro ll and Hall Counties, GA) Petitioner generally discussed distances separating emissions sources from the violating monito rs. The EPA Region 4’s preliminary TSD proposed a designation of attainment/ unclassifiable for these counties becau se their distance from violating monitors limited their impact on such violating monitors.

County 12 - Response: Petitioner only discussed one aspect rela ting to ambient air and distance to a violating monitor, and thus did not address how the EPA’s five factor analysis resulted in disparate treatment of Wise County.

Issue: Petitioner (on page 20 of their comment letter) indicated that TCEQ has already determined, in a study done in connection with the Ea st Texas Combustion rule, that the imposition of controls on sources in six counties, including Wise and Hood, would have such a negligible effect on conditions in the DFW nonattainment area; therefore, th e Combustion rule was not justified. Modeling sensitivity runs were conducted by TCEQ in conn ection with the East Texas Combustion rule in order to assess the potential benef it of including six counties, includ ing Wise and Hood, in the rule. According to TCEQ, "[t]hese sensitivity runs indicate that the Dallas-Fort Worth eight-hour ozone nonattainment area would only benefit approximately 0.05 ppb reduction in ozone from including

these six counties under the rule." See 32 Texas Register 3303 (June 8, 2007).

Response: S ection 107(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate as nona ttainment any area that does not meet the air quality standard or that contributes to a vi olation of the air quality standard in a nearby area. Based on our analysis of contribution in the DFW TSD, we determined that Wise County

contributed to monitored violati ons of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and incl uded Wise County in the ozone

nonattainment area. We further note he re, that in evaluating whether an area is contributing to a current violation of the ozone NAAQS, we do not evaluate how the implementation of individual, specific measures, or the failure to implement such measures , might affect ozone levels within the area. The issue of which measures are appropriate for reducing ozone levels in an area vi olating the standard will be addressed by the states during the post- designation attainment planning process.

We also note that the modeling the Petitioner cites was in relation to an older ozone standard (85 ppb versus the current 75 ppb) and is comprised of an older meteorological episode with fewer days. Additionally, the emission estimates in the modeling do not account for the growth in emissions due to the Oil and Gas developments in north Texas sin ce 2005/6. The modeling Petitioner discussed is older modeling that was for an older limited number of da ys episode (10 days) that did not have as many meteorological regimes as the more recent SAM m odeling provided by TCEQ (with over 30 days) to the EPA as part of their comments for the designatio ns of the 2007 8-hour standard. The older modeling only was conducted for evaluations of potential controls to help the DFW area attain the 1997 8-hour standard (85 ppb) and the conclusion s would likely be different if the analysis was done for the current 75 ppb standard. The modeling and associated emission inventory cited by the Petitioner did not include revised emissions reflecting the growth of oil and gas emissions in Wise County and other North Texas counties since 2005/6. Since that time, these counties have seen increased emissions due to oil and gas field developments.IV. Analysis of HYSPLIT and Potential Impact of Wise County Emissions

Issue: The Petitioner claims that the EPA’s HYSPL IT analysis was not conclusive and given undue weight. Specifically, the Petition claims that the HYSPLIT modeling gives only an indication of possible contribution to downwind nonattainment. Further, Peti tioner claims that the EP A should provide greater clarity as to how HYSPLIT is app lied and what weight HYSPLIT resu lts are given in making the Wise County designation decision.

Response: Petitioner raised the HYSPLIT issue du ring the comment period and the EPA responded to those comments. See RTC pages 59, 60. Therefore, rec onsideration is not appropriate. Our record fully supports our decision. The EPA’s record explains that HYSPLIT is a useful tool for determining areas where air originates or passes through on the way to a monitored ozone exceedance. As we stated in the RTC, “[i]n terms of identifying potential local a nd regional source-receptor patterns, HYPLIT wind trajectory or other modeling based tools are excellent tools for determining the frequencies for which areas potentially contribute to high ozone levels a nd are preferred over more basic assessments of wind speed and direction at a given point locations (e.g., wind roses, or pollution roses). The basic assessments, such as wind roses, are potentially mi sleading in cases where wind speeds are light and the

wind direction is variable. . .” 11 The light and variable meteorologi cal regime is one of the classic meteorological types that results in high ozone in the DFW area.

We conducted HYSPLIT analysis for several monito rs in DFW for purposes of both the Preliminary TSD (December 2011) and the Final TSD (April 2012). In the Final TSD, we noted that “[t]he HYSPLIT model yields an estimate of the path an air mass has traveled before reaching a monitor at a specific location and time. Specifi cally, the model provides the cente rline of the probable path. By knowing where an air mass has traveled before reach ing a monitor where an exceedance has occurred, one can consider what potential areas and emission s ources could have contribu ted to the exceedance.” In the Final TSD at page 14, we stated, “[w]e focu sed on the Keller and Eagle Mountain Lake monitors in Tarrant County and the Parker County monitor becau se the Keller and Eagle Mountain Lake monitors have recorded some of the highest ozone levels in the region, and inclusion of the Parker County monitor provided a good cross-section of the mon itors in the western DFW area that experienced exceedances in the 2006-2010 period.” The EPA included trajectory plot maps for the Keller and Eagle Mountain Lake monitors in both the Preliminary a nd Final TSDs and also made the individual back trajectory files available for review during the comme nt period. Analysis of the plots in the TSDs indicates that 3 trajectory ‘centerlines’ directly traversed Wise County for the Keller monitor, and at least 7 trajectory ‘centerl ines’ traversed Wise County for the Eagl e Mountain Lake monitor. In addition, some other back trajectories that did not directly traverse Wise County had cen terlines near enough to Wise County to suggest a path of upwind influen ce involving Wise County emissions. Accordingly, we

concluded that there are a number of days (not just two) with back tr ajectories that suggest influence from Wise County emissions.

As provided in the Final DF W TSD, a review of the i ndividual trajectory files s hows that several of the days that trajectories passed through Wise County were also days that made up the 1st to 4th highest monitored values, which are the values used in esta blishing the design value at the Eagle Mountain Lake and Keller monitors during the periods evaluated. In fact, five of the seven back trajectories that traversed Wise County occurred on days that c ontributed the Eagle Moun tain Lake Design value

11 See page 59 of the RTC.calculation. 12 The individual trajectory f iles were included in the suppor ting materials for the EPA’s intended and final designations.

V. Source Apportionment Modeling (SAM) a nd Opportunity for Public Comment:

Issue: The Petitioner claims that the EPA did not provide opportunity for public comments on the use of TCEQ’s SAM modeling. Specifically, the Petition clai ms that the EPA did not present any source apportionment modeling in its proposed designation d ecision, yet relied on such modeling in making the final designation deci sion for Wise County.

Response: While we agree that our analysis of the state’s SAM mode ling was not available for comment at the time of proposal, we do not believe this issue warrants reconsideration. Fi rst, in response to the EPA’s 120-day letter notifying it of the intended designations, the state submitted, among other things, the SAM data and results. Our evaluation of the SAM was in response to such submittal and was consistent with the process esta blished by Congress in section 107(d) of the Act. For initial area designations for a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1) of the CAA sets forth a detailed and specific process between the EPA and the states. This provision provides: (i) th at Governors of states

make the initial recommendations to the EPA for de signations and boundaries; and (ii) that the EPA provide the states with 120 days notice of any intended modifications to the state recommendation prior to finalizing the designation. The 120-da y notification process is for the purpose of providing “such state with an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification is inappropr iate.” The CAA does not expressly provide a role for any other entity and, moreover, expre ssly waives the notice and public comment process of the Administra tive Procedure Act for initial de signations for new or revised NAAQS. See CAA section 107(d)(2)(B). Although no public comment period is required, the EPA opted to provide such a comment period for the ozone designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We appropriately followed the process specifically c ontemplated by the Act. The EPA’s response to TCEQ’s SAM is detailed in the EPA’s final TSD. See Final DFW TSD at 15-20.

Second, and as a general matter, agencies are not required to provide an additional opportunity for public comment on material supporting a final rule, su ch as responses to comments or on information supporting a response to a comment. Such an appr oach would result in an unworkable endless rulemaking process. See Catawba , 571 F.3d at 50-51 (In rejecting a claim by New York that it should have been allowed additional input into the EPA’s d ecision to rely on a different monitor for evaluating contribution for the final designation th an it did for the intended designa tion the court noted that such an ongoing exchange with the states is inconsistent with the CAA and that “Congress imposed deadlines on EPA and thus clearly envisioned an end to the designation process.”) See also International Fabricare

Institute v. EPA , 972 F.2d 384, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (notice and comment is not intended to result in “interminable back-and-forth”) and Community Nutrition Institute v. Block , 749 F.2d 50, 58 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (agency is not required to provide additional opportunity to comment on its response to comments).

12 We note that all this data is available in the record. For the Eagle Mountain Lake Monitor, the following days were the 1 st

thru 4 th High values that set the monitor’s DV. Highlighted in BOLD are the days that EPA’s HYSPLIT analysis indicates potential contribution from Wise County emissions. 2006 (6/14 – 107 ppb, 6/9 – 106 ppb, 6/28 – 98 ppb, 7/18 – 98 ppb); 2007 ( 8/14 – 121 ppb , 8/15 – 101 ppb, 10/04 – 86 ppb, 9/22 – 84 ppb , 7/25 – 84 ppb); 2008 (8/04 – 98 ppb, 6/18 – 92 ppb

, 6/23 – 86 ppb, 6/19 – 85 ppb); 2009 ( 6/25 – 100 ppb , 6/5 – 92 ppb, 6/26 – 92 ppb, 8/26 – 91 ppb, 7/2 – 91 ppb ); 2010 (6/4 – 94 ppb, 8/27 – 91 ppb, 8/28 – 83 ppb, 5/29 – 81 ppb). When there was a tie for the fourth high value we looked at trajectories for both days.Issue: The Petitioner claims that as part of the fina l rule the EPA used a new 1% standard in analyzing the source apportionment modeling (SAM), and it did not offer a rational basis for its use or opportunity for comment. Furthermore, the Petition claims that EP A was inconsistent in our use of the 1% standard and specifically raises concerns with the EPA’s re view and conclusions of SAM analysis for three counties in the Chicago area.

Response: The EPA considered SAM in its deci sion making only in areas where it was provided by states or others during the public process. Since the SAM was provided during the comment period, as discussed above, our evaluation consequently could not be available for public comment.

SAM results were available for the EPA considerati on in the designation proce ss for only three areas, Dallas, Houston and Chicago, because those were th e only areas where it was developed and submitted by states or other entities. The EP A does not have specific guidance on how to evaluate the impact of emissions from a county on a nearby violating m onitor in the context of a designation decision. Moreover, in the few instances where SAM was subm itted for our consideration, the form and type of

the information varied between areas. The EPA ev aluated each submission of SAM on a case-by-case basis, carefully evaluating a number of issu es including how the modeling was conducted, model performance, and available data from the analysis in order to determine how to appropriately evaluate

the results.

For the SAM submitted for Dallas and Houston, we cons idered other recent modeling work that could serve as a guide. Our basis for iden tifying days with a non-trivial impacts is discussed on page 17 of the TSD where we explained, “Often in attainment demonstration modeling, controlling of sources is evaluated and results in only a few tenths of a ppb ch ange, therefore we used a 1% of the standard cut point for the days where we would consider Hood or Wise County’s emissions to be significant.” We also note that modeling from TCEQ in a 2007 8-h our Ozone Attainment Demonstration for DFW included multiple analyses of individual control stra tegies and the resultant impacts on monitors in DFW area, where Texas had chosen controls that provided changes of a few tenths of a ppb. 13 In addition, we

also note that the EPA concluded in the recent Cross State Air Pollution Rule, that a “one percent of the NAAQS” impact result in the source apportionment modeling was appropriate to determine if a state’s emissions significantly impacted a downwind state’s nonattainment or maintenance area. 14 Thus we believe it was reasonable to examine the frequency of a modeled impact of 0.75 ppb, or one percent of the 2008 ozone standard, as a metric to id entify days with a nontrivial impact. 15

In addition, the number of days exce eding the one percent (0.75 ppb) cut point is only one of the metrics

evaluated from the SAM results. In the DFW Final TSD and in supporting files, we discussed all of the metrics used in our assessment of the SAM results, and the unique factors that we weighed in our analysis of SAM results for DFW. Using the deta iled daily information available to the EPA for analyzing SAM for the DFW and Houston areas designations, we evaluated the average impact, maximum impact, as well as the number of mode led days exceeding 0.75 and 0.70 ppm where the Wise County impact was above 0.75 ppb. These other model out put metrics also help explain the impact of Wise County. For example, on some specific modeled da ys the impact of Wise County was much larger than 0.5 ppb and as much as 5 ppb at the Eagle Mountai n Lake Monitor which is one of the monitors in

13 See the sensitivity runs in TCEQ’s 2007 DFW 1997 8-hour ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP - APPENDIX D: DFW Future Case (2009) Sensitivity Tests.

14 See Cross State Air Pollution Rule an d the Technical Support Document for the rule(Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009- 0491 at www.regulations.gov)

15 TSD page 17, TCEQ’s 2007 DFW 1997 8-hour ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP – Appendix D: DFW Future Case (2009) Sensitivity Tests.DFW that sets the DV for the DFW nonattainment area. 16 Also, it is important to remember that the SAM results were only piece of information that we cons idered in our five factor analysis that resulted in our determination that Wise County cont ributes to nonattainment in the DFW area.

Our decision to use 1 % of the NAAQS or 0.75 ppb, as a cut point to identify days with a non-trivial impact is supported by our record and a count of such days is only one of the metrics we evaluated from the SAM results. As stated in our TSD, the 2008 Emi ssions Inventory for Wise County shows that Wise County’s nitrogen oxide emissions of 11,911 tpy are the 6th highest of the 19-county DFW Combined Statistical Area (CSA) and the County’s volatile organic compound emissions of 17,609 tpy are the fourth highest of the 19 counties. See TSD pages 6-7. The TSD demons trates that there are six ozone monitors violating the standard in the two counties adjacent to Wise County (TSD Figure 1, page 3) and notes that Wise County is less than 1⁄2 mile from a violating monitor with a design value of 0.085 parts per million (TSD 2008 to 2010 data, pages 5 and 23). We also evaluated meteorological transport patterns during exceedances using N OAA’s HYSPLIT model. These patter ns indicate that emissions from Wise County are transported to the DFW ozone monitors violating the standard based on 2008- 2010 data, and we conclude that the Wise County emi ssions are large enough that they can contribute to ozone exceedances on certain days. See TSD pages 14-17, 19, 20, and 23.

Finally, the Region 6 evaluation of SAM was not inconsistent with actions taken by other Regional offices. Again, our record supports our decision on this issue. The EPA considered SAM for the Houston area in the same way we considered it for Dallas because the SAM submitted for both areas was similar in how it was performed and the type of information provided. The only other area for which the EPA had SAM results was for the Chicago area. The SAM submitted for the Chicago area was sufficiently different that direct comparis ons to the DFW area analysis are not generally appropriate. In the Chicago area SAM, the EPA wa s provided the average m odeled impact levels on

estimated exceedances for an entire ozone season. Emphasis on the average modeled impact is more appropriate when a full ozone season of model results is available. A full seas on of modeling results was not available for the DFW area. Indiana had provided SAM modeling that evalua ted the impact of three Indiana counties on a monitor in the greater Chi cago area. The reported impacts from two Counties (Lake and Porter) were about 2 ppb and 4 ppb. The SA M result for the third Indiana County (Jasper) indicated less than 0.5 ppb impact. In evaluating th is result, the EPA was aw are that the modeling did

not reflect reductions that had been achieved at a large power plant in Jasper County, reducing the Jasper County total emissions of NOx by more than 50%. 17 Based on the analysis of all the factors, including

the SAM and additional emission redu ctions, the EPA decided to include Lake and Porter counties, and not to include Jasper County, Indi ana within the nonattainment area. As with the contribution level evaluated for Wise County, the contribution levels discussed in the Region 5 Chicago Final TSD do not represent a bright line criterion fo r inclusion or exclusion of a count y. Moreover, the inclusion of two counties with an average contribution of 2 and 4 ppb and exclusion of a county with 0.5 ppb in the Chicago area is not inconsistent w ith inclusion of Wise County based in part on a count of days with greater than 0.75 ppb contribu tion in the Dallas area. As noted above, however, for both the Chicago and Dallas areas, this considerati on was simply one element of one of the five factors the EPA considered in determining whether to include coun ties as part of the desi gnated nonattainment area.

16 TSD page 20

17 Region 5 TSD, Original 2008 NOx emissions quantified as 19,788 tons/year and value was footnoted as “... updated emissions data were provided for Jasper County showing 2011 NOx emission levels of 9,791 tons.”VI. Concern About Treatment of the Oil and Gas Industry

Issue: The Petitioner claims that the designation of Wise County shoul d be reconsidered because of a perceived bias by former Regional Administrator Dr . Armendariz against the oil and gas industry that may have played an undue role in the designa tion process.

Response: The EPA’s final designa tion decision for the DFW area was based on the EPA’s evaluation of the data and technical information, extensive and thoughtful consideration of input from TCEQ and other interested parties. The EPA’ s national Office of Air and Radia tion works closely with technical staff in EPA’s regional offices to ensure that decisi ons are based on the factual record and are consistent across the country. As demonstrated in the TSD acco mpanying the EPA’s intended designations issued in December, 2011 and the TSD accompanying th e final designation on April 30, 2012, the EPA performed a thorough assessment of information rele vant to five designati ons-related factors in determining which areas should be included as part of the DFW nonatta inment area. The final decision was made by Administrator Lisa Jackson based on the re cord before the EPA. We further note that there

are other Texas counties where oil a nd gas production and activity occur that were initially considered for inclusion into a nonattainment area, but were ultimately not included. For example Hood County, Texas and Matagorda County, Texas we re considered and proposed for inclusion in their respective areas. However, following a review of comments from Texas and from public commenters and upon

further evaluation of all available da ta relevant to their contribution to ozone violations, we determined

those counties should not be include d as part of a nonattainment area. Our record details those decisions.