COMMENTS BY THE TEXA S COMMISSION ON ENVI RONMENTAL QUALITY REGARDING THE NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILIT Y SUPPORTING FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLA NS TO REDUCE INTERSTATE TRANSPORT OF FINE PARTICULATE MATTER A ND OZONE: REVISIONS TO EMISSION INVENTOR IES

EPA DOCKET ID NO. EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

I. Summary of Proposed Action
On October 27, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for emissions inventories (75 FR 66055) supporting the previously proposed Transport Rule (75 FR 45210). The NODA included updated emissions inventory data for 2005, 2012, and 2014 for several stationary and mobile source inventory components. Though the EPA noted that these data and revisions could impact the final Transport Rule, it specifies that such impacts have not yet been quantified by the EPA, and it requests comment only on the new data provided in the NODA.

II. Comments

General Comment.

The EPA’s request for comment on its proposed use of the revised data identified in NODA to make changes to the fina l Transport Rule is unreasonable and does not provide adequate notice to the public of the potential changes to the final Transport Rule.
The NODA does not provide adequate information or time for the public to comment on the potential changes to the final Transport Rule. The EPA’s failure to identify criteria used to determine which new data were appropriate to include in the NODA compounds these errors. The EPA has failed to explain why these particular data changes were critical for inclusion in future final Transport Rule modeling, when commenters have provided comments regarding other missing or incorrect data. Additionally, as discussed further in these comments, mere provision of data without an explanation of the potential changes that could be mad e by the EPA in the final Transport Rule is inadequate for the public to assess and comment on the potential future rule changes or the implications of using this revised data. The EPA has stated that it intends to rely on the new data, and potentially ot her new data, for inclusion in computer modeling to determine applicability for the final Transport Rule, but the public cannot reasonably provide meaningful comments without some understanding of the final modeling results. Placing the burden on the publ ic to comment on changes to the final Transport Rule that will result from complex computer modeling not yet completed nor available to the public does not allow the public to ascertain whether they have a specific interest at stake.COMMENTS OF TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIR ONMENTAL QUALITY DOCKET NO. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491 PAGE 2 OF 5

If the EPA contin ues to revise emissions inventory data and places additional information in the docket to support changes to the final rulemaking, then the EPA should make that information available for public comment. The EPA should also reopen the comment period for the complete rulemaking package to allow for adequate opportunity for the public to evaluate the potential impact of the rule and provide meaningful public comment.
If the EPA does continue to update information, including emission inventory data, that is us ed to support the final rulemaking, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requests that any such information be made available for public comment. Furthermore, the TCEQ requests that the complete rulemaking package be reopened for comment an d that the EPA provide adequate time for all the technical information and any potential changes to the rule to be evaluated. Absent such an opportunity to comment on the complete proposed rule and any substantive changes that the EPA may make using new in formation, the public is unable to reasonably provide meaningful comments or to evaluate the potential impact of the rule.

Request for comment on revised 2012 and 2014 projected non

- electric generating unit (EGU) emissions sector (75 FR 66056).

The EPA’s request for comment on the revised non

- EGU emissions inventories is unreasonable given the short comment period that the EPA is allowing for review of such voluminous data.
The 2014 non

- EGU point source emissions inventory data for Texas provided by the EP A with this NODA exceeds 132,000 rows of data. It is unreasonable of the EPA to expect states to provide meaningful comment on the accuracy of the EPA’s future projected emissions inventory on this amount of data with only a 30

- day comment period.

While the EPA has provided significant amounts of emissions data, the information and context provided with the NODA are not adequate for states and other parties to appropriately comment on the emission data. The EPA has not provided sufficiently detailed exp lanations on how the emissions inventory data were adjusted and in some cases has only provided emissions data with no explanation of how the emissions were adjusted.
As suggested in the TCEQ’s original comments on the Transport Rule, submitted on October 1, 2010, the EPA should work with states outside of the rulemaking comment period to develop a more accurate future

- projected emissions inventory for the non

- EGU sector. The EPA’s rush to finalize the future non

- EGU emissions inventory within the limited time period of the Transport Rule comment period will lead to an inaccurate emissions inventory and fundamentally bias any decisions the EPA might make based on those data.

Proposal to include revised emissions inventory in the final Transport Rule (75 F R 66057).

If it is the EPA’s intent to use the revised emissions inventory as a justification for expanding the scope of the proposed Transport Rule, the TCEQ strongly objects to the EPA attempting such a change in scope of the proposed rule without proper notice.
The EPA indicates that it is not limited in the manner and scope in which the revised emissions inventory data may be used to change the final rulemaking. The NODA also indicates that theCOMMENTS OF TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIR ONMENTAL QUALITY DOCKET NO. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491 PAGE 3 OF 5

EPA may revise its assessment of which areas may have air quality concerns and which states are contributing to downwind areas, without specifying which states or areas may be so impacted. If the revised data indicates that the scope of the Transport Rule should be narrowed, such a change would be within the sco pe and notice of the original proposed rulemaking. However, if the EPA expands the Transport Rule based on this revised emissions inventory to affect new parties that were not subject to the rule as proposed on August 2, 2010, these parties would not have been provided adequate notice. That the EPA proposes inclusion of new data that may fundamentally alter the applicability of the original Transport Rule proposal but then allows comment only on the new data (and without full indication of the manner in w hich the data may be used) makes clear that the NODA published in the October 27, 2010, issue of the Federal Register does not provide adequate notice for potential expansion of the Transport Rule to other parties.

Request for comment on emissions reductions resulting from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (75 FR 66056).

The EPA should not be ignoring EPA

- approved enforceable state cont rol measures that are included in the state implementation plan (SIP) while apparently claiming unenforceable ancillary nitrogen oxides (NOX) reductions from federal measures as creditable for the Transport Rule.
The technical support document spreadsheet regarding reductions resulting from federal measures such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reciprocating internal combustion engines (TR_EI_NODA_relevant_CoSTpackets_and_ inventories.xls) that the EPA has posted on its ftp site for this NODA appears to indicate that the EPA is crediting NOX reductions from the NESHAP regulation in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ as part of the Transport Rule modeling. The TCEQ does not dispute that the instal lation of nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) systems on stationary rich

- burn engines to meet the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) limits in the final rule will also result in NOX reductions. As noted by the EPA in the document provided with the NODA and the Federal Register publication (75 FR 51578) for the final rule of Subpart ZZZZ, these NOX reductions are co

- benefits of the control technology potentially installed to meet the enforceable limits in Subpart ZZZZ and are not enforceable under federal ru le. However, in the EPA’s technical support document for the Transport Rule emissions inventories, the EPA indicates that for local SIP controls to be included in the final rule: “ 1) the SIPs must be approved and made available, and 2) the control measure s and technologies are provided in such a way that they can be applied to our inventories (e.g., control efficiencies or emission reductions matched to specific NEI facilities, units, and/or source category codes (SCCs)). ” The TCEQ objects to the EPA hold ing itself to far less stringent requirements than states are being expected to meet for the EPA to acknowledge local controls after 2005 for purposes of the Transport Rule.
As discussed in the comments submitted by the TCEQ during the original Transport R ule comment period, the TCEQ has implemented control strategies that have resulted in significant NOX reductions in Texas. Among these TCEQ rules are enforceable NOX emission specifications for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines that wen t into effect after 2005 that are approved by the EPA (December 3, 2008, 75 FR 73562) as part of the Texas SIP and were also included in the Texas Transport SIP, which was acknowledged as received by the EPA on May 6, 2008, but on which the EPA has not yet taken action. The following is aCOMMENTS OF TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIR ONMENTAL QUALITY DOCKET NO. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491 PAGE 4 OF 5

summary of the gas

- fired stationary reciprocating internal combustion NOX rules that the EPA approved in 2008.

• For the Dallas

- Fort Worth (DFW) Eight

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties), the NOX emission specifications for stationary gas

- fired engines rated 50 horsepower (hp) and larger

are between 0.50 and 0.70 grams per horsepower

- hour (g/hp

- hr), depending on the fuel type and burn type ( rich or lean). These emission standards apply to existing and new engines both major and minor sources in the DFW Eight

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area and are found in 30 TAC Chapter 117, § 117.410(b)(4) and § 117.2110(a)(1).

• For the East Texas Combustion Rule counties (Anderson, Brazos, Burleson, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Franklin, Freestone, Gregg, Grimes, Harrison, Henderson, Hill, Hopkins, Hunt, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Madison, Marion, Morris, Nacogdoches, Navarro, Panola, Rains, Robertson, Rusk, Shelby, Smith, Titus, Upshur, Van Zandt, and Wood Counties), the NOX emission specifications for stationary rich

- burn gas

- fired engines are 0.50 g/hp

- hr for rich

burn engines equal to or greater than 500 hp (0.60 g/hp

- hr for landfill gas

- fired engine s) and 1.0 g/hp

- hr for rich

- burn engines between 240 hp and 500 hp. These emission standards apply to existing and new engines at both major and minor sources in these 33 East Texas counties and are found in 30 TAC Chapter 117, § 117.3310(a)(1).

Request f or comment on revised oil and gas emissions inventory for Texas and Oklahoma (75 FR 66056).

The EPA’s projected oil and gas drilling rig emissions for Texas are not consistent with the TCEQ’s projected emissions estimates; however, the EPA has not provide d sufficient information for TCEQ to adequately comment on the accuracy of the EPA’s projected emissions for 2012 and 2014.
The EPA’s projected emissions data for drilling rigs in Texas do not agree with the projected emissions data for 2012 and 2014 from the 2009 study, Drilling Rig Emission Inventory for the State of Texas, conducted by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), which is the basis of the original 2005 emissions data that the TCEQ provided to the EPA. The EPA should provide a clear explanation o f, and the basis for, the assumptions that were used to grow or control the emissions data that the TCEQ provided on oil and gas drilling rig emissions. Without such explanation in the public docket available for public comment, the TCEQ cannot properly evaluate and comment on the discrepancy between the EPA’s projected emissions data and the results of the ERG study. The EPA should either explain the methodology used to project the drilling rig emissions data to 2012 and 2014 or use the projected emissi ons data from the ERG study that the TCEQ used to provide the original emissions data. The 2009 study report is available on the TCEQ’s Web site at:
http://www.tce q.state.tx.us/implementation/air/airmod/ project /pj_report_ei.html

.COMMENTS OF TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIR ONMENTAL QUALITY DOCKET NO. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491 PAGE 5 OF 5

Request for comment on the EPA’s proposal to use the latest public release of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) to estimate on

- road mobile emissions data (75 FR 66057).

The TCEQ requests that the EPA specify by name which “ latest public release ” of MOVES it intends to use in developing the 2005, 2012, and 2014 on

- road inventories and ensure that this version has been made available to the public for

comment.

While the TCEQ continues to object to the EPA’s revisions of emissions inventories that may fundamentally alter the scope and applicability of the Transport Rule without also re

- opening the Transport Rule comment period, the TCEQ requests that if an updated version of MOVES is to be used by the EPA for interstate transport modeling efforts, this version should be clearly identified by name and have been previously made available to the public. Because MOVES is in development and newer versions may become available, t he EPA should identify which version will be used and for what purpose. By stating only that the “ latest public release ” of MOVES may be used, the EPA leaves open the possibility of releasing a newer version after the close of this NODA comment period and using that version for the final Transport Rule. Without knowing specifically which version of MOVES the EPA intends to use, the TCEQ has no basis on which to comment on the appropriateness of using a yet

- to

- be decided version and cannot predict how mobile emissions estimates might be altered.