July 20, 2012

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Request for Administrative Reconsideration of EPA’s Final Rule “Air Quality 

Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards”

Dear Administrator Jackson:

The Gas Processors Association (“GPA”) and the Texas Pipeline Association (“TPA”) 

hereby request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) reconsider 

certain aspects of the recently-signed final rule entitled “Air Quality Designations for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” published at 77 Fed. Reg. 30,088 (May 21, 

2012) (“Ozone Designations Rule”). Pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act 

(“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), where it is impracticable to raise an objection during the 

period of public comment or if the grounds for such an objection arise after the public comment 

period (but within the time specified for judicial review), and if such objections are of central 

relevance to the outcome of the rule, EPA is authorized to reconsider a rule. While the Ozone 

Designations Rule was not issued pursuant to § 307(d), reconsideration nevertheless is 

appropriate here.

GPA is a non-profit trade organization made up of approximately 120 corporate 

members, all of whom are engaged in the processing of natural gas into merchantable pipeline 

gas, or in the manufacture, transportation, or further processing of liquid products from natural

gas. GPA’s membership accounts for approximately 92 percent of all natural gas liquids 

produced by the midstream energy sector in the United States. GPA members also produce, 

gather, transmit, and market natural gas and natural gas liquids, and include a number of 

Canadian and international companies that produce natural gas liquids on a global scale.

TPA is an organization consisting of over 40 members who gather, process, treat, and 

transport natural gas and hazardous liquids materials through intrastate pipelines in Texas. One 

or more TPA and GPA members currently own or operate, or in the future will construct or 

operate, stationary sources located in Wise County of Texas, an area adversely affected by 

EPA’s Ozone Designations Rule.
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

July 20, 2012

Page 2

We believe that EPA erred by including Wise County in the Dallas-Fort Worth (“DFW”) 

ozone nonattainment area. GPA, TPA, and other commenters on EPA’s proposed Ozone 

Designations Rule1provided the Agency with information demonstrating that Wise County 

should have been designated attainment/unclassifiable, but EPA misinterpreted or failed to 

consider that information fully, as reflected in the final rule.2In addition, EPA asserted new 

reasons in the final rule for including Wise County that we and other commenters did not have a 

chance to consider during the public comment period. As detailed below, EPA should address 

five particular issues in a reconsideration proceeding:

(1) EPA should consider more fully emissions trends and inventories.

There is good reason to believe that the indicators that EPA used as a proxy for emissions 

trends do not provide an accurate picture of where actual emissions in Wise County are going in 

the coming years. A more thorough analysis would reveal that Wise County does not need to be 

included in the DFW nonattainment area in order to ensure timely attainment in the area.

For example, EPA looked to population trends and traffic trends (in particular, 

assessment of VMT, vehicle miles traveled) to assess the potential impact of non-point source 

emissions on nonattainment in the DFW area. For Wise County, these data showed that the 2010 

population was about 60,000, representing about a 20% increase over the prior ten years; 

population density was about 60 people per square mile, and VMT was about 969 million miles 

in 2008, a 16% increase over the prior 6-year period. See DFW TSD at 10 and 12. EPA cited 

these statistics as part of its conclusion that Wise County should be included in the DFW 

nonattainment area. Id. at 23.

Yet, these data and data trends are not shown to be correlated to actual, potential

increases in, ozone precursor emissions. For example, emissions from motor vehicles and other 

mobile sources are predicted to decrease significantly over the coming years due to the onset of 

more stringent emissions controls and the turnover of the existing vehicle fleet. Therefore, a 

1 An opportunity for public comment on EPA’s responses to state and tribal 2008 ozone 

designation recommendations was provided at 76 Fed. Reg. 78872 (Dec. 20, 2011).

2

See Comments of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, EPA Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0296 (Jan. 11, 2012); Comments of the Gas Processors 

Association, EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0429 (Feb. 2, 2012) (hereinafter 

“GPA Comments”); Comments of the Texas Pipeline Association, EPA Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0476-0403 (Feb. 2, 2012) (hereinafter “TPA Comments”); Comments of Targa 

Resources Corp., Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0484 (Feb. 3, 2012) (hereinafter 

“Targa Comments”); Letter from Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, to Dr. Al Armendariz, EPA 

Region 6 Regional Administrator, and attached Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Analysis, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0509 (Feb. 29, 2012). These comments are hereby 

incorporated by reference.
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

July 20, 2012

Page 3

modest increase in population or VMT does not necessarily indicate a corresponding trend in 

emissions.

EPA makes clear in its Response to Comments (“RTC”) document that it considered 

whether areas are “currently contributing” to nonattainment and that the Agency did not “assess 

or predict future source emissions.” See RTC at 58. This is puzzling because, as explained 

above, EPA clearly considered emissions trends in explaining its final decisions in the Technical 

Support Document (“TSD”). EPA also clearly stated that “growth rates and patterns” should 

expressly be considered in determining the extent of nonattainment areas. Meyers Memo at 

Attachment 2. We believe that a fuller assessment of relevant trends would show that ozone 

precursor emissions in Wise County are nominal in the first instance, do not generally impact the 

rest of the DFW area, and should not be expected to grow significantly over time. These issues

and inconsistencies can and should be developed more fully on reconsideration.

Moreover, the National Emissions Inventory (“NEI”) inventory figures for VOC 

emissions in Wise County are artificially inflated because they result from the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality’s (“TCEQ”) use of a 33.3 lb/bbl emission factor applied 

to condensate production. That emission factor is demonstrably erroneous and far too 

conservative. The 33.3 lb/bbl emission factor was derived from a study prepared by URS 

Corporation for the Houston Advance Research Center (“HARC”). This study, which looked at 

flash emission from condensate in storage tanks at wellhead and gathering sites, concluded that a 

33.3 lb/bbl emissions factor was appropriate. But the study’s conclusion in this regard was based 

on faulty data and its application has, unfortunately, led to an unrealistically high VOC emissions 

inventory from the oil and gas sector.

Responding to widespread criticism of the 33.3 lb/bbl emission factor, TCEQ recently 

contracted with Eastern Research Group (“ERG”) to conduct a study on condensate storage tank 

emissions. The purpose of the study is to develop updated county- and region-specific emission 

factors for estimating condensate storage tank emissions for each of the regions in Texas. These 

would replace the overly conservative estimates presently used in TCEQ’s statewide inventory, 

which are based on the flawed 33.3 lb/bbl factor. ERG will analyze additional information that

has become available since the HARC report was issued, such as the Barnett Shale Phase II 

Special Inventory data. ERG is expected to complete its work by August 31, 2012. The fact that 

TCEQ is now embarking on a path to correct these emissions factors, which will result in more 

realistic VOC emissions data, presents yet another issue for EPA to explore on reconsideration.

(2) EPA should provide more explanation of the reasons for including Wise County in 

the DFW nonattainment area.

In most respects, Wise County is indistinguishable from Hood County, which EPA 

ultimately excluded from the nonattainment area. For example, the population, population 

density, and population growth rates for both counties are comparable. Emissions inventories for 

NOx and VOC from the two counties are comparable. Traffic data from the two counties are 

comparable. And, HYSPLIT and source apportionment modeling show comparable results. Yet, 
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

July 20, 2012

Page 4

the outcome was different for these two similarly situated counties. EPA was correct to 

designate Hood County as attainment/unclassifiable. Because Wise and Hood counties are 

similarly situated, the rationale for excluding Hood County should also apply to Wise County.

More generally, TPA provided detailed examples in its comments of inconsistency 

between EPA regions and within Region 6 itself as to how particular types of data were used in 

EPA’s designation decisions. See, e.g., TPA Comments at 8-10, 15, and 17-20. Notwithstanding 

these detailed examples of inconsistency, EPA responds to these comments by wrongly stating 

that the “commenter fails to point to any specific concerns to support its claim.” See RTC at 59. 

EPA’s only other response is that, “We disagree with the commenter that our designation criteria 

have been inconsistently applied and that our decisions are arbitrary and capricious.” Id. These 

statements plainly are not responsive to the comments.

In short, the TSD fails to provide discernable decision making criteria and corresponding 

facts to justify the differing results for Hood and Wise Counties. Moreover, the RTC fails to 

provide any real response to comments detailing other inconsistencies in EPA’s designation 

decisions. EPA should grant reconsideration to provide further explanation and opportunity for 

public comment on these critical points.

(3) EPA should develop a more robust assessment of the potential impact of emissions 

in Wise County on ozone levels in other parts of the DFW area.

The HYSPLIT modeling EPA presented in the Ozone Designations Rule provides only a 

qualitative indication of the potential downwind impacts of emissions from Wise County because 

HYSPLIT does not account for atmospheric chemistry or other confounding factors (e.g., 

emissions from upwind of Wise County that simply pass through the country). EPA appears to 

agree, observing in the RTC that “HYSPLIT wind trajectory or other modeling-based tools are 

excellent tools for determining the frequencies for which areas potentially contribute to high 

ozone levels.” RTC at 59 (emphasis added), see also id. at 60 (emphasis added) (“By applying 

HYSPLIT to show the tracks that air parcels traveled to monitors during exceedances of the 

standard, HYSPLIT does give a reliable indication of the areas that could be contributing to an 

exceedance.”).

On the other hand, even though EPA admits that HYSPLIT modeling gives only an 

indication of a possible contribution to downwind nonattainment,

3

EPA nonetheless clearly relies 

on the HYSPLIT modeling as one of the primary factors – if not the primary factor – in deciding 

3 At best, HYSPLIT can provide only an indication of a possible contribution, as EPA has 

acknowledged in the past: “While trajectory analysis can be helpful it has significant limitations 

as it does not take into consideration atmospheric chemical processes, the injection of emissions, 

or the deposition of material along the trajectory path.” Technical Support for State and Tribal 

Air Quality Designations and Classifications, April 2004, Chapter 3, at 3-202 

(http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/1997standards/tech.htm). 
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

July 20, 2012

Page 5

to include Wise County in the DFW nonattainment area. See, e.g., DFW TSD at 23 

(“Examination of back trajectories indicates that at times emissions from Wise County contribute 

to observed violations in the area....”). EPA should grant reconsideration to resolve these 

inconsistencies and provide greater clarity as to how HYSPLIT is applied and what weight 

HYSPLIT results are given in making the Wise County designation decision.

(4) EPA should have provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on its 

source apportionment modeling.

EPA did not present any source apportionment modeling in its proposed designation 

decision, yet relied on such modeling in making the final designation decision for Wise County.

The use of such modeling had been suggested by TCEQ in its comments on the proposed 

designations. But, EPA considered TCEQ’s modeling to be inadequate and, therefore, 

“reanalyzed the data” and applied a 1% factor in assessing whether emissions on any given day 

might contribute to downwind nonattainment. See DFW TSD at 15-20. In making its final 

designation decision, EPA concluded that, “Source apportionment modeling for a portion of an 

ozone season indicates that emissions from Wise County can contribute to observed violations in 

the DFW nonattainment area.” Id. at 23. In short, source apportionment modeling was a 

significant factor in EPA’s final decision, but such modeling was unavailable during the 

comment period and therefore GPA and TPA had no notice that EPA would use such modeling 

and no opportunity to provide comments to the Agency on the use of such modeling. In 

addition, EPA failed to provide any explanation as to why use of the 1% factor was justified.

Reconsideration would provide an opportunity for GPA, TPA, and other stakeholders to better 

understand these issues and provide meaningful comments to EPA.

(5) EPA should take extra steps to ensure that this decision was made in a transparent, 

objective, and unbiased way.

Commenters including GPA and TPA demonstrated that the approach taken by Region 6 

in its analysis of Wise County was fundamentally different from, and far more exacting than, the 

approach employed by other regional offices. Indeed, when Region 6’s analysis of Wise County 

was compared to other Regions’ review of many similarly situated counties in other states and 

other EPA Regions – which were not designated nonattainment – one could have been left with 

the impression that Region 6 for some reason was determined from the beginning to add Wise 

County to the DFW nonattainment area, regardless of the facts. 

What GPA and TPA did not know when they made those comments was that thenRegion 6 Administrator Armendariz had appeared to admit in public statements that he harbored 

bias against the oil and gas industry. This public statement is consistent with an article written 

by Dr. Armendariz before joining EPA that inaccurately characterized emissions from oil and 

gas production in the Barnett Shale area, including Wise County.

4 Dr. Armendariz’s public 

4

See Al Armendariz, Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and 

Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements 3-4 (Jan. 26, 2009).