Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes; Texas; Beaumont / Port Arthur Ozone Nonattainment Area: 

Redesignation to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and Determination of 

Attainment for the One-Hour Ozone Standard 

Technical Support Document 

E. Belk, C. Young, S. Rennie, J. Riley, M. Sather, E. Shahin 

May 5, 2010 

This Technical Support Document (TSD) has been written in support of the 

proposed Federal Register action for the Beaumont / Port Arthur (BPA) Ozone 

Nonattainment Area in Texas which includes two primary components: Redesignation to 

Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and Determination of Attainment for the 

One-Hour Ozone Standard. 

The Clean Air Act sets forth the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing 

that (1) the Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; 

(2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area 

under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control 

regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has 

fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the 

area under section 110 and part D. 

 EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 

13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has 

provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in a number of 

documents identified in section IV of the corresponding proposed Federal Register 

action, including one which specifically discusses requirements for TSDs for 

redesignation of ozone nonattainment areas: 

“Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas”, Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993. 

This TSD includes material for the BPA area as required by the 1993 G.T. Helms 

memo mentioned above (Part I), and further supplements the proposed Federal Register 

notice (Part II). The following outline provides an overview of the material covered in 

this document. 
2

Part I: Documentation in Support of the Memo from G.T. Helms (August 17, 1993) 

A. What years are the supporting air quality data covering? Where are the monitors 

located? What are the relevant concentrations? 

B. For what years were emissions inventories prepared and how were they developed? 

In the interim, what are the total season-day and/or annual emissions by pollutant for 

point, area, and mobile sources for the attainment and maintenance years? 

C. What transportation, emission, and/or dispersion models were used? What were the 

significant input parameters, including air quality data and assumptions used in the 

demonstration? What are the model results? 

D. What are the maintenance plan contingency measures, triggers and commitments? 

What is the process for tracking the plan and reporting the results to EPA? What are the 

adoption and implementation schedules for the contingency measures? How is 

maintenance demonstrated in the interim years? Are additional controls to be adopted 

and implemented in the future to offset emission increases, and what is the impact of 

these controls on emissions inventory planning cap(s)? 

E. What was the public hearing and what are the results of any comments received by 

the State? What is the status of any outstanding SIP call or findings letter, if any? 

F. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s supporting materials that accompanied the 

submittal, such as the technical data and commitment letter, and how do these materials 

conform to EPA policy, guidance, and the Clean Air Act? 

Part II: Additional Supplemental Information for the Proposed Federal Register Action 

A. Section VI. B. 1. of the Federal Register proposal: 

VI. Does the BPA Area Have a Fully Approved SIP under section 110(k) for the 

Section 110 and Part D Requirements of the CAA Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation? 

B. What are the Part D Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation 

for the BPA area? 

1. What are the Part D Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation 

for the BPA Area under the 1-hour Ozone Standard? 

B. Section VII.C. of the Federal Register proposal: 

VII. Are the Air Quality Improvements in the BPA Area Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emission Reductions? 

 C. Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Controls Implemented 

C. Section VIII. B. of the Federal Register proposal: 

VIII. Does Texas have a Fully Approvable 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 
3

Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA for the BPA Area? 

B. How Did Texas Estimate the VOC and NOx Emissions for the Attainment Year 

and the Projection Years? 

D. Section IX. C. of the Federal Register proposal: 

IX. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the BPA Area’s Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budget? 

C. Is the MVEB Approvable? 

E. Section X. of the Federal Register proposal: 

X. EPA’s Evaluation of the Backfill Contingency Measures for the 1-Hour 

Ozone Failure-to-Attain Contingency Measures and the State’s Request to 

Remove an Unimplemented VOC Rule from the Texas SIP 

Attachment 

TCEQ Response to Comments from BMC Holdings 
4

Part I 

Documentation in Support of the Memo from G.T. Helms (August 17, 1993). 

A. What years are the supporting air quality data covering? Where are the monitors 

located? What are the relevant concentrations? 

For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 

Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. This standard is attained if the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentration at 

each monitor in the area that is eligible for comparison to the NAAQS is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix I, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained at a monitor if the design value is 

0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors 

generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring 

period required for demonstrating attainment. For ease of communication, many reports 

of ozone concentrations are given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm x 1,000. Thus, 

0.084 ppm equals 84 ppb. 

 

EPA reviewed BPA area ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring 

stations for the ozone seasons 2005 through 2007, as well as data for the ozone seasons 

2006 through 2008 and data for 2009 in AQS but not yet certified. The 2005 – 2007 

ozone season data was relied upon by Texas in its submittal. Since the State’s submittal, 

the 2006 – 2008 ozone season data has been quality assured and recorded in AQS. The 

design value for 2005 – 2007 is 0.083 ppm; the design value for 2006 – 2008 is 0.081 

ppm. The preliminary design value for the additional year of 2009, i.e., the 2007 – 2009 

ozone seasons, is 0.077 ppm. The data for all three sets of ozone seasons show that the 

BPA area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

 

Table 1 provides the design values based on data from the nine monitors in the 

BPA area. Each of the nine monitoring sites in the BPA area monitored attainment with 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the 2005-2007 ozone seasons and for the 2006 – 2008 

ozone seasons. (To find the overall design value for the area for a given year, simply find 

the highest design value from any of the nine monitors for that year.) The location of 

each monitoring site in the BPA area is shown on the map entitled, “BPA ozone and 

ozone precursor monitoring network” included in the docket associated with this action. 
5

Table 1 

BPA Area 

Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values 

Data for All Monitors (ppm) 1,2,3,4 

4th Highest Daily Max Design Values 

BPA Monitor Three Year Averages

Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005- 

2007 

2006-

2008 

2007-

2009 

Lamar 

(48-245-0009) 

0.081 0.085 0.080 0.072 0.071 0.082 0.079 0.074 

Port Arthur 

(48-245-0011) 

0.079 0.085 0.073 0.071 0.073 0.079 0.076 0.072 

Sabine Pass 

(48-245-0101) 

0.082 0.084 0.078 0.069 0.073 0.081 0.077 0.073 

Hamshire 

(48-245-0022) 

0.080 0.081 0.077 0.070 0.070 0.079 0.076 0.072 

West Orange 

(48-361-1001) 

0.078 0.078 0.073 0.064 0.073 0.076 0.071 0.070 

Mauriceville 

(48-361-1100) 

0.076 0.071 0.075 0.069 0.067 0.074 0.071 0.070 

Jefferson Co. 

Airport 

(48-245-0018) 

0.083 0.084 0.082 0.078 0.071 0.083 0.081 0.077 

SETRPC Port 

Arthur 

(48-245-0628) 

0.078 0.082 0.076 0.065 0.069 0.078 0.074 0.070 

Nederland 

(48-245-1035)4 

 0.068 0.082 0.067 0.069 0.072 0.072 

1

 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year average of the annual 4th 

highest values (40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I). 

2

 Monitoring site locations for BPA are shown on a map entitled, “BPA ozone and 

ozone precursor monitoring network” included in the docket. 

3

 Monitoring data for 2009 are in AQS but not yet certified (as of March 26, 

2010). 

4

 Monitoring did not begin at the Nederland site until 2006. 

 
6

The fourth high values for 8-hour ozone for 2005 through 2009, and the 3-year average of 

these values (i.e., design value), are summarized in Table 2: 

Table 2 

BPA Area 

Fourth Highest 8-hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values 

Data Summary (ppm) 1,2,3

4th Highest Daily Max 

Design Values 

BPA Area Three Year Averages

Overall 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005-

2007 

2006- 

2008 

2007- 

2009 

0.083 0.084 0.082 0.078 0.071 0.083 0.081 0.077 

1

 Unlike for the 1-hour ozone standard, design value calculations for the 8-hour 

ozone standard are based on a rolling three-year average of the annual 4th highest 

values (40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I). 

2

 Monitoring data for 2009 are in AQS but not yet certified (as of March 26, 

2010). 

3

 The fourth high data in this table is from the Jefferson Co. Airport monitor site 

(AQS 48-245-0018. 

As shown in Table 2, the 8-hour ozone design value for 2005-2007, and also for 

2006-2008, which is based on a three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 

average ozone concentration at the monitor recording the highest concentrations, is below 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The design values of 0.083 ppm for 2005-2007 and 

0.081 ppm for 2006-2008 demonstrate the area is in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Data through 2008 have been quality assured, as recorded in AQS. Data for 

2009 not yet certified also indicate that the area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS. The preliminary design value for the BPA area for 2007-2009 is 0.077 ppm. In 

summary, monitoring data for BPA for the three years 2005 through 2007, as well as 

monitoring data for the three years 2006 through 2008 and preliminary monitoring data 

for 2009, show continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Preliminary 

data for BPA for 2009 is included in the docket. 

In addition, the State of Texas has committed in its maintenance plan for the BPA 

area to continue operation of an appropriate ozone monitoring network and to work with 

EPA in compliance with 40 CFR Part 58 with regard to the continued adequacy of the 

network, including whether additional monitoring is needed, and when monitoring can 

be discontinued. There are five monitoring sites operated by the TCEQ in the BPA area, 

located in Jefferson and Orange Counties. TCEQ operates these monitors in accordance 

with the requirement of 40 CFR Part 58 and the EPA-approved Quality Assurance 

Program Plan. There are four additional monitors operated by the South East Texas 

Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC) that are not part of the TCEQ QAPP. If the 
7

SETRPC, however, removes one of its monitors, the EPA and Texas will jointly review 

the adequacy of the network, including whether additional monitoring is needed. In the 

maintenance plan, Texas commits to continue operation of the five ozone monitors it 

operates in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 through the end of the maintenance period 

(2021). The State also commits to continue to operate a monitoring network in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and to enter data into the Air Quality System in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. The TCEQ will continue to provide data from the 

SETRPC monitors on the Commission’s website and in EPA’s AQS database as long as 

the SETRPC participates in the network. 

In summary, EPA is proposing to determine that complete, quality- assured data 

for the 2005–2007 and 2006-2008 ozone seasons show that the BPA 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and data for 2009 in 

AQS but not yet certified show that the area continues to attain the standard. 

Should the area violate the 1997 8-hour ozone standard before the proposed 

redesignation is finalized, EPA will not proceed with final redesignation. 

At the time TCEQ developed its redesignation request for BPA, TCEQ’s ambient 

VOC data for the area was limited. There was one automated gas-chromatograph (AGC) 

monitor, the Jefferson County Airport monitor, with valid data in the BPA area from 

2003 to 2004. There were no AGC monitors with valid data in 2005 in the BPA area. The 

AGC monitor at Hamshire (CAMS 64) had valid data from July 18, 2006, to August 28, 

2006, which is a little over one month of valid data. At the time of the submittal, there 

were two AGC monitors operating in the BPA area, Lamar, Beaumont (CAMS 2) and 

Nederland High School, Beaumont (CAMS 1035). The two operating monitors had valid 

data from August 28, 2006, and August 29, 2006, respectively, which gave a little more 

than one year of continuous data at the time TCEQ developed the submittal for the BPA 

area. Due to the lack of continuous long-term AGC monitoring data in the BPA area, no 

ambient VOC trends using TCEQ monitoring data were analyzed. 

The reason for the limited VOC data is that this data was not required until 2006 

as a result of the 2004 action reclassifying the BPA to “serious” under the 1-hour ozone 

standard (61 FR 16483, March 30, 2004). As required, beginning part-way through 

2006, the BPA area was collecting VOC data at two sites according to the Photochemical 

Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) program. These sites are Nederland and 

Lamar. At the time of the writing of this TSD (as of April 26, 2010), the summer total 

non-methane organic carbon (TNMOC) mean concentration at each site did not change 

by an amount that is statistically significant from 2007 through 2009. Note that since 

there was only a partial-year of data in 2006, data for 2006 were not included in the 

analysis. 

 As mentioned above, an additional source of air quality data in the BPA area is 

the Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC). The SETRPC collects 

data at four monitoring sites which are in addition to the monitoring sites operated by the 

TCEQ. Information regarding data from the SETPRC monitoring sites was provided to 
8

TCEQ in comments to its proposed redesignation and maintenance plan for the BPA area 

in several letters, including one from the SETRPC Air Quality Advisory Committee. 

 

 Data from the SETPRC support the TCEQ’s trend analyses showing improved air 

quality in the BPA area. The SETPRC NOx data corroborates the TCEQ’s NOx analysis, 

showing decreases in NOx concentrations in the BPA area. The SETPRC VOC data, 

which are measured using EPA methods TO-14 and TO-15 and analyzed by a TCEQaccredited laboratory, also show a long-term decreasing trend in VOC emissions. Based 

on the 5 SETPRC canister sites, VOC data show average ethylene decreases from a range 

of 9 percent to 84 percent over the past 15 years, and propylene has decreased from a 

range of 75 percent to 87 percent over the past 16 years. 

B. For what years were emissions inventories prepared and how were they developed? 

In the interim, what are the total season-day and/or annual emissions by pollutant for 

point, area, and mobile sources for the attainment and maintenance years? 

The marginal requirements at section 182(a) and 40 CFR 51.915 require that the 

BPA 8-hour ozone area meet the emissions inventory requirements of section 182(a)(1). 

An emissions inventory is an estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants in an area. 

The emissions inventory consists of VOC and NOx emissions, as they are ozone 

precursors. 

TCEQ prepared a comprehensive emission inventory for the Beaumont/Port 

Arthur (BPA) non attainment area including point, area, on-road, and off-road mobile 

sources for the baseline year of 2002. TCEQ submitted the inventory to EPA as part of 

the 2005 Dallas-Fort Worth 5% increment of progress SIP revision, but did not provide 

for public comment. Texas updated the inventory for area and nonroad emissions 

categories and provided the inventory for public comment and on December 16, 2008, 

submitted the 2002 base year inventory to EPA as part of a SIP revision for the BPA 8-

hour ozone non-attainment area. EPA reviewed the 2002 base year inventory and 

determined that it was developed in accordance with EPA guidelines. The inventory is 

listed in tables 2.5 and 2.6 of the submittal. A description of the methods used to 

estimate area and non-road emissions is listed in Appendix B titled “Texas 2002 Periodic 

Emissions Inventory Area, Nonroad Mobile, and Biogenic sources”. 

Point Source Emissions: Industrial sources are required to submit emissions data 

to TCEQ annually. TCEQ stores the data in the State of Texas Air Reporting System 

(STARS) database. Inventory data for 2002 was obtained from STARS, and point source 

emissions were calculated using TCEQ and EPA guidance documents. 

Area Source Emissions: TCEQ developed the area source emission inventory in 

2003. Since then, TCEQ updated the inventory by using improved methods and 

improved emission factors to estimate emissions from several area source categories, 

such as industrial and residential fuel usage, gasoline stations, oil and gas production, and 

industrial coatings. Texas has performed studies and conducted surveys in order to 

obtain more accurate data and revise the inventory accordingly. Appendix B of the 
9

submittal provides a detailed description of the inventory. 

On-road Emissions: The BPA onroad mobile source EI was developed under 

contract by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), an objective transportation research 

entity within the Texas A&M University system. Area-specific emission factors for BPA 

were developed using the newest version of mobile emissions factor model, MOBILE6.2. 

These factors were then multiplied by the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which were 

derived by TTI using travel demand models validated against large numbers of ground 

counts of traffic throughout each nonattainment county in the BPA area. TxDOT 

Automatic traffic recorder (ATR) data were used to produce the ozone season weekday 

VMT adjustments and the hourly travel fractions to allocate the VMT by hour-of-day. 

Using MOBILE6 model is consistent with EPA’s guidance for estimating on-road mobile 

emissions. 

Non-road Emissions Inventory: TCEQ has updated the BPA non-road emissions 

by using data obtained from studies and surveys of industrial and construction equipment. 

The EDMS aircraft model was used to produce aircraft emission data, and locomotive 

emissions were updated using survey results of engine activities. Using this area-specific 

information and the latest version of the NONROAD model has resulted in a substantial 

improvement in the inventory over estimates based on EPA’s default values. We find the 

approach and methodology used by TCEQ acceptable. A full description of the approach 

is detailed in Appendix B. 

Table 3 lists the 2002 emissions inventory for the BPA area. 

Table 3. BPA Base Year Emission Inventory 

2002 Base Year Inventory (Tons/Day) 

Source 

Type

NOx VOC

Point 109.23 43.81 

Area 7.54 50.11 

On-road 

Mobile 

45.84 13.32 

Non-road 

Mobile 

48.99 13.85 

Total 211.60 121.09 

 

 In the redesignation request, the State was also required to demonstrate that the 

observed ozone air quality improvement in the BPA area is due to permanent and 
10

enforceable emissions reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, 

Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures. 

 In making this demonstration, the State presented several sets of data. First, the 

State provided a 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) for NOx and VOC in the BPA 

area, and provided a comparison between the 2002 PEI and the 2005 Base EI. Second, 

the State analyzed the changes in VOC and NOx emissions in the BPA area between the 

ozone standard violation year 2002 and one of the years in the period during which the 

area attained the standard, 2005. Finally, the State documented the VOC and NOx

emission control measures that have been implemented in the BPA area over the past 17 

years. 

Emissions Reductions as Shown by Emissions Inventory Data (proposal, 

Section VII. A). Texas chose 2005 as the base attainment year, and compared 2002 

VOC and NOx emissions when the DV was 90 ppb, to the attainment year emissions, to 

show that emission reductions have occurred in the area, and have resulted in the ozone 

air quality improvement in the area. 2005 is the first year of the first three-year period 

demonstrating attainment. By 2005, NOx emissions were estimated to have dropped by 

almost 30% and VOC emissions by 15% from 2002 levels. These significant decreases 

resulted in the improvement in ozone levels seen at the monitors. 

The emissions for both years were derived from periodic VOC and NOx emission 

inventories, which are prepared every three years. Based on the estimated emissions, 

TCEQ has documented several emission trends to show that permanent and enforceable 

emission controls in various source sectors are responsible for significant downward 

trends in VOC and NOx emission totals in the BPA area. For a discussion of emission 

inventory preparation methods, see the discussion of the preparation of the 2005 base 

year emission inventories below. 

 To demonstrate that VOC and NOx emissions decreased between one of the 

violation years (2002) and an attainment year (2005), TCEQ has documented BPA’s 

VOC and NOx emissions for 2002 and 2005 for all anthropogenic source sectors. Table 4 

lists these emissions for the 2002 PEI and 2005 EI. Due to improved reporting and 

estimating techniques, flash emissions are better captured in the 2005 inventory. To 

compare values that are consistent, VOC area source emissions for 2005 in Table 4 do 

not include additional flash emissions from upstream oil and gas production based on the 

improved reporting and estimating techniques.. 
11

Table 4: A Comparison of VOC and NOx Emissions in the BPA Area 

by Source Category from the 2002 PEI and the 2005 Base EI 

 (tons per average ozone season day) 

VOC Emissions (tpd) 

Emissions 

Source Category 2002 2005 

Area 50.11 42.59* 

Non-Road Mobile 13.85 4.96 

On-Road Mobile 13.32 11.63 

Point 43.81 42.68 

Total 121.09 101.86 

*This figure represents the 2005 base inventory for area sources used in 

the maintenance plan not including flash emissions from upstream oil and 

gas production. 

Table 4 (continued) 

NOx Emissions (tpd) 

Emissions 

Source Category 2002 2005 

Area 7.54 9.06 

Non-Road Mobile 48.99 25.99 

On-Road Mobile 45.84 45.60 

Point 109.23 68.49 

Total 211.60 149.14 

 

This comparison of emissions in the BPA area shows that NOx emissions 

significantly declined between 2002 and 2005. In addition, VOC emissions in the BPA 

area also declined between 2002 and 2005. TCEQ has included this information as part 

of its demonstration that emissions reductions in the BPA area, for both NOx and VOC 

between 2002 and 2005, explain the observed improvement in ozone concentrations. 

Further, the reductions between 2002 and 2005 can be attributed to permanent and 

enforceable reductions. 

 The most significant reductions documented in Table 5 were the reductions in 

Point Source NOx. In 2000, Texas adopted additional NOx control rules to further reduce 

NOx emissions from electric utility power boilers (approximately 50% reduction) and 

from industrial boilers and process heaters (approximately 20 percent reduction). These 

reductions occurred in two stages, with two-thirds of the reductions occurring by May 1, 

2003, and the remaining one-third by May 1, 2005. Federal emission control measures 

have had significant impacts on VOC and NOx emissions in the BPA area. 
12

 Based on the 2002 and 2005 nonattainment area emissions information provided 

by TCEQ, EPA concludes that VOC and NOx emission totals have significantly declined 

in the nonattainment area during the 2002-2005 period. These emission reductions have 

contributed to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in this area. EPA 

concurs with Texas’ conclusions that the emission controls, emissions inventories, and 

emissions trends support the conclusion that attainment in the area is due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

To further demonstrate that permanent and enforceable emission controls have 

reduced VOC and NOx emissions, TCEQ also documented the trends in NOx and VOC 

concentrations in the BPA area, which is discussed in greater detail below. 

Impact of Emissions Controls Implementation: Trend Analysis (proposal, 

Section VII. B). To assess the impact of emission control implementation, TCEQ 

determined the VOC and NOx ambient concentration trends at two monitors in the BPA 

area from 1991 to 2007. This included determining or projecting the VOC emissions for 

all seventeen years in this time period. NOx trends during this period, for both monitors 

provided by TCEQ in the analysis, Beaumont (CAMS2) and West Orange (CAMS 9), 

showed that the 95th percentile of concentrations decreased at both monitors, and that the 

average NOx concentration remained relatively flat at Beaumont (CAMS 2) but has 

decreased at West Orange (CAMS 9). For VOC trends in the BPA area, since TCEQ’s 

VOC data was limited, TCEQ included data provided by the SETRPC that show that 

average concentrations for both ethylene and propylene have decreased in the BPA area. 

The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in ozone air quality over 

the assessed period can be attributed to the implementation of a number of emission 

control measures identified above. (These measures are also discussed in greater detail 

below.) 

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Controls Implemented (proposal, 

Section VII. C.). The following is a discussion of the permanent and enforceable 

emission controls that have been implemented in the BPA area. In Texas’ 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request, the State documented all of the emission control rules or programs 

that have impacted VOC or NOx emissions during the period 1991 - 2007. 

1. Reasonably Available Control Techniques 

Texas notes that a number of VOC and NOx RACT rules developed in prior years 

have continued to provide additional VOC and NOx emission reductions during the more 

recent years. For VOC controls, with the exception of the source categories covered by 

the most recently published CTGs (see a discussion of the new CTG RACT source 

categories below), Texas has adopted and implemented VOC RACT rules for source 

categories covered by older (prior to 2006) CTGs and for major non-CTG sources in 

Hardin, Jefferson and Orange Counties. All VOC RACT rules are contained in Chapter 

115 of volume 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC 115)), and all NOx RACT 

rules are contained in Chapter 117 of volume 30 of the TAC (30 TAC 117). All of these 

VOC and NOx RACT rules have been approved by the EPA as revisions of the Texas 

SIP. 
13

2. ROP Plans and Attainment Demonstration Plan 

 TCEQ states that the BPA are has met all of the one-hour ozone SIP obligations, 

including implementation of the VOC and NOx emission control programs and rules 

needed to comply with Texas’ one-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the BPA 

area and implementation of all emission control measures contained in the various ROP 

plans applicable to Hardin, Jefferson and Orange Counties. EPA approved the 15% ROP 

Plan on February10, 1998 (63 FR 6659). EPA approved the Post-1996 VOC and NOx

ROP Plan on February 22, 2006 (71 FR 8962). The Post-1996 ROP Plan provided 27 

percent reductions. 

3. NOx Control Rules 

 TCEQ developed NOx emission control rules for electric industrial boilers, 

industrial boilers and process heaters, gas turbines, rich-burn stationary gas-fired internal 

combustion engines, nitric acid plants, and adipic acid plants in compliance with the 

CAA. These rules were adopted in 1993. Emission reductions resulted from these rules 

beginning in 1999. 

 TCEQ also adopted VOC rules for batch process and industrial wastewater 

sources and NOx rules for lean-burn engines. These rules were adopted in 1999, with 

emissions reductions resulting from these rules beginning in 2001. 

 In 2000, Texas adopted additional NOx control rules to further reduce NOx

emissions from electric utility power boilers (approximately 50% reduction) and from 

industrial boilers and process heaters (approximately 20 percent reduction). These 

reductions occurred in two stages, with two-thirds of the reductions occurring by May 1, 

2003, and the remaining one-third by May 1, 2005. 

4. Federal Emission Control Measures 

 TCEQ notes that other Federal emission control measures have had significant 

impacts on VOC and NOx emissions in the BPA area. These Federal measures include 

the following. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. These 

emission control requirements result in lower VOC and NOx emissions from new cars 

and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in 

between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end of the phase-in period, 

the following vehicle NOx emission reductions will occur nationwide: passenger cars 

(light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles 

(86 percent); and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95 

percent). VOC emission reductions are expected to range from 12 to 18 percent, 

depending on vehicle class, over the same period. Although some of the emissions 

reductions occurred by the attainment years (2005-2007) in the BPA area, additional 

emission reductions will occur during the maintenance period. For example, note that the 

Tier 2 emission standards for passenger vehicles weighing over 8,500 pounds were not 

implemented until 2008 or later. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000. This rule 

includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into effect in 

2004. A second phase took effect in 2007, which further reduced the highway diesel fuel 
14

sulfur content to 15 parts per million, leading to additional reductions in combustion NOx

and VOC emissions. This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOx

emissions from diesel trucks and busses. 

Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA issued this rule in 2004. This rule applies to diesel 

engines used in industries, such as construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated 

that compliance with this rule will cut NOx emissions from non-road diesel engines by up 

to 90 percent. This rule is currently achieving emission reductions, but will not be fully 

implemented until 2010. 

Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines. This EPA rule was 

issued March 14, 2008 and includes new emission standards for locomotives and marine 

diesel engines that will reduce NOx emissions by about 80 percent compared with 

engines meeting the current standards. These new requirements have three parts: 

tightening emission standards for existing locomotives and large marine engines when 

they are remanufactured, effective in 2008; establishing Tier III standards for new 

locomotives and marine diesel engines that were phased in beginning in 2009; and 

establishing more stringent Tier IV standards for new locomotives and marine diesel 

engines that will be phased in beginning in 2014. 

Additional Federal programs. Additional federal programs for emissions 

reductions in the BPA area include Onboard Refueling Vapor Recover (ORVR) for lightduty vehicles, and Federal control through Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) of Hazardous Air Pollutants emissions. Table 5 shows the federal emissions 

reductions programs in the BPA area for fuels and motor vehicles: 

Table 5. BPA Federal Emission Reductions Programs 

Federal Measures

o Tier 2 Fuel and Vehicle Emission Standards 

o Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) for light-duty vehicles 

o Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle and Fuel Standards 

o Federal controls on certain nonroad engines 

o Federal control through Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) of Hazardous Air Pollutants emissions 

 ○ Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer 

Products

 ○ Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural 

Coatings

 ○ Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines 

5. Additional State and Local Emission Reductions 

 Several local permanent and enforceable emission reductions have occurred 

through various mechanisms other than through RACT rules or through Federal emission 

control rules/programs. These State and Local measures, which are permanent and 

enforceable, include the following. 

Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) rule. Texas’ TxLED rule reduces emissions 

of NOx and other pollutants from diesel-powered motor vehicles and non-road equipment 

operating within 110 counties in the eastern half of Texas, including the BPA area. This 
15

rule was originally adopted by TCEQ in 2000 and revised in 2007, with compliance 

occurring over a range of years, beginning in 2005, and continuing through the beginning 

of 2008. 

Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP). TERP, established in 2001, includes 

incentive grant programs to reduce NOx emissions from internal combustion engines on 

mobile sources. Eligible grant projects include fleet expansions with cleaner engines, 

replacement of old vehicles and equipment, repower of old engines, and on-vehicle and 

on-site infrastructure for idle reduction, electrification, and use of qualifying fuels. 

TCEQ explains in its submittal that, as of September 2007, the TERP program has 

awarded over $19 million for 58 projects in the BPA area, which are estimated to reduce 

NOx emissions by more than 2.7 tons per day by 2009. In the BPA area, the projects 

funded thus far have resulted in NOx reductions of 4,480 tons. 

Agreed Orders. Although not relied upon by the State for showing attainment or 

RFP, Agreed Orders have also been important in reducing NOx and VOC emissions in 

the BPA area. In December 2004, TCEQ adopted revisions to the BPA SIP to 

incorporate Agreed Orders in which six companies in the BPA area agreed to make 

enforceable measures that were not required. The six companies were ISP Elastomers; 

Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of Exxon Mobil Corporation; Huntsman 

Petrochemical Corp. of Port Arthur and also of Port Neches; Motiva Enterprises LLC; 

and Premcor Refining Group, Inc. The Agreed Orders included voluntary emissions 

reductions, air monitoring improvements, and other actions. 

Table 6 shows the state and local emissions reductions programs in the BPA area. 

Table 6 

BPA State and Local Emission Reductions Programs 

State and Local Measures

o Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) 

o Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) 

o Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

o Agreed Orders 

6. Controls to Remain In Effect 

 Texas commits to maintain all of the current emission control measures for VOC 

and NOx after the BPA area is redesignated to attainment. Texas, through TCEQ’s Chief 

Engineer’s Office, Air Quality Division, and the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, 

has the legal authority and necessary resources to actively enforce against any violations 

of the State’s air pollution emission control rules. After the BPA area is redesignated to 

attainment, TCEQ will implement NSR for major stationary sources and major 

modifications through the PSD program. 

Summary. 

As discussed above, local controls as well as national emission controls have 

contributed to the ozone air quality improvement in the BPA area. NOx and VOC 

emissions have dropped substantially. Based on the above, EPA proposes to determine 

that Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties and the State of Texas have met the 
16

requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, and have demonstrated that the 

improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. 

As noted above, Texas has committed to retaining all existing emission control 

measures that affect ozone levels in the BPA area after Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange 

Counties are redesignated to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. All 

changes in existing rules subsequently determined to be necessary must be submitted to 

the EPA for approval as SIP revisions. 

Does Texas have a Fully Approvable 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA for the BPA Area? What is Required in an 

Ozone Maintenance Plan? (proposal, section VIII. A.) 

In conjunction with its request to redesignate the BPA 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, the State of Texas included a SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the BPA area for at least 10 years after 

redesignation to attainment. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). Section 175A of the CAA sets 

forth the required elements of air quality maintenance plans for areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the 

Administrator approves the redesignation to attainment. The State must commit to 

submit a revised maintenance plan within eight years after the redesignation. This 

revised maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the ozone standard for an 

additional 10 years beyond the initial 10 year maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plans must contain contingency 

measures, with schedules of implementation, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt 

correction of any future NAAQS violation. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of maintenance plans. 

An ozone maintenance plan should, at minimum, address the following: (1) the 

attainment VOC and NOx emission inventories; (2) a maintenance demonstration 

showing maintenance for the 10 years of the maintenance period; (3) a commitment to 

maintain the existing monitoring network; (4) factors and procedures to be used for 

verification of continued attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan to prevent and/or correct 

a future violation of the NAAQS. 

How Did Texas Estimate the VOC and NOx Emissions for the Attainment 

Year and the Projection Years? (proposal, Section VIII. B.). Sections 172(c)(3) and 

182(b)(1) of the CAA require that the SIP include an inventory of actual emissions from 

all sources of relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. The emission inventory for 

an ozone nonattainment area contains VOC and NOx emissions as these pollutants are 

precursors to ozone formation. TCEQ prepared a comprehensive emission inventory for 

the BPA area including point, area, on-road, and off-road mobile sources with the 

baseline year of 2005, and projected emissions through the year 2021. 

Texas developed its baseline 2005 Emissions Inventory by updating the 2002 

Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) for NOx and VOC in the BPA area. TCEQ initially 

submitted the 2002 PEI to EPA as part of the 2005 Dallas-Fort Worth 5% increment of 

progress SIP revision, but did not provide for public comment. Since then, Texas 
17

updated the inventory for area and nonroad emissions categories and provided the 

inventory for public comment. The emissions inventory for 2005 was included by Texas 

in its submittal to EPA on December 16, 2008, as part of its request to redesignate the 

BPA to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The Texas’ 2005 emissions inventory is listed in tables 2.5 and 2.6 of the Texas’ 

December 18, 2008, submittal, which is included in the docket for this action. The year 

2005 was chosen by Texas as the base year for developing a comprehensive ozone 

precursor emissions inventory for which projected emissions could be estimated for 2011, 

2014, 1017, and 2021. The use of 2005 is an appropriate choice because it is one of the 

years in the period that the area has monitored attainment (2005 – 2007). 

As mentioned above, as part of its maintenance demonstration, TCEQ prepared a 

comprehensive emission inventory for the Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA) nonattainment area 

including point, area, on-road, and off-road mobile sources for the baseline year of 2005, 

and projected emissions for the horizon year of 2021. Emissions were also projected for the 

interim years of 2011, 2014, and 2017, which were selected to show a trend analysis for 

maintenance of the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS. Table 7 summarizes the 2005, 2011, 

2014, 2017, and 2021 VOC and NOx emissions by source type. 

Table 7 

Summary of VOC and NOx Emissions for the BPA area 

(tons per average ozone season day) 

The 2005 base year and projected year emissions for the BPA area was 

determined using the following procedures: 

 Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions for the base year 2005 were 

determined using Texas’ 2005 periodic inventory as the starting point, and then specific 

inventory categories and emissions were reviewed and updated with current 

methodologies and local activity data when it was available. TCEQ updated the 

inventory by using improved methods and improved emission factors to estimate 

emissions from several area source categories, such as industrial and residential fuel 

usage, gasoline stations, oil and gas production, and industrial coatings. In addition, 

Texas has performed studies and conducted surveys in order to obtain more accurate data 

Source 2005 2011 2014 2017 2021 Net Change 

Category VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx 

On-road 11.63 45.60 7.92 17.91 6.51 12.38 5.58 8.66 4.77 6.24 -6.86 -39.36 

Point 42.68 68.49 48.23 77.39 49.77 78.84 55.44 78.67 53.80 80.27 11.24 11.78 

Area 151.57 9.06 155.77 9.95 157.06 10.40 158.63 10.86 160.77 11.47 9.20 2.41 

Nonroad 

4.96 25.99 4.36 27.08 4.23 27.88 4.20 28.87 4.30 30.63 -0.66 4.64 

Total 210.84 149.14 216.28 132.33 217.57 129.50 219.85 127.06 223.64 128.61 12.80 -20.53 
18

and revise the inventory accordingly. TCEQ compiled the 2005 area source emissions 

inventory from several sources of data, including work from various research contracts, 

TCEQ’s research, and the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory. Area source emissions 

for future years were projected using EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis (EGAS) 5.0 or 

other growth factors, in accordance with EPA guidance. 

 More information about calculations related to area source emissions is available 

in Chapter 4 and Appendix B of Texas’ December 16, 2008 submittal, which is included 

in the docket. 

 

 Point Source Emissions. Point source VOC and NOx emissions for the base year 

2005 were compiled from Texas’ annual emission database, which is called the “State of 

Texas Air Reporting System” (STARS). Industrial sources are required to submit 

emissions data to TCEQ annually. TCEQ stores the data in the State of Texas Air 

Reporting System (STARS) database. Inventory data for 2005 was obtained from 

STARS. TCEQ projected point source emissions for future years by applying projection 

factors, where applicable, for EGU and non-EGU point sources, incorporating 

adjustments for three refineries, which were permitted to expand operations, as well as 

making adjustments for emissions credits. More information about calculations related to 

point sources is available in Chapter 4 and Appendix E of Texas’ December 16, 2008 

submittal which is included in the docket. 

 

 On-road Emissions. Mobile source emissions were calculated by a contractor to 

TCEQ, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), an objective transportation research 

entity within the Texas A&M University system, using EPA’s MOBILE 6.2.03 emission 

factor model and traffic data taken from a travel-demand model for the three-county BPA 

area. TCEQ has provided detailed information to document the calculation of on-road 

mobile source VOC and NOx emissions for 2005, as well as for the projection years of 

2011, 2014, 2017, and 2021 (Chapter 4 and Appendices C and D of TCEQ’s December 

18, 2008 submittal.) 

 Non-road Emissions. For the majority of non-road types of equipments, TCEQ 

estimated emissions for the 2005 base year and 2011 using a model developed by TCEQ 

called TexN that utilizes EPA’s NONROAD MODEL 2005 using county specific activity 

data. Since TexN could only provide projections to 2013, TCEQ developed non-road 

emissions projections for 2014, 2017, and 2021 using EPA’s National Mobile Inventory 

Model (NMIM). For aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels, TCEQ 

estimated VOC and NOx emissions using growth factors specific to those industries. 

As mentioned above, for the non-road mobile categories except aircraft, 

locomotives, and commercial marine vessels, emissions were calculated using TexN, a 

software tool for developing emissions estimates for non-road mobile sources in Texas 

using county specific activity data. The model allows the TCEQ to replace the EPA’s 

default data with local data. The TexN model generates emissions for every county in the 

state for over 200 individual types of equipment. Airport Emissions numbers were 

projected using the growth factors obtained from “Terminal Area Forecast Summary for 

Fiscal Years 2005-2025, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation 

Administration, FAA-APO-06-1 March 2006, page 17”. Railway/locomotive and 
19

marine/boating activities in the BPA area were developed using the 2005 Texas Air 

Emissions Repository (TexAER) data. The factors used to determine projected emissions 

took into consideration shipping activities in area ports and cargo transport. Additionally, 

federal controls and activities were also considered when developing the non-road mobile 

source emissions projections derived from locomotive and marine activities. 

More information about calculations related to non-road sources is available in 

Chapter 4 and Appendix B of Texas’ December 16, 2008 submittal, which is included in 

the docket. 

 

 Has the State Demonstrated Maintenance of the Ozone Standard in the BPA 

Area? (proposal, Section VIII. C.). As part of its request to redesignate the BPA 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, the State of Texas included a SIP revision to incorporate a 

maintenance plan as required under section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan 

includes a demonstration based on a comparison of emissions in the attainment year 

(2005) and projected emissions to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the BPA area for at least 10 years after the anticipated redesignation year 

[section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)]. To demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, TCEQ projected VOC and NOx emissions to 2021 and to several interim years, 

2014, and 2017. These emissions were compared to the 2005 attainment year emissions 

to show that emissions of NOx and VOC, when considered together, remain below the 

attainment levels for the entire demonstrated maintenance period. 

In the December 18, 2008, ozone redesignation request, TCEQ graphically 

represented and compared the VOC and NOx emissions for 2005, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 

2021 for all major source sectors, and in total for the BPA nonattainment area. In its 

ozone maintenance demonstration, TCEQ presented the NOx and VOC emission totals 

for the 2005 base year and all projection years for the BPA area without the impacts of 

CAIR.1 TCEQ’s maintenance demonstration shows that in 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2021 

(without the impacts of CAIR rules), VOC and NOx emission totals for the BPA area, 

when considered together, are projected to be below the 2005 VOC and NOx emissions 

for the area. 

NOx emissions in the BPA area are projected to decline by 14 percent between 

2005 and 2021. Note that the projected NOx emission reduction for 2020 did not include 

NOx emission reductions resulting from CAIR, but did include NOx emission reductions 

resulting from Texas’ existing NOx emission control rules that are in the Texas SIP. 

VOC emissions in the BPA area are projected to increase by approximately 6 percent 

between 2005 and 2021. However, based on photochemical modeling analyses showing 

that the formation of ozone in the BPA area is more sensitive to NOx than to VOC 

 

1

 As discussed in a footnote in the proposal, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit 

has remanded CAIR without vacatur, directing EPA to revise the CAIR rule. This leaves the current 

version of the CAIR rule in question and raises questions about the future emission impacts of States' 

CAIR-based emission control rules. As a conservative approach to this problem, EPA requested that 

TCEQ remove the impacts of the State’s CAIR NOx emission control rules. TCEQ complied, and by the 

time of the December 18, 2008, submittal had removed all emissions impacts due to CAIR in its 

projections. 
20

emissions, the increase in VOC emissions is expected to be fully offset by the decrease in 

NOx. Specifically, photochemical modeling analyses show that for reducing the ozone 

design value in the BPA area, reducing NOx emissions is 3.76 times as effective as 

reducing VOC emissions. This is discussed more fully below. Based on this analysis, 

emissions in the BPA area are expected to remain at levels consistent with attainment for 

the 1998 8-hour ozone standard from 2010 through 2021.

The December 23, 2008, remand of EPA’s CAIR by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

led to both the State and EPA further considering the impact of this remand on Texas’ 

ozone maintenance demonstration for the BPA area. The CAIR was remanded to EPA, 

and the process of developing a replacement rule is ongoing. The remand of CAIR does 

not alter the requirements of the NOx SIP call. Although Texas is not subject to the NOx

SIP call, Texas, however, has demonstrated that the BPA area can maintain the 1997 

eight-hour ozone standard without any additional NOx emission reduction requirements. 

Regarding the impact of pollution from other States, all NOx SIP Call states have SIPs 

that currently satisfy their obligations under the SIP Call, the SIP Call reduction 

requirements remain applicable and are being met, and EPA will continue to enforce the 

requirements of the NOx SIP Call even after any response to the CAIR Remand. As EPA 

has noted in other recent redesignation actions (e.g., Columbus Ohio, 74 FR 47404, 

47405 (September 15, 2009), “EPA believes that regardless of the status of the CAIR 

program, the NOx SIP call requirements can be relied upon in demonstrating 

maintenance.” Therefore, EPA believes that Texas’ demonstration of maintenance under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA remains valid. 

Texas has successfully demonstrated maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard between 2005 and 2021. In addition, VOC and NOx emissions in the BPA area, 

when considered together with Texas’ photochemical modeling analyses, are projected to 

decline between 2005 and 2021. Given the emissions growth and source control factors 

used to project emissions, EPA and Texas do not anticipate an increase in the overall 

combined VOC and NOx emissions in the BPA area between 2010 and 2021. 

 

 The following table provides NOx and VOC emissions data for the 2005 base year 

inventory, as well as projected NOx and VOC emission inventory data for the years 2011, 

2014, 2017, and 2021 for the BPA area. 
21

Table 8: Base Year and Projected NOx and VOC Emissions in BPA 

 NOx Emissions (tpd) (without CAIR) 

Source Category 2005 2011 2014 2017 2021 

Point 68.49 77.39 78.84 78.67 80.27

Area 9.06 9.95 10.40 10.86 11.47

Mobile 45.60 17.91 12.38 8.66 6.24

Nonroad 25.99 27.08 27.88 28.87 30.63

Total 149.14 132.33 129.50 127.06 128.61

Table 8 (cont.) 

VOC Emissions (tpd) (without CAIR) 

Source Category 2005 2011 2014 2017 2021 

Point 42.68 48.23 49.77 51.44 53.80

Area 151.57 155.77 157.06 158.63 160.77

Mobile* 11.63 7.92 6.51 5.58 4.77

Nonroad** 4.96 4.36 4.23 4.20 4.30

Total 210.84 216.28 217.57 219.85 223.64

*Calculated using MOBILE 6.2.03 

**Calculated using NONROAD 2005 

 As shown in Table 8 above, total NOx emissions are projected to decrease and 

total VOC emissions are projected to increase slightly for the area of the 10-year period 

of the maintenance plan. Emissions projections for future years in the area indicate a 

downward trend in NOx emissions through 2021 as NOx emissions are projected to 

decrease by 20.53 tpd, or approximately 14% (from 149.14 tpd to 128.61 tpd). VOC 

emissions projections through 2021 show a slight increase in projected emissions of 

12.80 tpd by the year 2021, or approximately 6% (from 210.84 tpd to 223.64 tpd). This 

projected increase (6%) is relatively small considering that it occurs over a period of 

approximately sixteen years (as from the 2005 baseline). The slight upward trend in 

VOC emissions results from projected increases for the point and non-point (area) source 
22

emission categories. Emissions from non-road mobile and on-road mobile sources are 

projected to decrease. 

 As mentioned above, the projected 14% reduction (20.53 tpd) in NOx emissions is 

expected to sufficiently offset the projected 6% increase (12.80 tpd) in VOC emissions, 

enabling the area to continue to maintain the 1997 ozone standard. Photochemical 

modeling analyses were submitted showing that reducing VOC emissions by 5.53 tpd 

results in an estimated design value reduction of 0.054 ppb. To reduce the ozone DV by 

1 ppb, 102.4 tpd of VOC would need to be reduced. Reducing NOx emissions by 7.80 

tpd reduces the ozone DV by 0.287 ppb. This means that a reduction of 27.2 tpd of NOx

emissions would be required to reduce one ppb in the DV. Thus, NOx emission 

reductions are expected to be 3.76 (102.4/27.2) times as effective in reducing the ozone 

DV as VOC emission reductions. 

 As mentioned previously, an additional source of information regarding air 

quality in the BPA area is available from the Southeast Texas Regional Planning 

Commission’s (SETRPC). The SETRPC collects data at four monitoring sites which are 

in addition to the monitoring sites operated by the TCEQ. Information regarding data 

from the SETPRC monitoring sites was provided to TCEQ in comments to its proposed 

redesignation and maintenance plan for the BPA area in several letters, including one 

from the SETRPC Air Quality Advisory Committee. Data from the SETPRC support the 

TCEQ’s trend analyses showing improved air quality in the BPA area. The SETPRC 

NOx data corroborate the TCEQ’s NOx analysis, showing decreases in NOx

concentrations in the BPA area. The SETPRC VOC data, which are measured using EPA 

methods TO-14 and TO-15 and analyzed by a TCEQ-accredited laboratory, differ from 

the TCEQ VOC data, showing a decreasing trend in VOC emissions. Based on the 

SETPRC canister site data, VOCs show average ethylene decreases from a range of 9 

percent to 84 percent over the past 15 years, and propylene has decreased from a range of 

75 percent to 87 percent over the past 16 years. The SETPRC data show a decreasing 

trend in both NOx and VOC in the BPA area, and support TCEQ’s demonstration that 

BPA will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

 

C. What transportation, emission, and/or dispersion models were used? What were 

the significant input parameters, including air quality data and assumptions used in 

the demonstration? What are the model results? 

Please see the answer to B. above. 

D. What are the maintenance plan contingency measures, triggers and commitments ? 

What is the process for tracking the plan and reporting the results to EPA? What are 

the adoption and implementation schedules for the contingency measures? How is 

maintenance demonstrated in the interim years? Are additional controls to be adopted 

and implemented in the future to offset emission increases, and what is the impact of 

these controls on emissions inventory planning cap(s)? 
23

What is the Maintenance Plan’s Contingency Plan? (proposal, Section VIII. 

F.) The section 175(A) maintenance plan includes contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The 

contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the 

NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of 

the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures, as EPA 

deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS 

that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the 

contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The State should also 

identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need 

to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that 

the state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were 

contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) 

of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the CAA, Texas has adopted a contingency plan 

for the BPA area to address possible future ozone air quality problems. 

Triggers. The contingency measure trigger for the BPA maintenance plan is 

based upon monitoring. The triggering mechanism for activation of contingency 

measures is a monitored violation of the 1997 ozone standard. In this maintenance plan, 

if contingency measures are triggered, TCEQ has committed to adopt and implement the 

measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no longer than 18 months following the 

trigger. In order to accomplish this, in the submittal Texas commits to adopt within nine 

months (and implement within eighteen months) one or more contingency measures to 

re-attain the standard in the event of a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

BPA area. 

Contingency Measures. The contingency measures to be considered include, but 

are not limited to the following control measures: 

• Revision to 30 TAC Chapter 117 to control rich-burn, gas-fired, 

reciprocating internal combustion engines to meet NOx emission specifications and other 

requirements to reduce NOx emissions and ozone air pollution. 

• Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30 TAC Chapter 115 

VOC rules for the control of crude and condensate storage tanks at upstream oil and gas 

exploration and productions sites or midstream pipeline breakout stations with 

uncontrolled flash emissions greater than 25 tpy. 

• Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30 TAC Chapter 115 

VOC rules for more stringent controls for tank fittings on floating roof tanks, such as 

slotted guidepoles and other openings in internal and external floating roofs. 

• Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30 TAC Chapter 115 

VOC rules limiting emissions from landings of floating roofs in floating roof tanks. 

• Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30 TAC Chapter 115 

VOC rules for control of emissions from degassing operations for storage tanks with a 

nominal capacity of 75,000 gallons or more storing materials with a true vapor pressure 
24

greater than 2.6 pounds per square inch absolute (psia), or with a nominal capacity of 

250,000 gallons or more storing materials with a true vapor pressure of 0.5 psia or 

greater. Degassing vapors from storage vessels, transport vessels, and marine vessels 

would be required to vent to a control device until the VOC concentration of the vapors is 

reduced to less than 34,000 parts per million by volume as methane. 

• Inclusion of one or more counties in the BPA area in 30 TAC Chapter 114 

rule for TxLED compliant marine diesel. 

In addition, the maintenance plan states that the BPA area may also be expected 

to voluntarily implement some additional local control measures. 

These contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy EPA’s 

longstanding guidance on the requirement of section 175(A) for continued attainment. 

Continued attainment in the Beaumont Port Arthur area will depend, in part, on the air 

quality measures discussed previously (see VI.B. and V.B.4. above). The State will 

continue to operate appropriate ambient ozone monitoring sites in the BPA area to verify 

continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The air monitoring results will reveal 

changes in the ambient air quality as well as assist the State in determining which 

contingency measures will be most effective if necessary. 

As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Texas commits to submit to the EPA 

an updated ozone maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of the BPA area to 

cover an additional ten-year period beyond the initial ten-year maintenance period. As 

required by section 175A(d) of the CAA, Texas has also committed to retain VOC and 

NOx control measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation. 

Commitments. In its December 16, 2008 submittal, Texas affirms that all 

programs instituted by Texas and EPA will remain enforceable, and that sources are 

prohibited from reducing emissions controls following the redesignation of the area. In 

the submittal, Texas commits to adopt, within nine months, one or more contingency 

measures to re-attain the standard in the event of a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the BPA nonattainment area. Texas further commits to implement all 

regulatory programs will be implemented within 18 months. 

EPA finds that the plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring 

network, verification of continued attainment, and contingency plan. The maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by Texas for BPA meets the requirements of section 175A of 

the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the BPA area 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as part of the Texas SIP. 

E. What was the public hearing and what are the results of any comments received by 

the State? What is the status of any outstanding SIP call or findings letter, if any? 

 Two public hearings were held for the Beaumont – Port Arthur Redesignation Request 
25

and Maintenance Plan SIP Revision: a) August 14, 2008 at 7 pm, and b) August 15, 2008 

at 10 am. At the hearing on August 14, three attendees provided oral testimony; on 

August 15, two provided oral testimony. Also, written comments were received from 13 

parties. In general, the commenters expressed support for the SIP revision; however the 

following four major concerned were raised: 

i) Due to the recent D.C. appellate court ruling that vacated the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), the EPA urged the TCEQ to revise emissions inventory projections to remove 

any reliance on CAIR. 

In response to this comment, TCEQ revised its inventories to remove any reliance 

upon CAIR, and does not rely on CAIR reductions from either inside or outside the BPA 

area for its future emissions projections. Projected emission inventories were also 

revised to incorporate emissions reductions from the federal portable fuel container 

(PFC) rule, as no PFC rule emissions reductions were considered in the proposed SIP 

revision. 

Specifically, TCEQ response explains: “To conservatively project emissions for 

future milestone years when the BPA area is designated as attainment, the TCEQ used 

the EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 5.0 to project emissions for 

electric generating units (EGUs). This method was used even though the sector showed a 

decrease in emissions from 2002 to 2005. A different projection method was warranted 

because EGUs differ from non-EGUs in that, in the absence of new controls, EGU 

emissions are related to population growth and economic growth.” 

Further, “The commission has revised all references to future inventories”, 

including all tables and figures, to reflect the revisions to the emissions inventory 

projections described in the previous paragraph. 

ii) The EPA also commented that the SIP revision should be revised to include an 

analysis of the model year 2006 for the Clean Fuel Vehicle Program, as well as to clarify 

the contingency plan to provide more certainty regarding implementation of contingency 

measures. 

In response, TCEQ revised Chapter 2 of its submittal to include an analysis of the 

model year 2006 for the Clean Fuel Vehicle Program. TCEQ made additional revisions 

to Chapter 2 in response to comments from the Southeast Texas Regional Planning 

Commission (SETRPC) and many other area entities to include an analysis of the 

SETRPC’s VOC monitoring data. 

iii) BMC Holdings, Inc. (BMC) and Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman) commented 

that because BMC’s methanol and ammonia manufacturing units in the BPA area were 

not in operation during the 2005 base year, the SIP revision does not reflect 

representative emissions from the BMC facility in the base year inventory and projected 

inventories for the milestone years. 
26

TCEQ responded that “Actual reported 2005 emissions for these units were 

included in the maintenance plan inventory. Using anything other than actual 2005 

emissions for these units is contrary to EPA guidance and TCEQ policy and would not 

improve the accuracy of the base year and projected emissions. This methanol plant was 

shutdown prior to the final compliance data (May 1, 2005) for 30 TAC Chapter 117, 

Emission Specifications for Attainment Demonstration, in section 117.110, which was 

adopted as part of the BPA one-hour ozone standard attainment demonstration SIP. It is 

unclear whether BMC could calculate what emissions would have occurred in 2005 if 

additional controls and monitoring were not yet installed to meet that standard. The 

commission is not certain the units will restart under the current authorization. It would 

be highly inaccurate and against EPA guidance and TCEQ policy to include a predicted 

emissions level for a prior year for units that may never resume operation.” 

Further, “. . . The commenters reference the September 4, 1992 EPA 

memorandum entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment” (hereafter referred to as the Calcagni memo). The passage cited concerns 

the EPA’s guidance on determining whether implemented controls lead to the monitored 

attainment, rather than the memo’s guidance on developing the attainment inventory or 

maintenance plan. . . . “ 

EPA agrees with TCEQ that including all of the emissions from this facility 

would not be an accurate reflection of potential growth because new required controls 

have gone into place since the facility shut down. We also note that the facility still 

remains largely shut down at the time of this proposal so the potential that it could restart 

without triggering new permitting becomes less as changes would likely be necessary. 

So Texas’ reasons for not including the facility’s emissions see acceptable. Further, even 

if part of the emissions does come back to the area because the facility restarts we believe 

the area could accommodate the emissions from the facility because the facility must 

meet the SIP NOx controls before it can restart. 

As discussed in the maintenance plan, over the life of the maintenance plan 20 tpd 

of NOx reductions are expected to occur. These are offset somewhat by growth in VOC 

of 12 tpd and a conformity safety margin, but it still leaves more than 7 tpd reductions 

over the time period of the plan. In 2002 when the BMC facility was still operating, the 

facility had 6 tpd of emissions. However, if the facility were to be restarted, its emissions 

would be substantially lower than that due to the implementation of required Chapter 117 

NOx controls. In other words, even if the facility were to restart, given the current NOx 

control requirements, emissions levels would continue to be below the levels projected to 

be necessary for the area to stay in attainment.. 

TCEQ’s complete response to the comments from BMC and Eastman is included 

as an attachment at the end of this TSD. 

iv) The Texas Industry Project (TIP) is concerned that the plan is not comprehensive, in 

that it does not expressly request redesignation to attainment of the one-hour ozone 

standard. The TIP urged the TCEQ to request the EPA formally redesignate the BPA are 
27

to attainment of the eight-hour NAAQS, make a formal finding of attainment of the onehour NAAQS by the attainment date and redesignate the BPA area as such, and finally, to 

request the EPA determine that one-hour anti-backsliding requirements, including New 

Source Review (NSR), will not take effect in the BPA. 

TCEQ responded as follows: “. . . The commission acknowledges that the 

monitoring data in the redesignation request indicates that the BPA area is monitoring 

attainment for the one-hour ozone NAAQS. This quality assured ambient air monitoring 

data has been certified and submitted to the EPA. Because the one-hour ozone standard 

has been revoked, EPA is no longer making redesignations or reclassifications under this 

standard. However, given that beginning in 2005, the BPA area has not violated the onehour standard, the commission urges the EPA to make a determination that the BPA area 

has attained the one-hour NAAQS. Further, if the EPA makes a determination that the 

one-hour NAAQS has been attained, the commission understands that the one-hour NSR 

requirements would no longer apply.” 

As stated in the proposed FR action, EPA has determined that areas being 

redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a Nonattainment NSR program 

be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of 

the standard without a part D NSR program in effect since PSD requirements will apply 

after redesignation. The rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled 

“Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.” See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-

12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 

7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). TCEQ has shown that the area can 

continue to attain the standard with the PSD permitting program in place versus the 

Nonattainment NSR program. 

F. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s supporting materials that accompanied the 

submittal, such as the technical data and commitment letter, and how do these 

materials conform to EPA policy, guidance, and the Clean Air Act? 

Throughout this TSD and the corresponding proposal, we have evaluated Texas’ 

redesignation request and maintenance plan for the BPA area, including supporting 

materials. Based on the information and analysis provided in these documents, EPA 

finds that Texas’ December 16, 2008 submittal for the BPA area includes all of the 

elements required for a redesignation request and maintenance plan as specified by EPA 

policy, guidance and the Clean Air Act. 
28

Part II 

Additional Supplemental Information for the Proposed Federal Register Action 

This part of the TSD provides additional information for the following sections of 

the proposed Federal Register action: VI.B.1, VII.C, VIII.B, IX.C, and X. 

A. Section VI.B.1. of the Federal Register proposal: 

The outline on the next several lines is from the Federal Register proposal: 

VI. Does the BPA Area Have a Fully Approved SIP under section 110(k) for the 

Section 110 and Part D Requirements of the CAA Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation? 

B. What are the Part D Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation 

for the BPA Area? 

1. What are the Part D Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation 

for the BPA Area under the 1-hour Ozone Standard? 

The anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribe one-hour ozone 

NAAQS requirements that continue to apply after revocation of the one-hour ozone 

NAAQS for former one-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Section 51.905(a)(1) provides 

that: 

The area remains subject to the obligations to adopt and implement the applicable 

requirements defined in section 51.900(f), except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section and except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. 

Section 51.900(f), as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), provides 

that: Applicable requirements means that for an area that the following requirements, to 

the extent such requirements applied to the area for the area’s classification under section 

181(a)(1) of the CAA for the one-hour NAAQS at the time of designation for the eighthour NAAQS, remain in effect: 

 (1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT). 

 (2) Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M). 

 (3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT. 

 (4) Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions. 

 (5) Stage II vapor recovery. 

 (6) Clean fuel vehicle program under section 182(c)(4) of the CAA. 

 (7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA. 

(8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as 

provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA. 

 (9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. 

 (10) TCMs under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA. 

(11) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the 

CAA. 

 (12) NOx requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA. 

(13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under section 

51.905(a)(1)(ii). 
29

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(c), the area is subject to the obligations set forth in 

51.905(a) and 51.900(f). The following addresses the one-hour ozone SIP requirements 

applicable to the BPA area pursuant to these anti-backsliding requirements and those 

discussed in the Court’s decision in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA. 

The following discusses how the applicable CAA requirements have been met in 

the BPA area. Note that the State commits to continue to comply with these requirements 

unless revised through SIP revisions approved by the EPA. 

40 CFR 51.905 (1) and (3). RACT and Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes 

of RACT. EPA found that the BPA area met the serious area VOC and NOx RACT 

requirements for the 1-hour standard on July 10, 2009 (74 FR 33146). This action also 

approved Texas’s changes to the batch process rules and the shipbuilding and ship repair 

rules that lower the threshold for affected sources of VOC emissions to the serious area 

requirements of 50 tons per year (tpy). This July 10, 2009 approval action satisfies the 1-

hour ozone serious RACT requirements for the BPA area. 

We approved a substantive and nonsubstantive recodification to the Texas NOx

SIP rules on December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73562). With regard to the BPA area, the 

substantive changes were new controls for combustion sources in East Texas that can 

affect BPA’s air quality. EPA found that the BPA area met the serious area VOC and 

NOx RACT requirements for the 1-hour standard on July 10, 2009 (74 FR 33146). This 

action also approved Texas’s changes to the batch process rules and the shipbuilding and 

ship repair rules that lower the threshold for affected sources of VOC emissions to the 

serious area requirements of 50 tons per year (tpy). This July 10, 2009 action satisfies 1-

hour ozone serious RACT requirements for the BPA area. 

No relevant adverse comments were received regarding the July 10, 2009 action, 

and the direct final rule became effective on September 8, 2009. 

40 CFR 51.905 (2). Inspection and maintenance programs (I/M). There is no 

requirement for the BPA area to have an I/M program. The Federal I/M Flexibility 

Amendments of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 

for 1990 (such as BPA) are not mandated to participate in the I/M program (60 FR 

48033, September 18, 1995). 

40 CFR 51.905 (4). Rate of progress reductions. We approved the post-1996 ROP Plan 

and its associated MVEB and a revised 1990 base year emissions inventory on February 

22, 2006 (71 FR 8962) for the BPA serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. This plan 

covered the 3-years periods of 1997-1999, 2000-2002, and 2003-2005, achieving 27 

percent reductions no later than November 15, 2005. 

40 CFR 51.905 (5) Stage II vapor recovery. EPA approved Texas’ Stage II rules and 

amendments for the BPA area on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 17940), and as revised on March 

29, 2005 (70 FR 15769). 

40 CFR 51.905 (7) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA. This is an 
30

extreme area requirement and therefore does not apply to the BPA serious area. 

40 CFR 51.905 (8) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic hours 

as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA. This is an extreme area requirement and 

therefore does not apply to the BPA serious area. 

40 CFR 51.905 (9) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. 

EPA approved the Texas SIP revision for enhanced ambient monitoring on October 4, 

1994 (59 FR 50504) as meeting section 182(c)(1) of the CAA. The monitoring network 

meets the requirements in 40 CFR Part 58 and Section 182(c)(1) for enhanced 

monitoring. 

40 CFR 51.905 (10) TCMs under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA. As required by the Clean 

Air Act section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), the Southeast Texas Regional Planning 

Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the BPA area, demonstrated 

conformity of area transportation plans to the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

established in the BPA Rate-of-Progress SIP approved by EPA on February 22, 2006 (71 

FR 8962). The Federal Highway Administration determined on September 25, 2007 that 

the area transportation plans conformed to the budgets established by the SIP. The 

current aggregate vehicle mileage, aggregate vehicle emissions, congestion levels, and 

other relevant parameters were determined, as part of the conformity analysis, to be 

consistent with those used for the area's demonstration of progress towards attainment. 

40 CFR 51.905(11) Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of section 182(d)(1) of the 

CAA. This is a severe area requirement and therefore does not apply to the BPA serious 

area. 

40 CFR 51.905 (12) NOx requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA. These 

requirements were satisfied by a previous EPA action approving a Texas SIP revision for 

NOx controls in the BPA area on March 3, 2000 (65 FR 11468). 

40 CFR 51.905 (13) Attainment demonstration or alternative as provided under section 

51.905(a)(1)(ii). Texas elected the option to submit an 8-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration SIP to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by the area's 

8-hour ozone attainment date with associated MVEBs and an RACM analysis. The SIP 

was submitted to EPA on November 16, 2004, as revised on October 15, 2005. EPA has 

not acted on it. As discussed previously, EPA’s long-held position is that an attainment 

demonstration with the RACM analysis is not an applicable requirement for purposes of 

evaluating an ozone redesignation request. Upon the effective date of redesignation, the 

obligation is terminated. Moreover EPA is proposing to determine that the area has 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard, and for that reason as well, if the determination is 

finalized, the area would not be obligated to submit a 1-hour attainment demonstration. 

South Coast anti-backsliding measures. 

NSR. As noted previously, EPA believes that NSR is not an applicable requirement for 
31

purposes of evaluating an ozone redesignation request. The rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation dated October 14, 1994, titled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” The State’s PSD program becomes 

effective in the area immediately upon redesignation to attainment2

. Consequently, EPA 

concludes that an approved NSR program is not an applicable requirement for purposes 

of redesignation. See the more detailed explanations of this issue in the following 

rulemakings: Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995); Cleveland-AkronLorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 Fr 

53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31831, 31836-31837, 

June 21, 1996). 

Section 185 fees. This is a severe and above area requirement and therefore does not 

apply to the BPA serious area. 

Contingency Measures. Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA require ozone 

control plans to contain measures to be implemented in the event that any milestone in 

the ozone control plan is missed. EPA approved the contingency measures for the BPA 

area on February 10, 1998 at 63 FR 6659 as part of EPA’s approval of the BPA area’s 

15% VOC ROP Plan. These contingency measures included the Federal Tier I rules, the 

Federal small engine VOC rule, and excess reductions from the 15% VOC ROP Plan. 

When EPA reclassified the BPA area to serious for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these are 

the contingency measures that EPA triggered. EPA is proposing to approve the post1996 ROP plan's associated contingency measures, submitted to EPA on November 16, 

2004. The contingency measures are federal and state measures already being 

implemented that are in excess of those needed for ROP and are sufficient to provide the 

needed contingency measure reductions 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), Rate of Progress (ROP) plans must include 

contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the state or EPA, 

which includes additional controls that would be implemented if the area fails to reach 

the ROP milestones. (ROP refers to the progress reductions required under CAA sections 

172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), 182(c)(2)(B), and 182(c)(2)(C) for the 1-hour ozone standard (see 

69 FR 23997)). While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of 

emissions reductions required, EPA provided guidance interpreting the CAA that 

implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional emissions 

reductions of up to 3% of the adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser percentage that 

will make up the identified shortfall) in the year following the ROP milestone year. For 

more information on contingency measures please see the April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone 

standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 71650). 

Texas submitted a post-1996 ROP plan for the BPA area that included 

contingency measures on November 16, 2004. However, when EPA took action on the 

 

2

 If the State believes that a rule change is required, it must adopt and submit it to EPA for approval as a 

SIP revision. Upon EPA’s approval of the SIP revision submittal, PSD applies in the area. 
32

BPA post-1996 ROP plan, it did not address the associated contingency measures 

(February 22, 2006 Federal Register, 71 FR 8962). At the time, the issue was in 

litigation. Since then, the court in South Coast has ruled that the ROP associated 

contingency measures remain an applicable anti-backsliding requirement for a 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. The BPA contingency measures are federal and state 

measures already being implemented that are in excess of those needed for ROP and are 

sufficient to provide the needed contingency measure reductions. Table 9 below 

demonstrates that the contingency measures requirement for the BPA Post-1996 ROP SIP 

was met. As the post-1996 ROP plan's associated contingency measures meet 3% of the 

adjusted base year inventory, it is recommended that they be approved. For more 

information on the BPA Post-1996 ROP SIP, including the February 22, 2006 Federal 

Register notice, the TSD and the SIP, please see electronic docket EPA-R06-OAR-2005-

TX-0003, available through the regulations.gov website. In Texas’ post-1996 ROP 

submittal, the discussion of contingency measures is found on pages 4-4 through 4-5. 

Table 9 

ROP Contingency Measure Demonstration for BPA Post-1996 ROP SIP 

(Values are in Tons/Day) 

Description 2000 2003 2006 

NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC 

a. Adjusted Base Year Inventory 

(from Table 4-6 in SIP)

309.56 301.53 303.53 299.70 294.87 298.15

b. % Needed for Contingency 0.82 2.18 0.82 2.18 1.79 1.21 

c. Required Contingency 

Reduction (a X b) 

2.54 6.57 2.49 6.53 5.28 3.61 

c. Excess Reductions Used for 

Contingency

2.59 6.57 2.81 6.53 5.30 3.61 

d. Contingency Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

As noted in the proposed rule, it is EPA’s position that contingency measures are 

not an applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating an ozone redesignation request. 

EPA’s long-held position is that those requirements expressly linked by statutory 

language with the attainment and reasonable further progress do not apply when an area 

requesting redesignation is attaining the standard. Nevertheless, these Post-1996 ROP 

plan’s associated contingency measures remain before EPA for action; TCEQ has given 

no indication of withdrawing them from EPA consideration. Consequently, EPA is 

acting upon them by proposing approval. These measures, and the way in which they 

meet the 3% requirement are discussed in greater detail in Part II E. of this TSD. 

As previously noted, it is EPA’s position that further EPA action is required upon 

one 1-hour ozone serious area requirement: the Clean Fuel Vehicle Program or 

substitute. A summary of the Texas submittals and EPA’s proposed action follows. 

Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program (including Centrally Fueled Fleets Requirements) 

(i) What are the Clean-fuel vehicle program requirements? 

The 1990 CAA amendments established the clean-fuel vehicle (CFV) program 
33

that requires clean alternative fuels for a “covered fleet” in order to reduce emissions in 

certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas. A “covered fleet” means a fleet 

that has ten or more vehicles that are either centrally fueled or capable of being centrally 

fueled. For serious ozone nonattainment areas, States are required to either adopt the 

CFV program prescribed under CAA part C of title II, or implement a substitute for the 

program that demonstrates equivalent long-term reductions in ozone-producing emissions 

within 1 year after reclassification (CAA sections 182(c)(4) and 246(a)(3)). CAA section 

246 describes the requirements for Centrally Fueled Fleets (CFF). EPA may adjust the 

compliance deadlines where compliance with such deadlines would be infeasible. (CAA 

section 246(a)(3)). Currently, the federal CFF program requires 70% of new light duty 

vehicles and trucks and 50% of new heavy-duty vehicles in a covered fleet to meet 

certain prescribed exhaust emission standards for light duty vehicles, light duty trucks 

and heavy-duty vehicles. (CAA section 246(b)(3). EPA has determined that, beginning 

with the 2006 model years, both the Tier II conventional vehicle and engine standards 

and heavy-duty vehicle and engine standards are either equivalent to or more stringent 

than the applicable CFV program Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards. See EPA 

Dear Manufacturer Letter CCD-05-12 (LDV/LDT/MDPV/HDV/HDE/LD-AFC) (July 

21, 2005). 

(ii) What are the CFV program requirements for the BPA area? 

The March 30, 2004, reclassification of the area to serious nonattainment was 

effective April 29, 2004, and required that a CFV program or substitute that would 

achieve equivalent reductions be submitted to EPA by April 29, 2005. 

(iii) How did the State Meet the CFV Requirements for BPA? 

The State addresses this CFV program requirement by making an equivalency 

demonstration showing that the Federal Tier II and heavy-duty vehicle and engine 

standards are more stringent than or equivalent to the CFV program LEV standards, 

beginning with the 2006 model year. Texas used the 2006 model year in the equivalency 

demonstration because it is the earliest full vehicle model year that would have been 

affected by a CFV program upon adoption of a program by April 29, 2005 (i.e., the 2006 

model year would begin on September 1, 2005). The demonstration showed that the 

resulting emissions reductions from Tier II and the heavy-duty vehicle and engine 

standards meet or exceed the emissions reductions that a CFV program would provide in 

the BPA nonattainment area and, therefore, the implementation of the Tier II and heavyduty standards serve as an adequate substitute for a CFV program. 

Specifically, relying upon EPA’s data, beginning with the 2006 model year, Texas 

shows Tier 2 Light-Duty Vehicles (LDVs), Light-Duty Trucks (LDTs 1-4), and Medium 

Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) certified to certain Tier 2 bin standards, to be 

equivalent to or more stringent than the CFV program LEV emission standards. In 

addition, Texas demonstrates that Tier 2 LDVs, LDTs 1-4, and MDPVs certified to other 

Tier 2 bin standards, are equivalent to or more stringent than the CFV program LEV 

emission standards. Texas performs a similar analysis, showing that standards for 2006 

and later model years for Otto cycle and diesel heavy-duty vehicles ranging from 8501-

14,000 Gross Vehicle Weight Rating are more stringent than the CFV program LEV 

emissions standards for these vehicles. 
34

(iv) What is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve, under section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA, Texas’ 

equivalency demonstration that emissions reductions under Tier II and the heavy-duty 

engine and vehicle standards achieve equivalent or greater emissions reductions than 

would be expected from implementation of the CFV Program in the BPA nonattainment 

area. This approval is supported by the determination made by EPA that the use of the 

2006 model year as the first model year vehicles that would be covered by a CFV 

program in the equivalency demonstration is appropriate. Thus, new vehicles purchased 

by fleet operators for Model Years 2006 and beyond would necessarily achieve, as 

required by the Tier II and heavy-duty engine standards, as much or more reductions than 

if the State adopted a CFV program as required by the Act. 

The reclassification required the program the program to be submitted by April 

29, 2005. EPA has determined that starting the program on April 29, 2005 is infeasible 

under CAA section 246(a)(3) which allows EPA to adjust the implementation date of a 

CFV program where implementation would otherwise be infeasible. EPA has decided 

that implementation of a CFV program in the BPA nonattainment area would be 

infeasible for the following reasons. As earlier explained, as of July 2005, EPA had 

determined that beginning with the 2006 model year the Tier II and heavy-duty engine 

and vehicle standards were either equivalent or more stringent than the CFV program 

LEV standards. Thus, Texas would have been required to implement the CFV program 

for approximately 4 months (i.e., from April 29, 2005, when the program was due under 

the reclassification, to August 31, 2005 when the 2006 model year began). For model 

years 2006 and beyond, the program would have been unnecessary. EPA believes that it 

would have been infeasible for Texas to initiate and oversee the elaborate record-keeping 

and reporting requirements associated with this program for this 4-month period only. 

Additionally, we note that owners and operators of covered fleet would likely not have 

been inclined to comply with the requirements of a program with such limited duration. 

 As noted above, with the exception of the CFV program, the BPA area currently 

has an approved SIP for all the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. EPA is proposing to find that, if it finalizes approval of the 

CFV program Equivalency Demonstration, the BPA area will meet all 1-hour ozone antibacksliding requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under 

section 110 and part D. 

Additional Information Regarding CFV Program Requirements

In the April 17, 2006 memo3

 from Leila Cook, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, to Air Program Managers it states, “Because the clean fuel fleet program is 

considered an applicable requirement under 40 CFR, Subpart X, section 51.900 et seq., it 

remains a requirement until such time as the area in question attains the 8-hour ozone 

standard.” We interpret “attains the 8-hour standard” to mean the redesignation to 

attainment because redesignation is the only way for an area to be relieved of emission 

control measure requirements. 

 

3

 Leila H. Cook, Group Manager, Transportation & Regional Programs Division, National Vehicle and 

Fuel Emissions Laboratory, “Clean Fuel Fleet Program Requirements,” April 17, 2006. 
35

The memo refers to the July 21, 2005, EPA letter to manufacturers4

, which 

establishes current Part 86 emission standards which EPA has determined to be as or 

more stringent than corresponding Part 88 Clean Fuel Vehicle emission standards. The 

determination can be used effective with the issue date of the guidance letter. 

Tier 2 Light-Duty Vehicles (LDVs), Light-Duty Trucks (LDTs)1-4, and Medium 

Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) certified to certain Tier 2 bin standards are equivalent 

to or more stringent than CFV Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) emission standards. Tier 2 

LDVs, LDT1-4s, and MDPVs certified to other Tier 2 bin standards are equivalent to or 

more stringent than CFV Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) emission standards. 

Similar determinations are made for 2005 and later model year Otto cycle and diesel 

heavy-duty vehicles ranging from 8501-14,000 GVWR, which are more stringent than 

LEV for these vehicles. See the actual letter for the details, which is attached. Model 

year vehicles are ordinarily available for sale prior to the calendar year of the same date. 

The CFV Program would apply to Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) from the time it 

was bumped up from moderate to serious until the area is redesignated to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour standard. The effective date of the reclassification to serious is April 29, 

2004. The new attainment date was November 15, 2005. All serious area requirements 

would have to be implemented before the start of the ozone season prior to the new 

attainment date. For BPA, that would be January 1, 2005. Therefore the CFV program 

would be applicable on that date. The effective date of the manufacturer’s letter is July 

21, 2005. 

 We agree that by the time Texas could have reasonably implemented a program, 

new vehicles available to fleet owners to meet this requirement were either meeting or 

exceeding LEV and ULEV for both VOC and NOx and no program would have afforded 

any additional emission reductions. 

Our conclusion is that since the establishment of the Federal CFV program, EPA 

has promulgated new emission standards for vehicles and engines that are generally more 

stringent than or equivalent to, the CFV emission standards for light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines (40 CFR 86). Therefore, with the new 

Federal emissions standards there are no additional emission reductions that would be 

expected with implementation of the Federal clean fuel vehicle program or a substitute 

program. 

EPA is proposing to agree with the State that new vehicles available to fleet 

owners to meet this requirement are either meeting or exceeding LEV and ULEV for both 

VOC and NOx and no program meeting the clean fuel vehicle program requirements 

would afford any additional emission reductions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find 

that the BPA area meets the 1-hour ozone serious area CFV program requirements. 

 

4

 Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director, Certification and Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, “Clean-Fuel Vehicle Standards, CCD-05-12 (LDV/LDT/MDPV/HDV/HDE/LD-AFC),” July 21, 

2005. 
36

B. Section VII.C. of the Federal Register proposal: 

The outline on the next line is from the Federal Register proposal: 

VII. Are the Air Quality Improvements in the BPA Area Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emission Reductions? 

C. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented 

 EPA proposes to find that Texas has demonstrated that the observed ozone air 

quality improvement in the BPA area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in 

emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. 

 

In making this demonstration, the State presented several sets of data. First, the 

State provided a 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) for NOx and VOC in the BPA 

area, and provided a comparison between the 2002 PEI and the 2005 Base EI. Second, 

the State analyzed the changes in VOC and NOx emissions in the BPA area between the 

ozone standard violation year 2002 and one of the years in the period during which the 

area attained the standard, 2005. Finally, the State documented the VOC and NOx

emission control measures that have been implemented in the BPA area over the past 17 

years. Please see the discussion of Air Quality Improvements in the BPA Area Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions in Part I B above in this TSD. That 

discussion includes: 

- Emissions Reductions as Shown by Emissions Inventory Data 

 - Impact of Emissions Controls Implementation: Trend Analysis 

- Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Controls Implemented. 

Also, the following control measures and their references are included here: EPA 

has fully approved at various times, federal, state, and local control measures in and 

around the BPA area. These measures have included, among other things: the 15% VOC 

ROP plan; Agreed Orders with Alcoa, Inc. (formerly Aluminum Company of America) 

for their Milam facility, and the Eastman Chemical Company, Texas operations, for their 

facility near Longview, Texas (October 26, 2000 (65 FR64148)); revised NOx Rules at 

Electric Generating Facilities (EGFs) in Central and Eastern Texas (March 16, 2001 (66 

FR 15195)); Lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Program in Eastern and Central 

Texas (April 26, 2001 (66 FR 20927)); Stage I vapor recovery at gas stations in Eastern 

and Central Texas December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79745)); State-wide NOx rules for Water 

Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters (October 26, 2000 (65 FR 64148)); NOx

rules in the BPA area for Rich-Burn Internal Combustion Engines, Lean-Burn Internal 

Combustion Engines, Industrial/Utility Boilers, Process Heaters, Gas Turbines, Electric 

Utility Boilers (five electric utility power boilers in BPA) and revisions to the NOx rules 

for lean burn, stationary, reciprocating internal combustion engines in the BPA area 

(September 1, 2000 (65 FR 53172)). EPA approved administrative revisions to the Texas 

NOx SIP and revised emission specifications in the BPA area for Electric Utility Boilers, 

Industrial, Commercial or Institutional Boilers and certain Process Heaters (October 26, 

2000 (65 FR 64148)); new controls for combustion source in East Texas on December 3, 

2008 (73 FR 73562); the Texas Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Program. 
37

C. Section VIII. B. of the Federal Register proposal: 

The outline on the next few lines is from the Federal Register proposal: 

VIII. Does Texas have a Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to 

Section 175A of the CAA for the BPA Area? 

B. How Did Texas Estimate the VOC and NOx Emissions for the Attainment Year 

and the Projection Years? 

 As discussed in Part I.B. above, in projecting data for the attainment year 2021 

inventory, TCEQ used several methods to project data from the base year 2005 to the 

years 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2021. These projected inventories were developed using 

EPA-approved technologies and methodologies. Point source and non-point source 

projections were derived from the EPA’s Emissions Growth Analysis System version 5.0 

(EGAS 5.0). Using EGAS for the electric generating units is a conservative approach 

particularly given that EGUs decreased their emissions because of State SIP control 

strategies. Non-road mobile projections were derived from EGAS 5.0, as well as from 

the National Mobile Inventory Model. 

 Industrial sources are required to submit emissions data to TCEQ annually. 

TCEQ stores the data in the State of Texas Air Reporting System (STARS) database. 

Inventory data for 2002 were obtained from STARS, and point source emissions were 

calculated using TCEQ and EPA guidance documents. 

 Texas’ Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) for 2005 was the starting point for the 

area source 2005 Emissions Inventory included in the maintenance plan for the BPA area. 

Texas’ PEI categories and emissions were reviewed and subsequently updated with 

current methodologies and local activity data when it was available. Specific categories 

were updated and using information and data that represent 2005 activity levels. For 

other categories, emissions were grown from the 2002 EI to 2005 using the EPA’s 

Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) growth factors. For instance, TCEQ 

updated the inventory by using improved methods and improved emission factors to 

estimate emissions from several area source categories, such as industrial and residential 

fuel usage, gasoline stations, oil and gas production, and industrial coatings. In addition, 

Texas performed studies and conducted surveys in order to obtain data that are more 

accurate. Overall, the 2005 EI was compiled from several sources of data, including 

work from various contracts, TCEQ research, and the EPA’s National Emissions 

Inventory. More information about the development of this part of the EI is available in 

Chapter 4 and Appendix B of Texas’ December 16, 2008 submittal, which is included in 

the docket. 

The BPA on-road mobile source EI was developed under contract by the Texas 

Transportation Institute (TTI), an objective transportation research entity within the 

Texas A&M University system. Area-specific emission factors for BPA were developed 

using the newest version of mobile emissions factor model, MOBILE6.2. These factors 

were then multiplied by the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which were derived by TTI 

using travel demand models validated against large numbers of ground counts of traffic 
38

throughout each nonattainment county in the BPA area. TxDOT Automatic traffic 

recorder (ATR) data were used to produce the ozone season weekday VMT adjustments 

and the hourly travel fractions to allocate the VMT by hour-of-day. Using this version of 

the MOBILE6 model is consistent with EPA’s guidance for estimating on-road mobile 

emissions. 

 TCEQ updated the BPA non-road emissions by using data obtained from studies 

and surveys of industrial and construction equipment. The EDMS aircraft model was 

used to produce aircraft emission data, and locomotive emissions were updated using 

survey results of engine activities. Using this area-specific information and the latest 

version of the NONROAD model has resulted in a substantial improvement in the 

inventory over estimates based on EPA’s default values. 

Regarding CAIR, as discussed above, both in a footnote in Part I B. and also in 

Part I E. i) regarding TCEQ’s response to comments, TCEQ’s emissions inventories do 

not rely upon CAIR. Also, TCEQ’s future emissions projections do not rely on CAIR for 

reductions from either inside or outside the BPA area. 

 A full description of Texas’ approach is detailed in Appendix B of TCEQ’s 

December 16, 2008 submittal (this submittal is included in the docket). 

D. Section IX. C. of the Federal Register proposal: 

The outline on the next few lines is from the Federal Register proposal: 

IX. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the BPA Area’s Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budget? 

C. Is the MVEB Approvable? 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets: Safety Margin. Under 40 CFR 93.101, a safety 

margin is defined as the difference between the attainment level emissions (from all 

source types) and the projected level of emissions (from all source types) in the 

maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the transportation sector (as part 

of a motor vehicle emissions budget); however, the total emissions for the budget year it 

is applied to must remain below the attainment level. Table 10 below shows the total 

NOx and total VOC emissions for an attainment year (2005) and also for projected NOx

and VOC emissions for the final year of the maintenance plan (2021).

Table 10 

Total NOx and Total VOC Emissions for 2005 and 2021 

2005 2021 Difference (2005 – 2021) 

Total NOx Emissions (tpd) 149.14 128.61 20.53 (decrease) 

Total VOC Emissions (tpd) 210.84 223.64 12.80 (increase) 
39

In the development of the 2021 NOx MVEB for Beaumont/Port Arthur, Texas has 

proposed a conversion factor of 3.76 to yield a “NOx equivalent” emissions number to 

calculate the total available safety margin in 2021 for NOx. This NOx equivalent is based 

on the idea that NOx emission reductions are estimated to be 3.76 times as efficient in 

reducing peak eight-hour ozone concentrations as VOC reductions. By dividing VOC 

emissions by the conversion factor to obtain a NOx equivalent, and then removing the 

equivalent from the total NOx emissions decreases, a value of 17.13 tpd reduction was 

calculated as available for use as a NOx emissions safety margin: 

12.80 (VOC tpd increase) / 3.76 (TCEQ NOx equivalent) 

= 3.40 equivalent NOx tpd increase 

20.53 (2005 – 2021 NOx decrease) - 3.40 (2005 – 2021 NOx equivalent increase) 

= 17.13 (TCEQ estimated available NOx safety margin for 2021) 

EPA agrees that ozone formation in the BPA area is more sensitive to NOx emissions 

than VOC emissions, but we are not certain that 3.76 is an appropriate ratio. But we note 

that by conservatively assuming a 1:1 ratio of NOx /VOC emissions in the formation of 

ozone, the net total reduction in NOx emissions is still 7.73 tpd: 

20.53 (NOx tpd decrease) – 12.80 (VOC tpd increase) 

= 7.73 tpd NOx reduction (available safety margin for 2021)

Texas has allocated one tpd of the net 2005-2021 NOx emission reductions to the 2021 

NOx MVEB as a safety margin, which increases the MVEB for NOx emissions from 6.24 

tpd to 7.24 tpd. EPA finds this amount to be an acceptable allocation of the available 

safety margin. 

E. Section X. of the Federal Register Proposal 

The outline on the next few lines is from the Federal Register proposal: 

X. EPA’s Evaluation of the Backfill Contingency Measures for the 1-Hour 

Ozone Failure-to-Attain Contingency Measures and the State’s Request to 

Remove an Unimplemented VOC Rule from the Texas SIP 

EPA approved the 1-hour ozone failure-to-attain section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

contingency measures for the BPA area on February 10, 1998 at 63 FR 6659 as part of 

EPA’s approval of the BPA area’s 15% VOC ROP Plan. These contingency measures 

included the Federal Tier I rules, the Federal small engine VOC rule, and excess 

reductions from the 15% VOC ROP Plan. When EPA reclassified the BPA area to 

serious for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these are the contingency measures that EPA 

triggered. EPA approved a marine vessel-loading rule as part of the Texas SIP for the 

BPA area on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3841). As written, it appears it is triggered upon 

an EPA finding of failure to attain but it was not included in the SIP-approved 

contingency plan for the BPA area. EPA never approved it specifically as a section 
40

172(c)(9) contingency measure nor did EPA approve it as a replacement for the 1998-

approved contingency measures. In the Federal Register action for reclassification of the 

BPA area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard to moderate, EPA refers specifically to the 

1998-approved 1-hour contingency measures as the ones EPA triggered to be 

implemented for failure to attain. (73 FR 14391, March 18, 2008) Also in the 

reclassification Federal Register action, EPA required the State to submit additional 

contingency measures to replace, i.e., back fill, the triggered contingency measures for its 

new serious area attainment deadline under section 182(c)(9). The State submitted two 

control measures on October 15, 2005, as a SIP revision to replace or backfill the 

triggered contingency measures as required by the reclassification notice. The proposed 

1-hour section 182(c)(9) contingency measures are emissions reductions from 

1) NOx and VOC reductions from three companies in the BPA area, through 

Agreed Orders and 

2) NOx reductions from the Texas Emissions Reductions Program (TERP) 

projects. 

EPA approved the Agreed Orders into the SIP on April 12, 2005 (70 FR 18995). 

The TERP program was approved as part of the Texas SIP on August 19, 2005 at 70 FR 

48647 including the methodology for calculating SIP credits for the individual TERP 

control measures. TERP provides funding to offset the incremental costs of projects 

associated with reducing NOx emissions from high-emitting internal combustion engines. 

Together, reductions from these two control measures meet the 3 percent 

requirement for the 1-hour backfill failure-to-attain contingency measures. The NOx

reductions from the Agreed Orders and the TERP projects were not relied upon for ROP 

or attainment demonstration purposes and have already been implemented. EPA is 

proposing to approve the substitute control measures for the backfill failure-to-attain 

contingency measures. Although, as noted in the discussion above, the 1-hour antibacksliding contingency measure obligation is suspended upon a final determination that 

the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone standard, and terminates upon a final redesignation 

of the area for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA understands that TCEQ nonetheless 

wishes EPA to take action upon the submitted backfill measures. EPA notes that, after 

the area is redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, these 1-hour 

contingency measures are replaced by the section 175A Maintenance Plan contingency 

measures. 

Also, in this SIP revision, TCEQ submitted a request to remove from the Texas 

SIP, the “contingency” measure marine vessel loading rule (30 TAC §115.219). This 

Texas marine vessel rule was approved into the Texas SIP but was never implemented by 

the State. As discussed above, this measure was not relied upon as part of a 172(c)(9) or 

182(c)(9) contingency plans and was not triggered by the EPA as part of the 

reclassification notice. 

Texas, in its SIP revision, made clear that the marine vessel loading rule should 

not be a part of the backfill failure to attain contingency plan required by the 

reclassification and that the two measures used to comprise this plan were an appropriate 

substitute for the marine vessel loading rule. In fact, Texas’ sensitivity tests in 

photochemical modeling runs indicate that reductions of 1 tpd of NOx are equivalent to 

reductions of 3.8 tpd of VOC in reducing ozone in the BPA area (TCEQ Attainment 

Demonstration SIP, received October 18, 2005, section 5.3.1, p. 5-4). The two backfill 
41

contingency measures are mostly NOx reductions and would be expected to be more 

effective than the Marine Vessel Loading Rule, a VOC control in reducing ozone. 

The SIP marine-vessel loading rule was never relied upon for demonstrating 

attainment, achieving reasonable further progress, or as a reasonable available control 

measure. It was not relied upon in the 15% VOC ROP plan or the post-1996 ROP plan. 

It was not relied upon in any of the submitted attainment demonstration SIPs. It also is 

not required to meet VOC RACT. EPA notes that since adoption by TCEQ, federal rules 

for marine vessel loading have been adopted and achieve much of the reductions that 

would have been achieved if the State rule had been triggered. 

 EPA has evaluated Texas’ request to remove the marine vessel-loading rule from 

its SIP. For the reasons cited above, whereas the Texas rule was never implemented or 

triggered as a contingency measure and whereas the rule is not needed to satisfy any 

other statutory requirements, EPA proposes that the Texas marine vessel-loading rule be 

removed from the Texas SIP. 

. 

Additional Information Regarding Texas’ Marine Vessel Loading Contingency 

Measure 

Texas adopted a marine vessel loading contingency measure for the BPA area in 

January 1995 and revised it in February 1996 (January 13, 1995 Texas Register and 

February 27, 1996 Texas Register). The measure stated: 

The owner or operator of each marine terminal in Hardin, Jefferson, and 

Orange Counties shall comply with this division as soon as practicable but no 

later than three years after the earliest of the following occurs: 

(1) the commission publishes notification in the Texas Register of its 

determination that this contingency rule is necessary as a result of failure to 

attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone by the attainment 

deadline or failure to demonstrate reasonable further progress as set forth in the 

1990 Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act, '172(c)(9); 

(2) the EPA publishes notification in the Federal Register of its 

determination to deny the petition to redesignate the Beaumont-Port Arthur ozone 

nonattainment area as an ozone attainment area; or 

(3) the EPA publishes notification in the Federal Register of its 

determination to deny approval of the demonstration of attainment for the 

Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area based upon Urban Airshed 

Model modeling.

This marine vessel loading contingency measure was approved by EPA on 

January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3841). 

When EPA reclassified the BPA one-hour ozone nonattainment are from 

moderate to serious on March 30, 2004 (69 FR 16483), EPA required that the state 

“backfill” contingency measures as a result of failing to attain the 1-hour ozone standard 

by November 15, 1996. 
42

Texas submitted on October 15, 2005, as a SIP revision, substitute contingency 

measures as a backfill for the triggered 1-hour ozone failure-to-attain contingency 

measures. The SIP’s backfill failure-to-attain contingency measure is a marine vessel 

loading rule. The proposed substitutes are emissions reductions from two other control 

measures: 1) NOx and VOC reductions from three companies in the BPA area, through 

Agreed Orders and 2) NOx reductions from the Texas Emissions Reductions Program 

(TERP) projects. The substitute contingency measures were required to be equivalent to 

the marine vessel loading rule had it been implemented. 

In the submittal, Texas identified substitute reductions that were greater than 

those that would have been achieved had the marine vessel loading contingency rule been 

implemented (page 1-3, Attainment Demonstration). The substitute measures adopted in 

the 2005 SIP revision were NOx reductions from two measures: Agreed Orders and 

TERP. The reductions from both of these measures are discussed below. 

$ Agreed Orders from three BPA area companies (6.46 tpd NOx and 0.55 

tpd VOC). Voluntary reductions from three companies in the BPA area, through 

Agreed Orders which were adopted by the Commission on December 15, 2004. 

Under the Agreed Orders Mobil Chemical Company, Motiva Enterprises, and 

Premcor Refining Group agreed to a variety of projects to reduce NOx emissions 

in the BPA area by 0.44, 5.56 and 0.46 tpd, respectively. EPA approved the 

Agreed Orders into the SIP on April 12, 2005 (70 FR 18995). Together, these 

Orders resulted in reductions of 6.46 tpd. 

$ Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) projects (2.4 tpd NOx). 

TERP is a set of incentive programs aimed at improving air quality in Texas. 

TERP provides funding to offset the incremental costs of projects associated with 

reducing NOx emissions from high-emitting internal combustion engines. EPA 

approved TERP into the Texas SIP on August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48647). Projects 

in the BPA area are eligible for TERP funding. As of August 31, 2006, TERP 

projects funded for the BPA area total 2.4 tpd in NOx reductions (Table 2, Texas 

Emissions Reduction Plan Biennial Report to the Texas Legislature, TCEQ, SFR079/06, December 2006). 

We note that, for the BPA area, reductions from TERP were initially projected to 

result in NOx reductions of 3.0 tons per day (tpd). However, when TERP 

reductions of NOx were later found to be 2.4 tpd, VOC reductions of 0.55 tpd 

from the Agreed Orders, for which no credit was previously taken, were added. 

In the tables and discussion below, we show in greater detail how the combination 

of NOx and VOC reductions from the Agreed Orders and TERP satisfies the 3% 

reduction requirement. Table 11 shows the target values for NOx and VOC from the Rate 

of Progress Plan. 
43

Table 11 

Target NOx and VOC Reductions 

from Substitute Measures 

Target NOx VOC 

from 1996 ROP Plan 309.56 tpd* 262.22 tpd** 

% Reduction Needed 3.00% 

* Estimated from post 1996 Rate of Progress Plan (approved February 22, 

2006, 71 FR 8965), as discussed in the 2005 submittal from TCEQ (pages 

5-5 to 5-6). 

** EPA approval of 15% Rate of Progress Plan (February 10, 1998, 63 FR 

6659). 

Based on the values Table 11, the contingency measures needed to achieve a 

combined reduction in emissions of NOx and VOC of 3%. 

Table 12 below shows how Texas allocated the emissions reductions between 

Administrative Orders (NOx and VOC) and TERP (NOx) to meet the 3.00% requirement. 

Table 12 

Actual NOx and VOC Reductions 

from Substitute Measures 

Actual Reductions NOx VOC 

From Administrative Orders 6.46 tpd 0.55 tpd 

From TERP 2.4 tpd 

Total 8.86 tpd 0.55 tpd 

Actual as % of Target 2.86% 0.20% 

% of Target Total 3.06% 

* Estimated from post 1996 Rate of Progress Plan (approved February 22, 

2006, 71 FR 8965), as discussed in the 2005 submittal from TCEQ (pages 

5-5 to 5-6). 

** EPA approval of 15% Rate of Progress Plan (February 10, 1998, 63 FR 

6659). 

In Table 12, actual emissions reductions from Administrative Orders for both NOx

and VOC, as well as reductions from TERP are shown separately on the first two lines.. 

The “Total” on the third line of the table shows total reductions from the two measures 

added together (6.46 + 2.40 tpd = 8.86 tpd NOx, and 0.55 tpd VOC). These reductions 

were then compared to the target values in the previous table to determine “Actual as % 

of Target” (8.86 tpd / 309.56 tpd = 2.86%, and 0.55 tpd / 262.22 tpd = 0.20%). Finally, 

the number shown for ”% of Target Total” was found by adding the “Actual as % of 

Target” from NOx and VOC together (2.86% + 0.20% = 3.06%). 
44

Together, reductions from these two substituted control measures, the Agreed 

Orders and TERP, meet the 3 percent requirement for contingency measures. 

As discussed in Part II.D. above, for the BPA area Texas has performed 

sensitivity analyses using photochemical modeling which show that reductions in NOx

are more effective than reductions in VOC for reducing ozone concentration. 

Specifically, Texas determined that NOx is 3.76 time more effective than VOC in 

reducing peak 8-hour ozone formation. (TCEQ Attainment Demonstration SIP, received 

October 18, 2005, section 5.3.1, p. 5-4). Although EPA is not certain that 3.76 is the 

exact number that describes the NOx /VOC relationship, EPA agrees that ozone 

formation in the BPA area is more sensitive to NOx emissions than VOC emissions 

Given the NOx /VOC sensitivity analyses for the BPA area, since the emissions 

reductions from the Agreed Orders and TERP are primarily reductions of NOx, the 

sensitivity test results show that the substituted control measures are expected to result in 

even greater reductions in ozone formation than would have been achieved by VOC 

reductions from the marine vessel loading contingency measure. 
45

Attachment 

TCEQ Response to Comments from BMC Holdings 

BMC and Eastman commented that the redesignation request and maintenance plan does not 

include representative emissions of the BMC plant, in the attainment emissions inventory, 

projected future emissions, or in the attainment analyses. The commenters stated that two 

methanol and ammonia manufacturing units at the BMC methanol plant in Beaumont have been 

temporarily shutdown since 2004, due to a contractual agreement. In order to include these units 

in the redesignation and maintenance plan emissions inventory, the commenters suggested an 

appropriate adjustment could be made to the 2005 base inventory using either the 2002 data or the 

average of its 2000 and 2002 data. The commenters claimed either adjustment would provide a 

reasonable representative estimate of the plant’s actual emissions when not in temporary 

shutdown. 

Actual reported 2005 emissions for these units were included in the maintenance plan 

inventory. Using anything other than actual 2005 emissions for these units is contrary to 

EPA guidance and TCEQ policy and would not improve the accuracy of the base year and 

projected emissions. This methanol plant was shutdown prior to the final compliance date 

(May 1, 2005) for 30 TAC Chapter 117, Emission Specifications for Attainment 

Demonstration, in Section 117.110, which was adopted as part of the BPA one-hour ozone 

standard attainment demonstration SIP. It is unclear whether BMC could calculate what 

emissions would have occurred in 2005 if additional controls and monitoring were not yet 

installed to meet that standard. The commission is not certain the units will restart under 

the current authorization. It would be highly inaccurate and against EPA guidance and 

TCEQ policy to include a predicted emissions level for a prior year for units that may never 

resume operation. 

Eastman made the general comment that excluding representative emissions from the BMC plant 

“seems contrary to EPA requirements, similar decisions made by the TCEQ in this proceeding, 

and TCEQ’s established pattern of practice in other attainment demonstration proceedings.” BMC 

stated that failure to consider the impact of typical, representative emissions from the BMC 

facility, which has maintained the right to restart, on the 2005-2007 ambient ozone monitoring 

data may not be consistent with the requirement that the TCEQ determine that improvements in 

ozone air quality in the BPA area are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 

and may not be consistent with the requirement that the maintenance plan develop an attainment 

emissions inventory that is comprehensive, accurate, and current. Eastman references the EPA’s 

redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area, which states the Federal Clean Air 

Act (FCAA) “requires that, for USEPA to approve a redesignation, it must determine that the 

improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,” and that 

“reduced production or shutdown due to temporary adverse economic conditions...would not 

qualify as an air quality improvement due to permanent and enforceable reductions.” BMC 

references EPA guidance for maintenance plans, the FCAA, and the 2007 Dallas-Fort Worth 

(DFW) Attainment Demonstration SIP to support the proposition that the EPA does not require 

every emissions inventory to be based solely on actual emissions and that growth factors used in 

projecting emissions must be realistic. Both Eastman and BMC commented that the TCEQ’s 

exclusion of representative emissions from the BMC plant in the 2005 base inventory and 

projections from that base inventory are, therefore, contrary to EPA requirements and inconsistent 

with EPA policy. 
46

The commission disagrees with the commenters. The inventories used in this request and 

maintenance plan comply with the FCAA requirements and EPA guidance. The 

commenters reference the September 4, 1992, EPA memorandum entitled “Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (hereafter referred to as the 

Calcagni memo). The passage cited concerns the EPA’s guidance on determining whether 

implemented controls lead to the monitored attainment, rather than the memo’s guidance 

on developing the attainment inventory or maintenance plan. Attainment must be 

attributable to enforceable and permanent reductions resulting from implementation of 

federal measures and state adopted measures. Therefore, attainment cannot be based on 

controls implemented by the commission for a temporary period of time that is not 

sustainable for continued attainment. 

The TCEQ uses the most current EPA guidance available for preparing SIP emissions 

inventories, issued in November 2005: Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 

Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional 

Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001. Sections 2 and 3 of this document identify and 

explain the key elements needed for ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze SIP emission 

inventories. Consistent with past TCEQ SIP revisions, actual emissions are considered a key 

component of the base year inventory, as referenced in italics below: 

“The EPA anticipates that each State, local and Tribal agency will use data obtained through 

their current annual emission source reporting requirements, Emission Statement program, 

and/or operating permits program to compile emissions data for its point source inventory. [...] 

If emissions data reported under an operating permits program are used, the State or local 

agency should ensure that the emissions represent actual rather than allowable or potential 

emissions for the base year inventory.” [page 16] 

Furthermore, the Calcagni memo states on page 8: “The State should develop an attainment 

emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the 

NAAQS. [Footnote 5 - Where the state has made an adequate demonstration that air quality 

has improved as a result of the SIP (as discussed previously), the attainment inventory will 

generally be the actual inventory at the time the area attained the standard.] This inventory 

should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emission inventories for 

nonattainment areas available at the time and should include the emissions during the time 

period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.” 

This guidance reinforces that states should use actual emissions for the attainment year 

specified. 

To comply with these requirements, as well as the requirement that the inventory be 

comprehensive, accurate, and current, the TCEQ obtained point source data for the 2005 

base year inventory of actual ozone season daily emissions of NOx and VOC as reported by 

each site located in the BPA area that submitted a point source emissions inventory for 

2005. At the time the TCEQ developed the maintenance plan, this was the most current 

data available. 

The TCEQ has specified lower emissions reporting thresholds for the point source 

emissions inventory in 30 TAC §101.10 than those established by the EPA in the 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, which ensures a comprehensive point source 

inventory that provides the level of detail required for airshed modeling of ozone 

nonattainment areas. Furthermore, the TCEQ verifies the accuracy of the point source 

inventory using extensive, established quality assurance procedures. These procedures 

ensure that sites meeting the point source reporting thresholds determine actual calendar 
47

year emissions using the best available method, in accordance with TCEQ guidance 

(http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/forms_pubs/pubs/rg/rg-360_07/index.html). 

BMC also commented that though its facility has been idled since December 2004, BMC has 

always intended to resume operations. BMC noted that the facility has maintained all relevant 

permits, paid all annual operating and emissions inventory fees, maintained compliance with all 

applicable state and federal regulations, and continued all related recordkeeping. BMC also 

provided a table that displays emissions inventory values for the facility in 2000, 2002, and 2005. 

Therefore, the BMC facility “should be considered to be in a temporary idle state and not 

permanently shutdown.” 

Regarding BMC’s assertion that the methanol plant shutdown is temporary and should be 

considered as such, the TCEQ is not making any determination with regard to the 

permanent or temporary shutdown status of the BMC plant through its treatment of 

emissions in the inventory. 

Eastman commented that the emissions inventory projections for the BPA redesignation request 

and maintenance plan uses normalized emissions from oil refinery expansions to project future 

emissions from those facilities, that are based on recently issued permits; not already operating 

facilities. The commenter stated that this approach is consistent with EPA regulation and policy, 

but not with the TCEQ’s handling of the BMC facility in the emissions inventory. BMC asserted 

that the TCEQ’s failure to take into account the likely restart of the BMC facility in projecting 

emissions inventories for the milestone years in the maintenance plan may not be consistent with 

applicable law and guidance on the development of emissions inventories for maintenance plans. 

Additionally, BMC stated “. . . .TCEQ’s apparent conclusion that emissions in Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) code 2869 decreased from 2002 to 2005 may have been skewed by the 

temporary shutdown of the BMC plant ... . While the impact on the NOx maintenance inventory 

is still small, it might be enough to alter the growth factor applied to SIC code 2869 and thus to 

impact the 2021 horizon year inventory for NOx by more than the suggested adjustment to the 

base maintenance inventory.” 

For projecting emissions from sources not subject to area-wide emissions caps, the TCEQ’s 

policy and practice has been to base projections only on actual emissions for the base case 

year. The commission directs the commenters to the DFW Reasonable Further Progress, El 

Paso Maintenance Plan, and Victoria Maintenance Plan SIP revisions as examples. 

For the projected milestone inventories to be consistent with the attainment inventory, per 

the Calcagni Memo, emissions for future years are typically projected by applying growth 

factors to the base case. These growth factors are based on Texas economic data as well as 

emissions trends and are assumed to account for statistical variations in plants’ operations, 

such as idled sources. 

The total decrease in NOx emissions for the Jefferson County SIC 2869 category from 2002 

to 2005 was approximately 6.5 tons per day (tpd). BMC’s idled sources’ contribution to this 

trend is approximately 3.2 tpd. Thus, even if BMC’s idled sources were operational, the 

Jefferson County SIC category emissions would still demonstrate a decreasing trend, and 

no growth in emissions would still be projected to the 2021 horizon year, as it was in the 

maintenance plan. Many of these NOx emissions reductions resulted from the 

implementation of Chapter 117 NOx rules between 2003 and 2005. 

Additionally, if the TCEQ attempted to include BMC’s idled source emissions in the 

maintenance plan, representative emissions would not be available since these sources 
48

ceased operation before the 30 TAC Chapter 117 compliance date for BPA became 

effective. Without representative data existing during the control period, these sources’ 

typical emissions could not accurately be predicted. Since BMC idled applicable sources 

before the compliance date was effective, it is neither accurate nor representative to include 

pre-control period emissions in either the base or projected inventories. 

As for the projections associated with three refineries’ expansions, both Valero and Motiva 

have broken ground. All three refinery projects permitted new and/or modified equipment 

under nonattainment NSR review. Furthermore, as part of these expansions, the refineries 

have committed to federally enforceable emissions reductions from existing sources. The 

projected growth for the refineries was based on actual 2005 emissions data and accounts 

for the complex interaction of installing controls and shutting down existing equipment in 

future years as new emissions units become operational. 

In contrast, BMC is neither expanding (adding new equipment) nor modifying existing 

equipment; it has only stated that it plans to resume operations and no definitive date was 

provided. Even if a similar projection method were employed for BMC’s idled sources, no 

emissions would be projected for future milestone years since these sources did not operate 

during the attainment year. 

BMC commented that making adjustments for the temporary shutdown of the BMC plant does 

not require TCEQ to make adjustments for other sources that may not have been operating at full 

capacity. 

For the most recent point source inventories submitted as part of SIP revisions, the TCEQ 

has attempted to consistently develop inventories and projections that accurately reflect 

anticipated growth. To allow an adjustment for BMC emissions would indeed necessitate 

contacting all idled sources in the BPA area to ascertain future plans. Also, these estimates 

would almost certainly over-predict emissions and not accurately assess the benefit of 

proposed control strategies. 

Eastman and BMC pointed to the adjustment of several aspects of the emissions inventory in the 

2007 DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP revision, particularly EGUs. Eastman references the 

SIP revision, stating: “where TCEQ found zero emissions from an EGU in the attainment 

demonstration that had not been retired ‘the TCEQ checked with the facility to obtain its current 

operational status.’” The commenter stated that the status of the BMC facility is “identical to that 

of a temporarily idled EGU,” and that “consistency obligates TCEQ to verify the intentions of 

BMC (and Eastman) regarding planned operations.” BMC pointed out that in the DFW 

attainment demonstration, the TCEQ evaluated the base case emission inventory for the modeling 

exercise and made some minor adjustments to account for things such as temporarily shutdown 

EGUs that were expected to be operation during the 2009 modeled year. 

While the TCEQ has applied some site-specific adjustments in a previous SIP revision (as 

mentioned in 73 FR 40210), these were used for modeling purposes in attainment 

demonstration SIP revisions. In contrast, the EPA’s guidance on developing emissions 

inventories for maintenance plans states that the base year emissions inventory should 

reflect actual emissions during the specified attainment year. The guidance further states on 

page 7: “The CAA [§ 172(c)(3)] calls for State, local and Tribal agencies to ensure that the 

base year inventory is comprehensive, accurate, and current for all actual emissions.” 

Emissions inventory development for this maintenance plan is consistent with this guidance.