Enclosure 

EPA Response to Petition for Reconsideration from the City of Bridgeport, Wise County, Texas 

By letter dated July 20, 2012, the Secretary for the City of Bridgeport, on behalf of the City of 

Bridgeport in Wise County, Texas petitioned the EPA to reconsider the final area designation for Wise 

County in the Dallas-Forth Worth (DFW) area. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is denying the 

Petition. For the sake of clarity, we have organized this response according to the structure of the 

July 20, 2012 petition. 

I. Emissions and Emissions-Related Data 

Issue: Petitioner asserts that emission and meteorological factors did not include revised data submitted 

by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Additionally, TCEQ modeling submitted 

during the comment period did not include such revised data and likely overestimated emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC). 

Response: This issue was raised during the comment period and we did address it in our Technical 

Support Document (TSD) and our Response to Comments (RTC) document. Thus it is not an 

appropriate basis for reconsideration. See our final DFW TSD titled, “Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas Final 

Area Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” and “Responses to 

Comments Document (RTC) on the State and Tribal Designation Recommendations for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” in the docket for this action. 

As stated in our RTC document, we considered revised VOC emissions data submitted by TCEQ for the 

2008 National Emissions Inventory in October, 2011 as part of our final designation decision. See RTC 

pages 55-56 (the EPA “reviewed the updated emissions data reported by the TCEQ”). In addition, the 

state and TCEQ provided new VOC and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions inventory data to the EPA in 

subsequent comment letters to the EPA. TCEQ submitted a letter to the EPA dated January 11, 2012. 

The State of Texas submitted a letter on February 29, 2012, that included TCEQ’s January 11, 2012, 

comment letter. The February 29, 2012 letter also included source apportionment modeling (SAM) 

results and indicated that the modeling was not conducted using the new lower VOC emission estimates 

that TCEQ had submitted to the EPA in October, 2011. The February 29, 2012 letter indicates: “[t]he 

TCEQ did not use the updated oil and gas sector pneumatic emissions submitted October 2011 to the 

EPA for the Periodic Emissions Inventory in this modeling and source apportionment analysis, 

therefore, the VOC emissions from this source category are likely overestimated in the modeling” (page 

10 of the referenced TCEQ letter). We took into account these updates and concerns in our final decision 

as indicated in the Final TSD and RTC. In our RTC, we explain that notwithstanding the new emission 

inventory data provided by Texas and TCEQ during the comment period, that “even with the reduced 

2009 VOC emissions data, the emissions from Wise County still contribute to measured violations of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS at monitors in neighboring counties.” See page 56 of the RTC. 

Specifically, we considered this new information in our evaluation of SAM results as discussed in the 

Hood and Wise County evaluations on page 20 of the TSD. We indicated in the RTC and other 

supporting materials that DFW is a NOx-limited area and VOC reductions have not shown significant 

benefit in past modeling conducted by TCEQ. Furthermore, we recognized that the VOC emissions that 

are potentially overestimated in the SAM modeling are from oil and gas operations, and that these VOC 

emissions “are relatively nonreactive,” i.e., they are less likely to result in ozone formation than VOCs 
that are more reactive. As a result, we concluded the potential impact of the new reported VOC emission 

levels on our interpretation of the SAM results for Wise, Hood and Matagorda Counties, would be 

negligible.1

Issue: Petitioner claims that because of Wise County’s small population and vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT), it is unexpected that these types of emissions would have any significant contribution to ozone 

formation. 

Response: This issue was raised during the comment period and we did address it in our TSD and our 

RTC document. Thus it is not an appropriate basis for reconsideration. Petitioner raised the issue over 

the use of population and VMT data as indicators for determining “contribution” during the public 

comment period and we did address those comments in the record, as detailed below. While we 

acknowledged that Wise County’s population and VMT are smaller in comparison to that of other parts 

of the DFW nonattainment area,2

 we explain in our record that emissions from the area and distance 

from the violating monitors were two of the compelling factors for determining “contribution” of Wise 

County. The total emissions from Wise County are significant and rank comparatively high against the 

emissions from other counties in the area. The 2008 EI of all Wise County sources (with revisions 

submitted by Texas) lists the County’s emissions as 11,911 tons per year (tpy) for NOx and 17,609 tpy 

for VOC (TSD, table 3).3

 Wise County’s population and VMT data indicated that Wise County’s 

relatively high total emissions derive more from point and area sources associated with oil and gas 

production activities in the county. Lastly, the close proximity of Wise County’s comparatively high 

emissions to violating monitors provided further support that the county should be included in the 

nonattainment area (TSD, page 23). 

II. Meteorological Analysis 

Issue: Petitioner claims that Wise County is downwind and unlikely to contribute to high ozone values. 

The DFW area emissions are sufficient to produce high ozone days, without considering contributions 

from Wise County. Wise County population, VMT and oil and gas activities are not expected to 

contribute significantly to ozone formation in the DFW area. 

Response: This issue could have been raised during the public comment period and other parties did 

raise similar issues that we addressed in our TSDs and our RTC document. Thus it is not an appropriate 

basis for reconsideration. The EPA acknowledges that Wise County is often downwind of the DFW 

area. However, as discussed in our TSDs and in the RTC document, general wind patterns over an entire 

season can be misleading, and are not as instructive as a more targeted, day-specific analysis of 

 

1

 DFW Final TSD, pages 6-8; Houston Final TSD, pages 5-7; RTC pages 52-56, “EPA has since reviewed the updated 

emissions data reported by the TCEQ and notes that the revised numbers do not affect the ranking of the counties for VOC 

emissions. EPA’s analysis indicates that even with the reduced 2009 VOC emissions data, the emissions from Wise County 

still contribute to measured violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at monitors in neighboring counties. In making our final 

decision, we considered the reduced emissions and the reduction in drilling activity since 2009.” Governor Perry’s comment 

letter dated February 29, 2012, pages 17-21, also referred to other TCEQ documents that further support that DFW area is a 

NOx limited regime and changes to VOC levels do not result in much impact in ozone levels: TCEQ 2011 DFW 1997 8-hour 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP – “APPENDIX E: Protocol for the Eight-Hour Ozone Modeling of the Dallas-Fort 

Worth Area,” and “APPENDIX D: Conceptual Model For The DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision For The 1997 

Eight-Hour Ozone Standard.”

2 See the final DFW TSD, which includes an evaluation of population data and traffic data for the 19 counties in the DFW 

CSA (TSD, pages 9-14). The TSD included data for Wise County and the DFW CSA (TSD, tables 6, 8 and 10).

3

 Table 3 shows emissions of NOx and VOC (expressed in tpy) for violating and nearby counties that we considered for 

inclusion in the DFW area. The VOC emissions in Table 3 include revisions for Hood and Wise Counties submitted by 

TCEQ during the comment period.
wind/transport patterns using tools such as HYSPLIT. Such analysis allows for developing a more 

detailed understanding of the exact wind/transport events that occur on days when high ozone levels are 

monitored.4

We note that, based on past research by TCEQ and the EPA, light winds with weak frontal passages and 

conversion zones are a common meteorological condition that often leads to high ambient ozone levels 

in the DFW area. (Final TSD page 14.) Our evaluation of the HYSPLIT figures (Final TSD pages 28-

31) and the individual HYSPLIT modeling files indicates that light and variable winds occurred during 

some of the highest monitored ozone days and that some of these days included emissions transport 

patterns from Wise County to the sites of the monitored exceedances. We also note that a review of the 

individual trajectory files shows that several of the days during which trajectories passed through Wise 

County were also days that made up the 1st to 4th highest monitored values (which are the values used 

in establishing the Design Value) at the Eagle Mountain Lake and Keller monitors. These individual 

trajectory files were included in the supporting materials for the EPA’s preliminary and final 

designations.5 

The Source Apportionment Modeling (Final TSD pages 15-20) indicates that for the limited number of 

days modeled (modeling did not cover a full ozone season for the DFW area) there are several occasions 

in which emissions from Wise County are transported to the nearby Eagle Mountain Lake and Keller 

monitoring sites (and other DFW area monitors) and contribute to the ozone exceedance levels. We note 

that this modeling incorporates all ozone precursor emissions from Wise County, including area and 

mobile source emissions and oil and gas activities. Moreover, as noted in our previous response the total 

emissions from Wise County are significant and rank comparatively high against the emissions from 

other counties in the area. As we previously indicated in our final Federal Register notice and in our 

TSDs and RTC, Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires all areas to be designated 

nonattainment if they do not meet the standard or if they contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby 

area that does not meet the standard. While emissions from the nine counties in the DFW 1997 ozone 

nonattainment area may be capable of generating ozone exceedances without contribution from Wise 

County emissions, we have determined that Wise County emissions do contribute to exceedance levels 

in the nearby DFW area. See Catawba County, North Carolina v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2009) 

(“Catawba”) (“Given that the statute uses the word ‘contribute’ and that a contribution may simply 

exacerbate a problem rather than cause it, we see no reason why the statute precludes EPA from 

determining that a county’s addition of PM2.5 into the atmosphere is significant even though a nearby 

county’s nonattainment problem would persist in its absence.”) 

III. Opportunity to Comment 

Issue: Petitioner claims that the citizens of Wise County were not provided with sufficient review of 

information submitted by Wise County and TCEQ, thus denying them with an opportunity to interact 

with state, local and industry representatives and other stakeholders regarding the designations. 

Additionally, Petitioner claims the EPA has not shared its data and justification for designating Wise 

County as nonattainment, and provided no rebuttal process for its conclusion. 

Response: This issue relates to an opportunity to comment on information submitted to the EPA during 

the comment period and the EPA’s evaluation of that information in the final rulemaking, including the 

final TSD. As a general matter, agencies are not required to provide an additional opportunity for public 

 

4

 Final TSD pages 14-15, and RTC page 58-61.

5

 These data files were added to the electronic docket on January 24, 2012. The docket for this action is identified as EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0476 at www.regulations.gov.
comment on material supporting a final rule, such as responses to comments or on information 

supporting a response to a comment. Such an approach 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 decision to rely on a different monitor for evaluating 

contribution for the final designation than it did for the intended designation 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). This is particularly true when the material does not substantively change the proposed 

action of the agency or does not significantly change the basis for the Agency’s decision. With regard to 

the designation process, there is additional reason that an additional opportunity for public comment is 

not warranted. For designations, section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (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 recommendations to the EPA for designations 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-day notification process is for the purpose of providing “such 

State with an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification is inappropriate.” The CAA 

does not expressly provide a role for any other entity (including local governments) and, moreover, 

expressly waives the notice and public comment process of the Administrative Procedure Act for 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. 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 comments 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). In addition, if an interested party requested to meet with the EPA, we provided 

such an opportunity. 

We further disagree that the EPA has not shared its justification for including Wise County as part of the 

designated nonattainment area. By its initial recommendation letter of March 10, 2009, the State of 

Texas recommended that the EPA designate the following counties as nonattainment for the DFW Area: 

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant. In a second letter 

of October 31, 2011, Texas revised is initial recommendation for the DFW area to exclude Hood County 

based on an assessment of 2008-2010 air quality data. On December 9, 2011, the EPA notified Texas of 

its preliminary response to recommendations from Texas indicating that it intended to modify the state's 

recommended area designations and boundaries for the DFW to include Hood and Wise Counties as 

nonattainment. The initial TSD provided an analysis to support the EPA’s intended designations. (See 

“Texas Area Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” December 11, 

2011). We asked the state to submit any additional information by February 29, 2012, for the EPA to 

consider before it made final decisions on designations. 

Based on comments received from several parties, including the State of Texas, and additional 

information received during the public comment process for the designations, the EPA ultimately 

excluded Hood County and included Wise County in the DFW nonattainment area, as detailed in the 

TSD accompanying the final designations rule that was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 
2012, and (“Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas Final Area Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards”).6

IV. Economic Harm 

Issue: Petitioner claims that a nonattainment designation would impose significant economic 

ramifications on citizens and businesses in Wise County. 

Response: This issue could have been raised during the comment period and in fact was raised by other 

parties, such as the State of Texas. Thus it is not an appropriate basis for reconsideration. As stated in 

the RTC, “under section 107(d) of the CAA, the EPA is required to designate as nonattainment an area 

that is violating a new or revised national ambient air quality standard or that contributes to a nearby 

violation. . . . In determining whether an area should be designated nonattainment, the EPA does not 

consider economic impacts because that is not relevant for determining whether an included area is 

violating the NAAQS or is a nearby area that is contributing to a violation as provided under CAA 

section 107(d).” See RTC pages 14-15. As such, the criteria for designations in Section 107 of the CAA 

do not provide for the EPA to consider economic effects. See RTC, pages 52-53. As we stated in our 

RTC document, we intend for the implementation rulemaking for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to address the 

minimum planning and emissions control obligations for areas designated nonattainment. As the EPA 

considers the required elements of implementation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, it is our goal to propose 

approaches that provide flexibility and opportunity for efficiency to the extent such approaches are 

consistent with the CAA and will not jeopardize expeditious attainment of the public health and welfare 

goals of the CAA. To the extent the CAA does not mandate specific control measures, states may 

consider economic concerns in development of their state implementation plans to address air quality. 

(See RTC pages 14-15, 52-53, and 61). Finally, we note that DFW counties designated nonattainment, 

such as Dallas, Denton, Collin, Parker, Tarrant, etc., have continued to grow despite their nonattainment 

designations (see TSD page 10, Table 6). 

 

6

 Regarding the data used to inform our decision and the justification for the decision, we refer the petitioner to our TSD (for

air quality, emissions, and meteorological data) and RTC in the docket for this rulemaking, which provide our reasoning for 

the inclusion of Wise County. Our decisions concerning nonattainment designations for the DFW area are based on technical 

facts pertaining to these specific counties, information supplied by the TCEQ, and the EPA’s independent evaluation as 

explained in the TSD. [RTC page 52, see, TSD pages 1-31]