1W

JAC KSON WA LK E R L.LP.

All0KN LYS & COI:""rI.OR'

No vember 23, 2009

Via Electronic Submission & Fir'st-Class Mail

MrStanley M. Spruiell

Air Permits Section (6 PD-R)

Environmenta l Protection Age ncy

Attn: Docket ID Nos. : EPA-R06-0 AR-2005-TX-0025;

EPA-R06-0 AR-2006-0 133; EPA-R06-0 AR-2005-TX-0032

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Da llas. Texas 75202 -2733

Michael Nasi

(5 12J 236 -2216 t Dircc t Dial )

(5 12) 39 1-219 4 (D ln:c t Fax)

mlla~i ·~i}j \\. COIll

Re: Docket ID No . EPA-R06 -0AR-2005-TX-0025; Approva l and Prom ulgation of

Implemen tation Plans: Texas; Mod ification of Ex isti ng Qualified Facilities

Program and General Definitions; 74 Fed. Reg . 48,450 (Sept. 23. 2009)

Doc ket 10 No. EPA-R06-0 AR-2006-0 133; Appro val and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Texas: Prevention of Signi fica nt De terioration.

Nonattainrncnt NS R for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, NSR Reform. and a

Standa rd Permit; 74 Fed . Reg. 48,467 (Sept. 23, 200 9)

Docket 10 No. EPA-R06-0AR-2005-TX-003 2; Approval and Prom ulgation of

Implem entation Plans; Texas; Flexible Permits; 74 Fed. Reg. 48,480 (Sept. 23.

2009)

Comment of the G ulf Coast Ligni te Coalition

Dear Mr. Spruiell:

On behalf of the Gu lf Coast Lignite Coalition. we respectfully submi t the attached comments on

the September 23 . 2009 proposed U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) disappro val of

clements of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). As described fully in the attached

comments, GCLC believes that the prop osed disapproval is unwarranted because the Tex as SIP.

as implemented by the Texas Commission on Environmental Qu a lity (TC EQ) meets or exceeds

Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements. Should you have any addi tional que stions, please

do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully ubmitted.

Michael 1. Nasi

Co unsel, Gulf Coast Lign ite Coalition

5664282v.4

100 Con gr ess Aven ue, Sui t e 1100 Au st in, Tex as 787 0 1 ( 512) 236-2000 fax (512) 236-2 002

www .jw .corn Aust in D~IJ.1s fort Worth SJn An gelo Sa n Ant o nio M em ber or GLORA1.AW'"
2

cc : Attached

5664282vA
Mr. tanley M. Spruiell

November 23, _009

Page "

COMMENT OF THE GULF COAST LIGN ITE COALITION

I NTR onUCTlo N

The Gulf Coast Ligni te Coalition (GC LC) is a coal ition of entitie tha t own or operate lignite and

coal -fired power plant s and urfa ce mines within the tares of Texas. Louisiana and Mis issippi.

Coalition memb ership repre ents a vast majority of the lignite mining and ligni te-ti red electrical

generation indu stry in Texas. Lo uisiana anel Mississippi. In Texas alone. these indu stries

represent over 10 billion in annual expend itures and over 33 ,000 permanent job .

GCLC ack nowledges that, as recognized by the Texas Comm ission on Environmental Quality

(TCEQ), some changes to the language in the Texas rule s could be made to improve clarity and

tran sparenc y. However, the Te xas State Implementation Plan (SIP), as implemented by the

TC EQ, meets or exceeds Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requ irements and formal SIP

disapp roval is ina ppropriate. The EPA should look beyo nd immaterial differences in the rule

provi ions and focus on the positi ve results that Tex as has been able to achieve under the Tex as

Clean Air Act (TCAA) and the State" accompanying submittals to alter the Te xas SIP. EPA has

a history of focu sing on results, and . as such, we wou ld ask that EPA continue that practice and

not choose to alter co urse duri ng a time when the reg ional and national economy are the most

vulnerable.

As discu ssed full y below, the Texas SIP, including the programs that the EPA has proposed to

disapprove, have met the goals established in the FCAA by being protective of the pu blic health

and welfare in one of the nation ' s most productive states. Texas' power, fuel, chemical and

manu facturing production exceeds that of any other state, and the Texas pow er indu stry is the

bedroc k for this production capac ity. Texas producers arc able to achie ve this high level of

output, while still emitting fewer emissions per me gawatt than the vast majority of states in this

country. The variety of Texas air permi tting programs pro tect the environment and ensure that

Texas meets the letter intent of FCAA, while also preserving economic growth and job creation

for a growing economy and population-this shoul d be encouraged, not restrict ed.

Many Texas permittees have relied on the numerous provision s that fall within the Texas "SIP

ga p" ; in some ca es, these provisions have been awa iting EPA action for 15 years prior to the

EPA's recent propos ed disapproval. The EPA's Federal Register notices in no way acknow ledge

this burden for which the EPA itself is respo nsible. As a direct result of EPA ' s ap proach , ther e is

a real potential for increases in compliance costs and uncertainty while the regulated community

grapples with busine ss decision s that mu st be mad e in a new lega l en vironment where the

validity of long-standing air authorizations is in question . The net result of a continuation of

EPA's approach will be restrained, del ayed, and possibl y even cancelled business investment

wh ile po wer plan ts (and other Te xas indu stries) try to pred ict their compl ianc e res ponsibilities.

The EPA's app roach in threateni ng to disap prove multiple program s co uld resul t in effect ively

punishing the regulated community by forcing it to go thro ugh addi tiona l expen sive and

environmentally unnecessary permittin g processes. This outcome is the resu lt of the EPA ' s

apparent focu s on form over substance in this instan ce- and several misunderstand ings abo ut the

5664282v.4
Mr. Stanley M. pruiell

November 23. 2009

Page 4

nat ure of the Texas air permitting program . GCLC understands that the EPA must uphold its

obliga tion to enfo rce the Clean Air Act. but GC LC respectfully req uests tha t the take a

collabora tive , not combative, approach with Texas. This approach will limit the uncerta inty that

threaten s jobs and the oth erwise health y economic development of Texa , which provi les

products that play uch a ke ro le to the econo mic vita lity of our nati on .

1)1 cus

1. Texas' Public Participation Pro gram is Robu st and Meets or Exc eeds All Fede ral

Public Pnrticipation Requirements.

GC LC first offer s comments on Texas' public participation program , as the pu blic partici pation

iss ues are implicated throug ho ut the three abo ve-refere nced Fede ral Register notices. GCLC

consid ers these comme nts timely and appropriate given EPA 's pream ble statement tha t directs

the public to rea d the three pending notices and the November 2008 pu blic part icipat ion package

" in conjunction" with each other.

In 1999 , the Texas Legisla ture enacted HB 80 I, wh ich created a new cross-me dia pub lic notice

and participation proces s for envi ronmenta l permitting in Texas. The elements of this program

are robust and fully compliant with federal req uirem ents. In fact , this process exceeds the

requirements of the fede ral rules in almost every respect.

First, notice of all applications is published in a newspaper of ge neral circul ation in the area

where the new project wi ll be located. ' This notice trig gers a 30 -day public comme nt period.

During this peri od. the public may ti le wri tte n comme nts and, depending on the type of perm it

bei ng applied for, request a public meeting or a contested case hearing. However. the pub liceven part ies not residing in the Sta te- may make comme nts on an air pe rmit ap plication, and the

TC EQ is ob ligat ed to respond to these comments.' Note that EPA's pream ble stateme nt that

on ly affected person s are allowed to com me nt and trigge r a response obligation by TCEQ

reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Texas program. Based on the leve l of pub lic

interest, public meetings arc also pro vided for in the Texa s rules. It is important to rec ogni ze

that the "public meeting" component of the state program is equivalent to the "public hearing"

component of the federal program .

Th e Texas program goes we ll beyond the noti ce and meetin g proc ess con templated by the EPA's

own rules and allows "affected pe rsons" to have the right to request a contested case hea ring.

The state "hearing" component exceed s the federal req uirements by providin g for a trial-type

contested case hearing. If gra nted "affec ted person" status, the pro testant will become a party to

an administrative proceeding . In this proceeding, the permit ap plican t has the burden of proof

for dem on strating tha t its pe rmi t fully comp lies with all aspects of applicable Te xas and fede ral

sta tute . As a party to this proceeding, a protestant has the legal autho rity to challenge evidenc e

and arguments put forth by the applicant. The proceedi ng is held before an Administrative Law

! 30 TEX. ADrvlIN CODE §§ 39.20I . 39.601, 116.1 30.

2 See 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 55.156(b)( I).

56M 282v .4
Mr. Sta nley M. Spruie ll

Iovernber 23 .2009

Page 5

Jud ge, who makes a recomme nda tion to the TCEQ Comm issio ners, who have the final authority

to decide on the e i ues. gain, by providing lo r this trial-type con tested case heari ng process,

the Texas public participation process goes well beyond federal requ ireme nt . which req uire only

tha t interested partie ' have the ability to partic ipate in a noti ce and comme nt period .

GC LC understand s that the TCE Q is working with the EPA to addres man y of the concerns that

the EPA has advanced, and GCLC supports these effo rts. However , GCL C believe s that. as a

part of these negotiations, the EPA is attem pting to imp ose requiremen ts that go beyond its own

regu lations. For instance, the EPA arg ues that Texas' SIP violate s 40 C.F.R. § 51. 161(a) and (b)

bec ause the Texas program in certain situations does not require a sec ond round of notice after

the draft permit has been prepared and the TCEQ has made an initial dec ision on the application.

However, the Texas prog ram complies with the technical requirem ents of EPA's regulations.

The EPA's rules only prov ide that the "public information mu st inclu de the agency's anal ysis of

the effect of co nstruction or modification on ambient air quality, inc ludin g the agency ' s prop osed

approval or disapproval.":' Th e EPA's regu lation s do not requi re notice to be issued of this

public info rma tion, only that it be made available to the public. Under the Te xas program. this

information is made avai lable to the public. Furthermore, Texas also satisfies the "minimum

requirements" set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 5 1.16 1(b). This is the kind of semantic distinction we

hope EPA can move beyo nd to resolve these issue s immediately.

In sum, the public participation pro cess is robust and effective. Every state is given the

flexibility unde r the FCAA to meet the minimum requ irem ent s of that Ac t and tailor additional

requirements to fit its nee ds. By failing to recognize the sufficiency of the curren t pu blic

participation proc ess, EPA has trigge red some discussio ns in Texas about whether the Texas

publ ic part icipat ion proce ss should simply mirror the federal system, which woul d mean the

elimination of the Te xas contested case hearing process-an outco me the environmental

community has long opposed. By resolvin g semantic diIferences and eliminating uncertainty

about the status of the Te xas SIP as soon as possible, EPA will minimize the need for the State of

Texas to have tha t debate.

2. Texas' Definition of " Best Ava ilable Co ntro l Technology" Is Cons iste nt With

Federal Re gulation s."

Tex as' Februarv 1. 2006 submitta ls revised sections of the Te xas PSD SIP remo ving re fe rences

to the federal defin ition of BACT as defin ed in 40 C. F.R. 5 1.166(b)( 12).5 staff has

indicated that this was an unintentional removal of the pro vision. It will be add ressed in

rulemaking tha t is scheduled for the January 13. 20 I0 TC EQ age nda . This should resolve EPA

concerns regarding the Texas PSD program.

' 40 c.r.«. § 51. 16 1(a).

-l EPA proposed to disapprove a separately referenced definition of BACT in the Qualified Facilities proposed

disapproval. The definition of BACT. although codified here in 30 TAC 116.10 (General Definitions) is virtually

identical to the BACT provisions found in 30 TAC §116.111, as analyzed in this section. This definition. as applied

by the TCEQ, meets all federal requirements for major source BACT determinations.

j See 30 TAC § 116.160(a).

56M282vA
Mr. Stanley £\'1. pruiell

November 2'". 2009

Page 6

The Texas BACT ass essme nt process is legally valid as it has been and con tinu es to be in full

complianc e with FCAA req uirem ent s. This is pa rtic ularly importan t for those en tities that were

subject to a BACT analys is and received PSD pe rmi ts under the February 2006 submittal rules

and for those entities who cont inue to be subject to BACT anal ysis. Te xas has a three-tiered

BACT approach that has been previously approved by the EPA. This policy, as demo nstrated in

the TCEQ gu idance do cument "Evaluating Best Avail able Cont rol Technology (BACT) in Air

Permit Applicat ions." outlines BACT pol icy in the state. Drafted in April 2001 . it has bee n the

primary guidance doc ument for both permittees and protestant for BACT assessme nt. It

predate the Texas Feb ruary 2006 subm itta l by almost five years and continues to be the

primary guidance document regarding BACT a fter the submittals; BACT ha s been con sistently

app lied by the TCEQ be fore and after the submitted changes to Chap te r 11 6 of" Title 30 of the

T EXAS ADM INISTRATIVE C ODE.

The EPA in the pro posed disapproval cites Section 165 of the FCAA, which provides that " no

major em itting facility . . . may be constru cted [or modi fied] in any area whic h this part applies

un less- ( I) a permi t has been issued for such proposed faci lity in accorda nce wit h this part

setting forth emission limitations for such facility which co nfo rm to the requirements of this

part . . . (4) the proposed fac ility is subject to the best available control technology for eac h

pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter."? TCEQ's three-ti er approach to BACT meets

the abo ve requirements, ensuring that facil ities receiving PSD permits in the state conform to the

requirement s of Section 165 o f the FCA A and are requ ired to utili ze the Be st Available Co ntrol

Technolog y.

Furthermore, EPA has vo iced its support 1'01' Texas three-ti er approach during negotiations with

TCEQ over these issues. Whi le respondin g to TCEQ submittals, the EPA on Oc tober 27, 2008

stated that it "agreed w ith man y" of the statements made by TCEQ defending their BACT

prog ram in a June 13. 2008 letter.? TCEQ statements included that , to its understand ing, the

three -tiered approach is an acc eptable and approved approach by the EPA If the EPA did have

concern s with that assessment, the EPA had the opportunity to voic e them at that time or since

Texas (and other states) began using this type of three-ti ered approach .

In ligh t or the above fact s, GC LC fund amentall y disagrees with EPA ' s letter, dated November

12, 2009. respon se to TC EQ co mments, stated that the EPA does "not believe that all existing

major NS R permi t meet CAA BACT requircments.:" TCEQ's approach to BACT analysis

already meets fede ral requirements. The BACT req uirements of the Texas SIP submittal. as pan

6 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (P SD), Nonattainment NSR (NNS R) for the

]997 S-Hour Ozone Standard, NSR Reform, and a Standard Penn it, 74 Fed. Reg. 48,467,48,472 (Sept. 23,2009).

" Letter from Carl E. Edlund, Director, EPA Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division to Mark Vickery,

Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (Oct. 27, 200S) available at

htlp:llwww.tceq.state.tx.us!assets/public/pennitli ng/airlAnnouncements/epaj esponsej l0_27_OS.pdf.

Letter from Gina Mcf' arthy, EPA Assistant Administrator, to Mark R. Vickery, Executive Director. Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality, (Nov. 12,2009) available at

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/publiclpermitting/air/Announcements/from_epa_ I 1_ 12_.09.pdf.

5664282v.4
Mr. tanley M. pruiell

November 23,2009

Page 7

of the 2006 N R Re form, are consistent with Federal requ irement , and any additio nal co ncerns

will be add re ed in TCEQ' proposed rulemaking on the issue. GCLC urges EP , immediate

action to affi rm the ufficiency of the TCEQ rulem aking as re olving this issue in orde r to

eliminate fu rt her uncertainty about the tatus of the Texas program and the suffi ciency of

existing permits and pend ing BACT reviews.

3. T he Pollution Contro l Project Standard Permit Is Co n risren t With All Federa l

Regulations and Is Appro pr iate Under"EPA' NSR Review Reform Regulations.

The EPA is incorrect in proposing that the Texas submitted Pollution Co ntrol Project (PCP)

Standa rd Permit (3 0 TAC § 11 6.61 7) is overly broad 9 and that the elements or case-by-case

additional authorizations, source-specific reviews, and source specific tec hnical determinations

wa rrant the minor NS R SIP case-by-case perm it process under 30 TAC § 116.11O(a)(1).10 The

foundation for EPA' s argume nt is that, according to the proposed disapproval, "a Standard

Permit is a minor NSR pe rmit limited to a particular narrowly defi ned so urce category for which

the permit is designed to cover and ca nno t be used to make site-specific determinatio ns that are

outside the sco pe of th is type of permit. " I I

The EPA's basis in na rro wly de fining a Standard Permit to one source category is not found in

the FCAA or EPA rul es. TCEQ ' s PCP Standa rd Perm it meets the req uire ments of the FCAA.

Section 110(a)(2 )(C) is the primary provision of the FCAA governi ng EPA approval of standa rds

permits, and states that each SIP sha ll " prov ide for . . . regul ation o f the modi fication and

construction of any stationary so urce within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to ass ure

tha t nati onal ambient a ir quality standards are ac hieved, incl uding a permit pro gra m as required

in parts C [PSD ] and 0 [nonatt ainmen t NS R]." Since standard permits are made unavailable to

authorize new major sources and major modifications subject to Parts C and D, the PCP Standard

Permit does not run afo ul of the FCAA . Furthermo re, the PCP Standa rd Permit satisfies EPA's

requirements for minor NSR programs found at 40 C.F.R. § 5 1.160 . Finally, as an additional

element above and beyo nd federal requirements, the Executive Director o f the TCEQ main tains

an abi lity 10 prevent the perm it from being p~rove if the ED de termines there are health effects

concerns or the potential to exceed NAAQS .L GCLC urges EPA to affirm the sufficiency o f the

TC EQ PCP Sta ndard Permi t process to eliminate furthe r uncertainty about the status of the Texa s

program and the sufficiency o f ex isting or pen ding Standard Perm its.

9 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the i ew Source Review (NSR) State

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) for the

1997 S-Hour Ozone Standard, NSR Reform, and a Standard Permit, 74 Fed. Reg. at 48,476.

10 lei.

I! lei.

12 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § I 16.6 17(a)(3)(b).

566421i2vA
Mr. Stanley M. Sprui ell

lovernber 23, 2009

Page 8

4. Texas' Flexible Pennitting Program, as Ad ministered, Is Co nsistent With Fede ra l

Permitting Requirem ents, a nd th e Texas SIP Requires Only M ino r Cl a rifying

Amend ments.

Th EP 's Federal Register notices and correspondence with the TCEQ ignore the fact that the

Texas Flexible Permitting Program has had a sig nificant impact in improving air quality in

Texas. The program, initially implemented in 1994, was success ful in bringing many maj or

sources out of grandfathered status and into the Tex as permitting program. Since that time. the

Flexible Perm itting Program has provided Texas with an oppo rtunity to achieve real reductions

in emissions from the fa cilities that hold these permits. as can be measured by the significant

improvements in air qua lity in Texas' Nonattainmcnt are as.

Although GCL C' s members do not currently rely on this perm itting pro gram, we belie ve it has

erved the State wel l. It is ther efo re in the interest of the EPA and the TCEQ to resolve any

remaining issues and e liminate uncertainty as soon as possible.

C ON CL USION

Based on all 0 f the issues set out above, GC LC is conce rned that the EPA has injected

uncertaint y into the Texas regulatory framework witho ut any prom ise of addi tional

environmental protec tion. Uncertainty will lead to increased costs to suppliers of electricity.

fuels, and products, whi ch will in turn lead to increased prices for con sumers across the country

during a time when Ame rican consumers are economically vulnerable and Te xas is working to

create jobs and provide affordable and reliable electricity for a growing population . We remain

ho peful that EPA will avo id this outcome by workin g to the resolve these issues without the need

for SIP disapproval. GCLC appreciates the opportunity to fi le these comments and welcomes

participation in processes in the future to informall y resolve the issues addressed in this

comment.

56M2 82v.4
ML Stanley M . Spruiell

OISTRHlUTION LIST

Gulf Coast Lignit e Coalition

American Electric Power

Lurninant

NRG Power LLC

The Nort h American Coal Corporation

Optim Energy L.P.

Courtesy Distribution

The Honorable Jo hn Cornyn

United States Senate

5 17 Hart Senate Offi ce Building

Washington, D.C 2051 0

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison

United States Senate

284 Russell Senate Office Bu ildi ng

Washington, D.C 205 10

The Honorable Joe Barton

Unite d States House of Representatives

2109 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington , D.C 20515

The Honorable Kevi n Brady

United States House of Represent atives

301 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorab le Michael C Burgess

United States House of Representatives

229 Cannon House Office

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable John C. Carter

United House Representatives

409 Cannon House Office Building

Wash ington, D.C. 20515

5664282v .4
NI r. tanley M. pruiell

No vembe r 23, 2009

Page 10

The Honorabl Mike Conaway

United States House o f Representatives

1527 Longwo rth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorable Henry Cuellar

United States House of Representatives

336 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorab le John Abn ey Culberson

United States House o f Representatives

1-14 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorable Chet Edwards

United States House of Representatives

2369 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorable Louie Gohmert

United States House ofRepre sentati ves

511 Cannon House Office Building

Washin gton , D.C. 205 15

The Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez

United States House of Representatives

303 Cannon House Offic e Building

Washin gton, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Kay Grange r

United 'tates House of Represent atives

320 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorable AI Green

United States House of Representatives

236 Cannon House Office Building

Wa hington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorable Gene Green

United States House of Represent atives

r 72 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

5664282 v.4
Mr. tanley M. pruiell

November 2" . 2009

Page 11

The Honorabl Ralph M. l-1. a11

United 'tates House of Representatives

2405 Payburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Jeb Hensarling

United tares House of Representatives

129 Cannon House Office Building

Washington. D,C. 20515

The Honorable Ruben Hinojosa

United States House of Representatives

2463 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Sam Johnson

United States House of Representatives

1211 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Kenny Marchant

United States House of Representatives

227 Cannon House Office Build ing

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Mike Mcf.aul

United States House of Representatives

131 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorable Randy Neugebauer

United States House of Representatives

1424 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 205 15

The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz

United States House of Representatives

2110 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

56642821' .4
Honorable Ted Poe

United House of Representatives

Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C 205 15

The Honorable Silve stre Reyes

United States House of Representatives

2433 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C 20515

The Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez

United States House of Representatives

2531 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Pete Sessions

United States House ofRepresentatives

2233 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C 20515

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith

United States House of Representatives

2409 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable William Ivl. Thornberry

United States House of Representatives

2209 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 2051 5

The Hono rable Kip Averitt

Texas Senate

P.O. Box 12068 Capital Station

Austin, TX 78711

The Honorable Dennis Bonnen

Texas House of Represen tatives

P.O. Box 2910

78768-29 10

5664282v.4
!VIr. Stanley !VI. pruiell

Nove mber 23. 200 9

Pag 13

The Hono rab le Rick Hardcastle

Texas House of Representatives

P.O. Box 29 10

Au stin, TX 78768-2 910

The Honorable Rick Perry; Att n: Toby Baker

Office or the Go vernor

P.O. Box 12428

Austin, Texa s 787 11-242 8

Chairman Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D.

Texas Commission on Environme ntal Quality

P.O. Box 13087 MC 100

Austin, TX 787 11-3087

Commiss ioner Buddy Ga rcia

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087 MC 100

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Commissioner Carlos Rub instein

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087 MC 100

Austin, TX 78711-308 7

56642S2v.4