Approval and Promulgation of Implementati on 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 requir ements for redesign ating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107( d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that (1) the Administrator de termines 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 de termines 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 ai r pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enfor ceable reductions; (4) th e Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the State containing such area ha s met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D. EPA provided guidance on redesignati on in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Am endments 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 sect ion IV of the corresponding pr oposed Federal Register action, including one which specifically discusses requirements for TSDs for redesignation of ozone nonattainment areas: “Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) fo r Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas”, Me morandum 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 qualit y data covering? Where are the monitors
located? What are the relevant concentrations?

B. For what years were emissions inventori es 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 th e attainment and maintenance years?

C. What transportation, emi ssion, and/or dispersion models were used? What were the significant input parameters, including ai r quality data and assumptions used in the
demonstration? What are the model results?

D. What are the maintenance plan conti ngency measures, triggers and commitments? What is the process for tracking the plan and re porting 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 cont rols 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 ar e the results of any comments received by
the State? What is the st atus of any outstanding SIP ca ll or findings letter, if any?

F. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s supporting mate rials 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 A pplicable for Purposes of Redesignation
for the BPA area? 1. What are the Part D Requirements App licable 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 Approvabl e 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan3 Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA for the BPA Area?
B. How Did Texas Estimate the VOC and NO
x 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 th e 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 C ontingency Measures and the State’s Request to Remove an Unimplemented VOC Rule from the Texas SIP

Attachment TCEQ Response to Comments from BMC Holdings4 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 de termined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, based on three comple te, consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. This standa rd 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 a ttained at a monitor if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collect ed and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Ai r 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 comm unication, 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 qua lity assured and reco rded 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 th e additional year of 2009, i.e., the 2007 – 2009 ozone seasons, is 0.077 ppm. The data for all three sets of ozone s easons 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 site s 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

4 th Highest Daily Max Design Values Three Year Averages BPA Monitor
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

4 th Highest Daily Max Design Values Three Year Averages BPA Area

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 thre e-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 th is table is from the Jeffers on 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 averag e of the fourth-highest daily maximum average ozone concentration at the monitor r ecording 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 a ssured, as recorded in AQS. Data for 2009 not yet certified also indicate that th e area continues to a ttain 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 th e three years 2005 through 2007, as well as monitoring data for the three years 2006 th rough 2008 and preliminary monitoring data for 2009, show continued attainment of th e 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Preliminary
data for BPA for 2009 is included in the docket.

In addition, the State of Texas has committe d in its maintenance plan for the BPA area to continue operation of an appropriate ozone monitori ng 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. TC EQ 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 ar e not part of the TCEQ QAPP. If the7 SETRPC, however, removes one of its monitors, the EPA and Texas will jointly review the adequacy of the network, including whethe r 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 conti nue 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 Commi ssion’s website and in EPA’s AQS database as long as the SETRPC participates in the network.

In summary, EPA is proposing to determin e 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 ar ea 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 wa s 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 va lid 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 c ontinuous long-term AGC monitori ng data in the BPA area, no ambient VOC trends using TCEQ m onitoring data were analyzed.

The reason for the limited VOC data is th at this data was not required until 2006
as a result of the 2004 action reclassifying the BPA to “s erious” 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) pr ogram. 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 con centration 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 Co mmission (SETRPC). The SETRPC collects data at four monitoring sites which are in a ddition to the monitoring sites operated by the TCEQ. Information regarding data from th e SETPRC monitoring sites was provided to8 TCEQ in comments to its proposed redesignation and maintenance plan for the BPA area in several letters, including one from th e 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 NO
x data corroborates the TCEQ’s NO
x analysis, showing decreases in NO
x 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 s how 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 ove r the past 15 years, and pr opylene 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 annua l 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 th e emissions inventory requirem ents of section 182(a)(1). An emissions inventory is an estimation of act ual emissions of air po llutants in an area. The emissions inventory consists of VOC and NO
x emissions, as they are ozone

precursors.

TCEQ prepared a comprehensive emi ssion inventory for the Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA) non attainment area including po int, 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 i nventory for area and nonroad emissions categories and provided the inventory fo r 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 revi ewed the 2002 base ye ar inventory and determined that it was developed in accord ance 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 list ed in Appendix B titled “Texas 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory Area, Nonroa d 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 TC EQ and EPA guidance documents.

Area Source Emissions: TCEQ developed the area source emission inventory in 2003. Since then, TCEQ updated the inve ntory by using improved methods and improved emission factors to estimate emissi ons from several area source categories, such as industrial and residential fuel usage, gasoline st ations, 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 the9 submittal provides a detailed description of the inventory.

On-road Emissions: The BPA onroad mob ile source EI was developed under contract by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), an objective tr ansportation 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 nonattain ment 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 fract ions to allocate the VMT by hour-of-day. Using MOBILE6 model is consistent with EP A’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 survey s of industrial and construction equipment. The EDMS aircraft model was used to pr oduce 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 NO
x 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 wa s also required to de monstrate that the observed ozone air quality improvement in the BPA area is due to permanent and10 enforceable emissions reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.

In making this demonstration, the State pres ented several sets of data. First, the State provided a 2002 Periodic Em issions Inventory (PEI) for NO
x and VOC in the BPA area, and provided a comparison between th e 2002 PEI and the 2005 Base EI. Second, the State analyzed the changes in VOC and NO
x emissions in the BPA area between the ozone standard violation year 2002 and one of the years in the pe riod during which the
area attained the standard , 2005. Finally, the State documented the VOC and NO
x emission control measures that have been implemented in the BPA area over the past 17

years.

Emissions Reductions as Shown by Em issions Inventory Data (proposal, Section VII. A) . Texas chose 2005 as the base attainment year, and compared 2002
VOC and NO
x 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 th e first year of the fi rst three-year period demonstrating attainment. By 2005, NO
x 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 NO
x emission inventories, which are prepared every thr ee years. Based on the estimated emissions, TCEQ has documented several emission trends to show that permanent and enforceable
emission controls in various source sector s are responsible fo r significant downward
trends in VOC and NO
x 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 NO
x emissions decreased between one of the violation years (2002) and an attainment year (2005), TCEQ has documented BPA’s
VOC and NO
x emissions for 2002 and 2005 for all anthr opogenic 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 NO
x 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 i nventory for area sources used in the maintenance plan not including flash emissions from upstream oil and gas production.

Table 4 (continued)
NO
x 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 NO
x 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 NO
x and VOC between 2002 and 2005, explain the observed im provement in ozone concentrations. Further, the reductions between 2002 and 2005 can be attributed to permanent and
enforceable reductions.

The most significant reductions document ed in Table 5 were the reductions in
Point Source NO
x . In 2000, Texas adopted additional NO
x control rules to further reduce
NO
x emissions from electric utility power boilers (approximately 50% reduction) and from industrial boilers and pr ocess heaters (approximately 20 percent reduction). These reductions occurred in two stages, with tw o-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 NO
x emissions in the BPA area.12 Based on the 2002 and 2005 nonattainment area emissions information provided by TCEQ, EPA concludes that VOC and NO
x 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’ conclusi ons that the emission controls , emissions inventories, and emissions trends support the conclusion that a ttainment in the area is due to permanent
and enforceable emission reductions.

To further demonstrate that permanent and enforceable emission controls have
reduced VOC and NO
x emissions, TCEQ also documented the trends in NO
x and VOC concentrations in the BPA area, which is discussed in greater detail below.

Impact of Emissions Controls Implem entation: Trend Analysis (proposal, Section VII. B). To assess the impact of emissi on control implementation, TCEQ
determined the VOC and NO
x ambient concentration trends at two monitors in the BPA
area from 1991 to 2007. This included determ ining or projecting the VOC emissions for all seventeen years in this time period. NO
x trends during this period, for both monitors provided by TCEQ in the analysis, Beaum ont (CAMS2) and West Orange (CAMS 9),
showed that the 95 th percentile of concentrations decr eased at both monitors, and that the average NO
x concentration remained relatively fl at 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 pr ovided 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 correspond ing 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 m easures are also discu ssed in great er 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 implemente d in the BPA area. In Texas’ 8-hour ozone redesignation request, th e State documented all of the em ission control rules or programs that have impacted VOC or NO
x emissions during the period 1991 - 2007.

1. Reasonably Available Control Techniques
Texas notes that a number of VOC and NO
x RACT rules developed in prior years have continued to prov ide additional VOC and NO
x 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 NO
x RACT rules are contained in Chapter 117 of volume 30 of the TAC (30 TAC 117). All of these
VOC and NO
x 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 NO
x emission control programs and rules needed to comply with Texas’ one-hour oz one attainment demonstration for the BPA area and implementation of all emission control measures contained in the various ROP plans applicable to Hardin, Jefferson and Or ange Counties. EPA approved the 15% ROP Plan on February10, 1998 (63 FR 6659). EPA approved the Post-1996 VOC and NO
x ROP Plan on February 22, 2006 (71 FR 8962) . The Post-1996 ROP Plan provided 27 percent reductions.

3. NO
x Control Rules TCEQ developed NO
x emission control rules for el ectric indust rial boilers, industrial boilers and pr ocess heaters, gas turbines, rich-burn stationa ry 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 ba tch process and industrial wastewater
sources and NO
x rules for lean-burn engines. Th ese rules were adopted in 1999, with emissions reductions resulting fr om these rules beginning in 2001. In 2000, Texas adopted additional NO
x control rules to further reduce NO
x emissions from electric utility power boilers (approximately 50% reduction) and from
industrial boilers a nd process heaters (approximately 20 percent reduction). These reductions occurred in two stages, with tw o-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 NO
x 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 NO
x 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 estimate d that, by the end of the phase-in period, the following vehicle NO
x emission reductions will occur nationwide: passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percen t); light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); and, larger spor ts utility vehicles, vans, a nd heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). VOC emission reductions are e xpected 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 year s (2005-2007) in the BPA area, additional emission reductions will occur during the mainte nance period. For example, note that the Tier 2 emission standards for passenger ve hicles 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 fuel14 sulfur content to 15 parts per million, lead ing to additional reductions in combustion NO
x and VOC emissions. This rule is expect ed to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NO
x 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 construc tion, agriculture, and mini ng. It is estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NO
x emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent. This rule is currently ach ieving 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 NO
x emissions by about 80 percent compared with engines meeting the current standards. These new requirements have three parts: tightening emission standards for existing lo comotives and large marine engines when they are remanufactured, effective in 2008; establishing Tier III standards for new locomotives and marine diesel engines th at were phased in beginning in 2009; and establishing more stringent Ti er IV standards for new loco motives 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 Recove r (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 Ve hicle 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 St andards for Consumer
Products

○ Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard s for Architectural Coatings

○ Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines

5. Additional State and Lo cal Emission Reductions Several local permanent and enforcea ble emission reductions have occurred through various mechanisms other than thr ough 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 NO
x 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. This15 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 NO
x emissions from internal combustion engines on mobile sources. Eligible grant projects incl ude 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, el ectrification, 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
NO
x emissions by more than 2.7 tons per day by 2009. In the BPA area, the projects
funded thus far have resulted in NO
x reductions of 4,480 tons. Agreed Orders. Although not relied upon by the Stat e for showing attainment or RFP, Agreed Orders have also be en important in reducing NO
x 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 require d. The six companies were ISP Elastomers; Mobil Chemical Company, a Division of Exxon Mobil Corporation; Huntsman Petrochemical Corp. of Port Arthur and al so of Port Neches; Motiva Enterprises LLC; and Premcor Refining Group, Inc. The Agr eed 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 NO
x after the BPA area is redesignated to at tainment. Texas, through TCEQ’s Chief Engineer’s Office, Air Quality Division, and the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, has the legal authority and necessary resource s to actively enforce ag ainst any violations of the State’s air pollution emi ssion control rules. After th e BPA area is redesignated to attainment, TCEQ will implement NSR fo r 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. NO
x and VOC emissions have dropped substantially. Base d on the above, EPA proposes to determine that Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Countie s and the State of Texas have met the16 requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA, and have demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to perm anent and enforceable emission reductions. As noted above, Texas has committed to retaining all existing emission control
measures that affect ozone levels in th e 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 th e BPA Area? What is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan? (pro posal, section VIII. A.) In conjunction with its request to redesignate the BPA 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the State of Texas incl uded 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 qual ity maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation to attainment of a NAAQS. Under section 17 5A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the appl icable NAAQS for at leas t 10 years after the Administrator approves the re designation to attainment. The State must commit to submit a revised maintenance plan within ei ght years after the re designation. This revised maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the ozone standard for an additional 10 years beyond the initial 10 y ear 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 viol ation. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on th e content of maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan should, at mi nimum, address the following: (1) the
attainment VOC and NO
x emission inventories; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the 10 years of th e 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 NO
x 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 th at the SIP include an invent ory of actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the nona ttainment area. The emission inventory for
an ozone nonattainment area contains VOC and NO
x emissions as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation. TCEQ prepar ed 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 projec ted emissions through the year 2021.

Texas developed its baseline 2005 Emi ssions Inventory by updating the 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI) for NO
x 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, Texas17 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 list ed 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 proj ected 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 main tenance demonstration, TCEQ prepared a comprehensive emission inventory for the Beau mont/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 se lected 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 NO
x emissions by source type.

Table 7 Summary of VOC and NO
x Emissions for the BPA area (tons per average ozone season day)

The 2005 base year and projected ye ar 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 inventor y 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 produc tion, and industrial coatings. In addition, Texas has performed studies and conducted surveys in order to obtain more accurate data 2005 2011 2014 2017 2021 Net Change Source
Category VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VO C 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 -20.5318 and revise the inventory accordingly. TC EQ 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 Em issions Inventory. Area source emissions for future years were projected using EP A’s Economic Growth Analysis (EGAS) 5.0 or other growth factors, in acco rdance with EPA guidance.
More information about calculations rela ted 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 NO
x 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 stor es the data in the State of Texas Air Reporting System (STARS) database. Inve ntory data for 2005 was obtained from STARS. TCEQ projected point source emissi ons for future years by applying projection factors, where applicable, for EGU a nd 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 fo r the three-county BPA area. TCEQ has provided detailed informa tion to document the calculation of on-road
mobile source VOC and NO
x 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 pr ojections to 2013, TCEQ developed non-road emissions projections for 2014, 2017, and 2021 us ing EPA’s National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). For aircraft, locomotives , and commercial ma rine vessels, TCEQ
estimated VOC and NO
x emissions using growth factors sp ecific to those industries. As mentioned above, for the non-road mobile cate gories except aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine vessels, emissions were calculated using TexN, a software tool for developing emissions estim ates for non-road mobile sources in Texas using county specific activity data. The mode l allows the TCEQ to replace the EPA’s
default data with local data. The TexN mode l generates emissions for every county in the state for over 200 individual types of equi pment. Airport Emissions numbers were projected using the growth f actors obtained from “Termi nal 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 and19 marine/boating activities in the BPA area were developed using the 2005 Texas Air Emissions Repository (TexAER) data. The fact ors used to determine projected emissions took into consideration shipping activities in area ports and cargo transport. Additionally,
federal controls and activities were also cons idered when developing the non-road mobile source emissions projections derived from locomotive and marine activities.
More information about calculations relate d 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 Texa s included a SIP revisi on to incorporate a maintenance plan as required under section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includes a demonstration based on a comparis on of emissions in the attainment year (2005) and projected emissions to demons trate 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 demonstrat e maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, TCEQ projected VOC and NO
x 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 NO
x and VOC, when considered together, remain below the attainment levels for the entire demonstrated maintenance period.

In the December 18, 2008, ozone redesi gnation request, TCEQ graphically represented and compared the VOC and NO
x emissions for 2005, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2021 for all major source sectors, and in tota l for the BPA nonattainment area. In its ozone maintenance demonstration, TCEQ presented the NO
x and VOC emission totals for the 2005 base year and all projection year s 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 NO
x emission totals for the BPA area, when considered together, are projected to be below the 2005 VOC and NO
x emissions
for the area.

NO
x emissions in the BPA area are projected to decline by 14 percent between 2005 and 2021. Note that the projected NO
x emission reduction for 2020 did not include
NO
x emission reductions resulting from CAIR, but did include NO
x emission reductions resulting from Texas’ existing NO
x emission control rules that are in the Texas SIP. VOC emissions in the BPA area are projecte d to increase by approximately 6 percent between 2005 and 2021. However, based on photochemical modeling analyses showing
that the formation of ozone in th e BPA area is more sensitive to NO
x 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, di recting 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 St ate’s CAIR NOx emission control rules. TCEQ complied, and by the time of the December 18, 2008, submittal had rem oved all emissions impacts due to CAIR in its projections.20 emissions, the increase in VOC emissions is expe cted to be fully offset by the decrease in
NO
x . Specifically, photochemical modeling anal yses show that for reducing the ozone design value in the BPA area, reducing NO
x 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 CA IR by the U.S. Court of Appeals
led to both the State and EPA further consid ering the impact of this remand on Texas’
ozone maintenance demonstration for the BP A area. The CAIR was remanded to EPA, and the process of developing a replacement ru le is ongoing. The remand of CAIR does not alter the requirements of the NO
x SIP call. Although Texas is not subject to the NO
x SIP call, Texas, however, has demonstrated that the BPA area can maintain the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard without any additional NO
x emission reduction requirements. Regarding the impact of pollution from other States, all NO
x SIP Call states have SIPs that currently satisfy thei r obligations under the SIP Ca ll, the SIP Call reduction requirements remain applicable and are being met, and EPA will continue to enforce the requirements of the NO
x SIP Call even after any respons e 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 NO
x 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 NO
x emissions in the BPA area, when considered together with Texas’ photoc hemical modeling analyses, are projected to
decline between 2005 and 2021. Given the emi ssions growth and source control factors used to project emissions, EPA and Texas do not anticipate an increase in the overall
combined VOC and NO
x emissions in the BPA area between 2010 and 2021.

The following table provides NO
x and VOC emissions data for the 2005 base year inventory, as well as projected NO
x and VOC emission inventory data for the years 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2021 for the BPA area.21 Table 8: Base Year and Projected NO
x and VOC Emissions in BPA

NO
x 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 NO
x 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 NO
x emissions through 2021 as NO
x 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 sli ght 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 oc curs over a period of approximately sixteen years (as from the 2005 baseline). The slight upward trend in VOC emissions results from projected increa ses for the point and non-point (area) source22 emission categories. Emissions from non-road mobile and on-road mobile sources are projected to decrease.

As mentioned above, the projec ted 14% reduction (20.53 tpd) in NO
x 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 showi ng that reducing VOC emissions by 5.53 tpd
results in an estimated de sign 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 NO
x emissions by 7.80 tpd reduces the ozone DV by 0.287 ppb. This means that a reduction of 27.2 tpd of NO
x emissions would be required to reduce one ppb in the DV. Thus, NO
x 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. Inform ation regarding data from the SETPRC monitoring sites was provide d to TCEQ in comments to its proposed redesignation and maintenan ce plan for the BPA area in several letters, including one from the SETRPC Air Quality Advisory Co mmittee. Data from the SETPRC support the TCEQ’s trend analyses showing improved ai r quality in the BPA area. The SETPRC
NO
x data corroborate the TCEQ’s NO
x analysis, showing decreases in NO
x 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 aver age ethylene decreases from a range of 9 percent to 84 percent over the past 15 year s, 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 NO
x and VOC in the BPA area, and s upport 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 contin gency 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 fo r the contingency measures? How is
maintenance demonstrated in the interim years? Are additional controls to be adopted and implemented in the future to offset emis sion increases, and what is the impact of
these controls on emissions inventory planning cap(s)?23 What is the Maintenance Plan’s Contin gency Plan? (proposal, Section VIII. F.) The section 175(A) maintenance plan includ es contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQ S that occurs after redesignation. The contingency plan provisions are designed to pr omptly correct or prev ent 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 in clude such contingency measures, as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a vi olation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesigna tion. The maintenance plan s hould identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and pro cedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for ac tion 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 maintena nce plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all measures with resp ect 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 fu ture ozone air quality problems.

Triggers . The contingency measure trigger for the BPA maintenance plan is based upon monitoring. The triggering mech anism 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 mont hs) one or more contingency measures to
re-attain the standard in th e 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-b urn, gas-fired, reciprocating internal com bustion engines to meet NO
x emission specifications and other requirements to reduce NO
x emissions and oz one 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 conde nsate storage tanks at upstream oil and gas exploration and productions s ites 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 de gassing operations for storage tanks with a nominal capacity of 75,000 gallons or more stor ing materials with a true vapor pressure24 greater than 2.6 pounds per square inch absolu te (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 vess els, 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 (s ee 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 C AA, Texas commits to submit to the EPA an updated ozone maintenance plan eight year s 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
NO
x control measures contained in th e 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 fo llowing 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 impl emented within 18 months.

EPA finds that the plan adequately a ddresses 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 a pprove 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 outs tanding SIP call or findings letter, if any?

Two public hearings were held for the Beau mont – Port Arthur Redesignation Request25 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, thr ee attendees provided oral testimony; on August 15, two provided oral te stimony. Also, written comme nts were received from 13 parties. In general, the commenters expr essed support for the SIP revision; however the following four major concerned were raised:

i) Due to the recent D.C. appellate court ruli ng 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 CA IR reductions from either inside or outside the BPA area for its future emissions projections. Projected emission inve ntories were also revised to incorporate emissions reductions from the federal portable fuel container (PFC) rule, as no PFC rule emissions reducti ons were considered in the proposed SIP
revision.

Specifically, TCEQ response explains: “T o 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 met hod 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 populati on growth and economic growth.”

Further, “The commission has revised a ll references to future inventories”, including all tables and figures, to reflect the revisions to th e emissions inventory projections described in the previous paragraph.

ii) The EPA also commented that the SIP re vision should be revi sed 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 certain ty 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 Pr ogram. TCEQ made additional revisions to Chapter 2 in response to comments fr om the Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC) and many other area enti ties 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 inventor y. 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 pr ojected emissions. This methanol plant was shutdown prior to the final compliance da ta (May 1, 2005) for 30 TAC Chapter 117, Emission Specifications for Attainment De monstration, in section 117.110, which was adopted as part of the BPA one-hour ozone stan dard attainment demonstration SIP. It is
unclear whether BMC could calculate what emissions would have occurred in 2005 if
additional controls and monito ring were not yet installed to meet that standard. The
commission is not certain the units will restar t under the current authorization. It would be highly inaccurate and against EPA guidan ce and TCEQ policy to include a predicted emissions level for a prior year for un its 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 Ca lcagni memo). The passage cited concerns the EPA’s guidance on determining whether impl emented controls lead to the monitored attainment, rather than the memo’s guidan ce on developing the atta inment inventory or maintenance plan. . . . “

EPA agrees with TCEQ that including a ll of the emissions from this facility would not be an accurate reflection of poten tial 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 pr oposal 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 NO
x controls before it can restart.

As discussed in the maintenance plan, over the life of the maintenance plan 20 tpd
of NO
x reductions are expected to occur. Thes e 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 f acility were to restart, given the current NOx control requirements, emissions levels would co ntinue to be below th e 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 concerne d that the plan is not comprehensive, in that it does not expressly re quest redesignation to attain ment of the one-hour ozone standard. The TIP urged the TCEQ to request the EPA formally redesignate the BPA are27 to attainment of the eight-hour NAAQS, make a formal finding of attainment of the onehour NAAQS by the attainment date and redesign ate the BPA area as such, and finally, to request the EPA determine that one-hour an ti-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. Th is quality assured ambient air monitoring
data has been certified and submitted to th e EPA. Because the one-hour ozone standard has been revoked, EPA is no longer making rede signations 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 co mmission 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 redesigna tion, provided that the area de monstrates maintenance of the standard without a part D NSR program in effect since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. The rationale for this vi ew is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air a nd Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” See rulema kings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467- 12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lo rraine, 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 th e PSD permitting program in place versus the Nonattainment NSR program.

F. What is EPA’s evaluation of the Stat e’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 pr oposal, we have evaluated Texas’ redesignation request and maintenance plan for th e BPA area, including supporting
materials. Based on the information and analysis provided in these documents, EPA finds that Texas’ December 16, 2008 submitta l 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 A pplicable for Purposes of Redesignation
for the BPA Area? 1. What are the Part D Requirements App licable 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) prescr ibe one-hour ozone NAAQS requirements that continue to appl y after revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for former one-hour ozone nonattainme nt 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 ap plied to the area for the area ’s classification under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for the one-hour NAAQS atthe time of designation for the eighthour NAAQS, remain in effect: (1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT). (2) Inspection and main tenance 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) pr ovisions of section 182(d)(1) of the
CAA. (12) NO
x requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA. (13) Attainment demonstration or al ternative 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 addresse s 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 revi sions approved by the EPA.

40 CFR 51.905 (1) and (3). RACT and Major source applicabili ty cut-offs for purposes of RACT. EPA found that the BPA area met the serious area VOC and NO
x RACT requirements for the 1-hour standard on Ju ly 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). Th is July 10, 2009 approval action satisfies the 1- hour ozone serious RACT requirements for the BPA area. We approved a substantive and nonsubsta ntive recodification to the Texas NO
x 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
NO
x RACT requirements for the 1-hour sta ndard 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 fo r 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 r eceived regarding the July 10, 2009 action,
and the direct final rule becam e 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 urbani zed 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 ba se year emissions i nventory 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) Stag e 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 an30 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) monito ring 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 Orga nization for the BPA area, demonstrated conformity of area trans portation 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 Administra tion determined on September 25, 2007 that the area transportation plans conformed to the budgets established by the SIP. The current aggregate vehicle mileage, aggregat e 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 th erefore does not apply to the BPA serious

area.

40 CFR 51.905 (12) NO
x requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA. These requirements were satisfied by a previous EP A action approving a Te xas SIP revision for
NO
x controls in the BPA area on March 3, 2000 (65 FR 11468).

40 CFR 51.905 ( 13) Attainment demonstration or a lternative as provided under section 51.905(a)(1)(ii). Texas elected the option to subm it 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 associat ed 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, EP A’s long-held position is that an attainment demonstration with the RACM analysis is no t 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 standa rd, 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 for31 purposes of evaluating an ozone redesignation request. The rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nic hols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation dated October 14, 1994, titled, “Par t D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainme nt.” The State’s PSD program becomes effective in the area immediately upon redesignati on to attainment 2 . Consequently, EPA concludes that an approved NSR program is not an applicable requirement for purposes of redesignation. See the more detailed e xplanations 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 Rapi ds, 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 measur es to be implemented in the event that any milestone in the ozone control plan is missed. EPA appr oved 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 measur es 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 trigge red. EPA is proposing to approve the post1996 ROP plan's associated contingency measures, submitted to EPA on November 16, 2004. The contingency measures are fede ral and state measures already being implemented that are in excess of those need ed 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 furthe r 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 pr ogress 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 specif y the type of measures or quantity of emissions reductions required, EPA provi ded guidance interpreting the CAA that implementation of these contingency meas ures would provide additional emissions reductions of up to 3% of the adjusted base year inventory (or a le sser percentage that will make up the identified shortfall) in the year following the ROP milestone year. For more information on contingency measur es please see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the N ovember 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 requir ed, 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 c ourt in South Coast has rule d that the ROP associated contingency measures remain an applicable anti-backsliding requirement for a 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The BPA conti ngency 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 continge ncy 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 associ ated contingency measures meet 3% of the adjusted base year inventor y, it is recommended that th ey 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, pl ease 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 Demonstrat ion for BPA Post-1996 ROP SIP (Values are in Tons/Day)

2000 2003 2006 Description
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 re designation 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 st andard. Nevertheless, these Post-1996 ROP plan’s associated contingency measures rema in before EPA for action; TCEQ has given no indication of withdrawing them from EP A 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 gr eater detail in Part II E. of this TSD. As previously noted, it is EPA’s positi on 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 th e clean-fuel vehicle (CFV) program33 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 reclassi fication (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 C FF 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 standard s for light duty vehicl es, 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 ar e either equivalent to or more stringent than the applicable CFV program Low Emi ssion 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 Ti er II and heavy-duty vehicle and engine standards are more stringent than or equi valent to the CFV program LEV standards, beginning with the 2006 model year. Texas us ed the 2006 model year in the equivalency
demonstration because it is the earliest fu ll 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 CF V program would provide in the BPA nonattainment area and, therefore, th e implementation of the Tier II and heavyduty standards serve as an adequate substitute for a CFV program. Specifically, relying upon EPA’s data, begi nning with the 2006 model year, Texas shows Tier 2 Light-Duty Vehi cles (LDVs), Light-Duty Truc ks (LDTs 1-4), and Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) certified to certain Tier 2 bin standards, to be equivalent to or more stringent than th e CFV program LEV emission standards. In addition, Texas demonstrates that Tier 2 L DVs, LDTs 1-4, and MDPVs certified to other Tier 2 bin standards, are e quivalent to or more stringe nt than the CFV program LEV emission standards. Texas performs a simila r analysis, showing that standards for 2006 and later model years for Otto cycle and di esel 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 secti on 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 equivale nt or greater emissi ons reductions than would be expected from implementation of the CFV Program in the BPA nonattainment

area

. This approval is supporte d by the determination made by EPA that the use of the 2006 model year as the first model year ve hicles that would be covered by a CFV program in the equivalency demonstration is appropriate. Thus, ne w vehicles purchased by fleet operators for Model Years 2006 and beyond would necessarily achieve, as required by the Tier II and heavy-duty engine st andards, as much or more reductions than if the State adopted a CFV program as required by the Act. The reclassification required the progra m 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 ot herwise 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 w ith the 2006 model year the Ti er II and heavy-duty engine
and vehicle standards were e ither equivalent or more st ringent than the CFV program LEV standards. Thus, Texas would have b een 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 Augus t 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 init iate and oversee the el aborate record-keeping and reporting requirements associated with th is 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 requiremen ts 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 memo 3 from Leila Cook, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Air Program Manage rs 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 th e area in question a ttains the 8-hour ozone standard.” We interpret “at tains the 8-hour standard” to mean the redesignation to attainment because redesignation is the only wa y 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 manufacturers 4 , 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 stan dards are equivalent to or more stringent than CFV Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) emission standards. Tier 2 LDVs, LDT1-4s, and MDPVs certified to other Ti er 2 bin standards ar e equivalent to or more stringent than CFV Ultra-Low Emi ssion Vehicle (ULEV) emission standards.
Similar determinations are made for 2005 and later model year Otto cycle and diesel heavy-duty vehicles rangi ng 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 ye ar 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. Ther efore the CFV program would be applicable on that date. The effectiv e date of the manufactur er’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 m eet this requirement were either meeting or exceeding LEV and ULEV for both VOC and NO
x and no program would have afforded any additional emission reductions.

Our conclusion is that since the estab lishment of the Federal CFV program, EPA has promulgated new emission standards for vehi cles and engines that are generally more stringent than or equivalent to, the CFV emission standards for light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and heavy-duty ve hicles and engines (40 CFR 86) . Therefore, with the new
Federal emissions standards there are no addi tional emission reductions that would be expected with implementation of the Federal clean fuel vehicle program or a substitute

program.

EPA is proposing to agree w ith the State that new vehi cles available to fleet owners to meet this requirement are either meeting or exceeding LEV and ULEV for both
VOC and NO
x and no program meeting the clean fuel vehicle program requirements would afford any additional emission reducti ons. 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 Co mpliance 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 dem onstrated that the observed ozone air quality improvement in the BPA area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of th e SIP, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures.

In making this demonstration, the State pres ented several sets of data. First, the State provided a 2002 Periodic Em issions Inventory (PEI) for NO
x and VOC in the BPA area, and provided a comparison between th e 2002 PEI and the 2005 Base EI. Second, the State analyzed the changes in VOC and NO
x emissions in the BPA area between the ozone standard violation year 2002 and one of the years in the pe riod during which the
area attained the standard , 2005. Finally, the State documented the VOC and NO
x emission control measures that have been implemented in the BPA area over the past 17 years. Please see the discussion of Air Qu ality 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 Show n 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 th ings: 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 (Oct ober 26, 2000 (65 FR64148)); revised NO
x 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 NO
x rules for Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters (October 26, 2000 (65 FR 64148)); NO
x 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 powe r boilers in BPA) and revisions to the NO
x rules for lean burn, stationary, reciprocating inte rnal combustion engines in the BPA area (September 1, 2000 (65 FR 53172)). EPA approve d administrative revisions to the Texas
NO
x SIP and revised emission specifications in the BPA area for Electric Utility Boilers, Industrial, Commercial or Institutional Boile rs and certain Proce ss 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-Em ission 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 Approvabl e Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA for the BPA Area?
B. How Did Texas Estimate the VOC and NO
x Emissions for the Attainment Year and the Projection Years?

As discussed in Part I.B. above, in pr ojecting data for the attainment year 2021 inventory, TCEQ used several methods to pr oject data from the base year 2005 to the years 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2021. These projected inventories were developed using EPA-approved technologies and methodologi es. Point source and non-point source projections were derived from the EPA’s Em issions Growth Analysis System version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0). Using EGAS for the electric gene rating units is a conservative approach particularly given that EGUs decreased th eir emissions because of State SIP control strategies. Non-road mobile projections we re derived from EGAS 5.0, as well as from the National Mobile Inventory Model.

Industrial sources are required to su bmit emissions data to TCEQ annually. TCEQ stores the data in the State of Te xas 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 avai lable. Specific categories were updated and using information and data that represent 2005 ac tivity 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 me thods and improved emission factors to
estimate emissions from several area source cate gories, such as industrial and residential fuel usage, gasoline stations, oil and gas pr oduction, 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 re search, and the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory. More information about the developmen t 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-specifi c 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 tr aveled (VMT), which were derived by TTI using travel demand models va lidated against large numbers of ground counts of traffic38 throughout each nonattainment county in th e BPA area. TxDOT Automatic traffic recorder (ATR) data were used to produ ce 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 EP A’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 eq uipment. The EDMS aircraft model was used to produce aircraft emission data, a nd locomotive emissions were updated using survey results of engine activ ities. Using this area-specific information and the latest
version of the NONROAD model has resulted in a substantial improvement in the inventory over estimates base d 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 em issions 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 th e 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 em issions (from all source types) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be al located 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 attain ment level. Table 10 below shows the total
NO
x and total VOC emissions for an attainme nt year (2005) and also for projected NO
x 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 NO
x 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 NO
x MVEB for Beaumont/Port Arthur, Texas has proposed a conversion factor of 3.76 to yield a “NO
x equivalent” emissions number to calculate the total available safety margin in 2021 for NO
x . This NO
x equivalent is based
on the idea that NO
x emission reductions are estimated to be 3.76 times as efficient in reducing peak eight-hour ozone concentrations as VOC re ductions. By dividing VOC emissions by the conversion factor to obtain a NO
x equivalent, and then removing the equivalent from the total NO
x emissions decreases, a value of 17.13 tpd reduction was
calculated as available for use as a NO
x emissions safety margin:

12.80 (VOC tpd increase) / 3.76 (TCEQ NO
x equivalent) = 3.40 equivalent NO
x tpd increase

20.53 (2005 – 2021 NO
x decrease) - 3.40 (2005 – 2021 NO
x equivalent increase) = 17.13 (TCEQ estimated available NO
x safety margin for 2021)

EPA agrees that ozone formation in the BPA area is more sensitive to NO
x emissions than VOC emissions, but we are not certain th at 3.76 is an appropriate ratio. But we note that by conservatively assuming a 1:1 ratio of NO
x /VOC emissions in the formation of ozone, the net total reduction in NO
x emissions is still 7.73 tpd:

20.53 (NO
x tpd decrease) – 12.80 (VOC tpd increase) = 7.73 tpd NO
x reduction (available safety margin for 2021)

Texas has allocated one tpd of the net 2005-2021 NO
x emission reductions to the 2021
NO
x MVEB as a safety margin, wh ich increases the MVEB for NO
x 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 Fede ral 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 C ontingency 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 Fe bruary 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 Fe deral small engine VOC rule, and excess
reductions from the 15% VOC RO P 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-loadin g 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 bu t it was not included in the SIP-approved contingency plan for the BPA area. EPA ne ver approved it specifically as a section40 172(c)(9) contingency measure nor did EPA approve it as a replacement for the 1998- approved contingency measures. In the Federa l 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. (7 3 FR 14391, March 18, 2008) Also in the reclassification Federal Regi ster action, EPA required the State to submit additional contingency measures to replace, i.e., back f ill, the triggered contingency measures for its
new serious area attainment deadline under se ction 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 meas ures are emissions reductions from 1) NO
x and VOC reductions from three co mpanies in the BPA area, through Agreed Orders and 2) NO
x 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 calculatin g SIP credits for the individual TERP control measures. TERP provides funding to offset the incremental costs of projects associated with reducing NO
x emissions from high-emitting internal combustion engines. Together, reductions from these two c ontrol measures meet the 3 percent requirement for the 1-hour backfill failure -to-attain contingency measures. The NO
x 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 standa rd, and terminates upon a final redesignation
of the area for the 8-hour ozone standar d, 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 ve ssel 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 measur e 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 th is plan were an appropriate substitute for the marine vessel loading ru le. In fact, Texas’ sensitivity tests in photochemical modeling runs indicate that reductions of 1 tpd of NO
x 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 backfill41 contingency measures are mostly NO
x reductions and would be expected to be more
effective than the Marine Vessel Loadi ng Rule, a VOC control in reducing ozone.
The SIP marine-vessel lo ading rule was never relied upon for demonstrating attainment, achieving reasonable further progre ss, or as a reasonabl e 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 rem ove 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 c ontingency measure for the BPA area in January 1995 and revised it in February 1996 (January 13, 1995 Texas Register and February 27, 1996 Texas Regist er). 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 earl iest of the following occurs: (1) the commission publishes notificati on in the Texas Register of its determination that this contingency rule is necessary as a result of failure to
attain the national ambien t air quality standard for oz one by the attainment deadline or failure to demonstrate reasonabl e 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 re designate 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 appr oval of the demonstrati on of attainment for the Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area based upon Urban Airshed Model modeling.

This marine vessel loading continge ncy 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) NO
x and VOC reductions from three co mpanies in the BPA area, through Agreed Orders and 2) NO
x reductions from the Texas Emissions Reductions Program (TERP) projects. The substitute contingency m easures 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 NO
x reductions from two measures: Agreed Orders and
TERP. The reductions from both of th ese measures are discussed below.

$ Agreed Orders from three BPA area companies (6.46 tpd NO
x and 0.55 tpd VOC). Voluntary reductions from th ree companies in the BPA area, through Agreed Orders which were adopted by the Commission on December 15, 2004. Under the Agreed Orders Mobil Chemi cal Company, Motiva Enterprises, and Premcor Refining Group agreed to a variety of projects to reduce NO
x emissions in the BPA area by 0.44, 5.56 and 0.46 tpd, respectively. EPA approved the Agreed Orders into the SIP on Apri l 12, 2005 (70 FR 18995). Together, these Orders resulted in reductions of 6.46 tpd.

$ Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) projects (2.4 tpd NO
x ). TERP is a set of incentive programs aimed at improving air quality in Texas. TERP provides funding to offset the incremen tal costs of project s associated with reducing NO
x 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 BP A area total 2.4 tpd in NO
x 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 NO
x reductions of 3.0 tons per da y (tpd). However, when TERP
reductions of NO
x were later found to be 2.4 tpd, VOC reductions of 0.55 tpd from the Agreed Orders, for which no cred it was previously taken, were added.

In the tables and discussion below, we s how in greater detail how the combination
of NO
x and VOC reductions from the Agreed Orders and TERP satisfies the 3% reduction requirement. Table 11 sh ows the target values for NO
x and VOC from the Rate of Progress Plan.43 Table 11 Target NO
x and VOC Reductions
from Substitute Measures

Target NO
x 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 Pr ogress Plan (February 10, 1998, 63 FR 6659).

Based on the values Table 11, the conti ngency measures needed to achieve a
combined reduction in emissions of NO
x and VOC of 3%.

Table 12 below shows how Texas allocat ed the emissions reductions between Administrative Orders (NO
x and VOC) and TERP (NO
x ) to meet the 3.00% requirement.

Table 12
Actual NO
x and VOC Reductions
from Substitute Measures

Actual Reductions NO
x 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 Pr ogress Plan (February 10, 1998, 63 FR 6659).

In Table 12, actual emissions reductions fr om Administrative Orders for both NO
x and VOC, as well as reductions from TERP ar e shown separately on the first two lines..
The “Total” on the third line of the table shows total reducti ons from the two measures added together (6.46 + 2.40 tpd = 8.86 tpd NO
x , 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%, a nd 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 NO
x and VOC together (2.86% + 0.20% = 3.06%).44 Together, reductions from these two subs tituted 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 sh ow that reductions in NO
x are more effective than reductions in VOC for reducing ozone concentration. Specifically, Texas determined that NO
x 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 NO
x /VOC relationship, EP A agrees that ozone
formation in the BPA area is more sensitive to NO
x emissions than VOC emissions

Given the NO
x /VOC sensitivity analyses for the BPA area, since the emissions reductions from the Agreed Orders an d TERP are primarily reductions of NO
x , the sensitivity test results show that the substitute d 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 lo ading contingency measure.45 Attachment TCEQ Response to Comments from BMC Holdings

BMC and Eastman commented that the redesigna tion request and maintenance plan does not include representative emissions of the BMC plan t, in the attainment emissions inventory, projected future emissions, or in the attainme nt 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 contract ual agreement. In order to include these units in the redesignation and maintenance plan emis sions 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 additi onal 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 le vel for a prior year for units that may never resume operation.

Eastman made the general comment that excl uding representative emissions from the BMC plant “seems contrary to EPA requirements, similar d ecisions made by the TCEQ in this proceeding, and TCEQ’s established pattern of practice in ot her 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 rest art, 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 pe rmanent 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, accu rate, and current. Eastman references the EPA’s redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainme nt 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 a nd enforceable reductions in emissions,” and that “reduced production or shutdown due to te mporary 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 Demonstrati on 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, therefor e, contrary to EPA requi rements and inconsistent with EPA policy.46 The commission disagrees with the commenters. The inventories used in this request and maintenance plan comply with the F CAA 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 re ductions 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 guid ance 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. S ections 2 and 3 of this document identify and explain the key elements needed for ozone, PM 2.5 , 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 reportin g 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 pe rmits program are used, the State or local agency should ensure that the emissions represen t 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 emission s 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 th e area attained the standard.] This inventory
should be consistent with EPA's most rec ent guidance on emission inventories for
nonattainment areas available at the time and should include the emissions during the time period associated with the monito ring data showing attainment.” This guidance reinforces that states should u se 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 NO
x 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 ma intenance 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, wh ich ensures a comprehensive point source inventory that provides the level of deta il 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 rep orting thresholds determine actual calendar47 year emissions using the best available method, in accordance with TCEQ guidance (http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/fo rms_pubs/pubs/rg/rg-360_07/index.html). BMC also commented that though its facility h as been idled since D ecember 2004, BMC has always intended to resume operations. BMC noted that the facility has maintained all relevant permits, paid all annual operati ng and emissions inventory fees, maintained compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations, and c ontinued all related recordkeeping. BMC also provided a table that displays emissions inventor y values for the facility in 2000, 2002, and 2005. Therefore, the BMC facility “should be consider ed 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 inventor y 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 f acility in the emissions inventory. BMC asserted that the TCEQ’s failure to take into account th e likely restart of the BMC facility in projecting emissions inventories for the milestone years in th e 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 NO
x maintenance inventory is still small, it might be enough to alter the growth factor app lied to SIC code 2869 and thus to impact the 2021 horizon year inventory for NO
x by more than the suggest ed 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 Main tenance Plan SIP revisions as examples. For the projected milestone inventories to be co nsistent with the attainment inventory, per the Calcagni Memo, emissions for future years are typically projected by applying growth factors to the base case. These gr owth 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 NO
x emissions for the Jefferson County SIC 2869 category from 2002 to 2005 was approximately 6.5 tons per day (t pd). 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 NO
x emissions reductions resulted from the implementation of Chapter 117 NO
x rules between 2003 and 2005.

Additionally, if the TCEQ attempted to in clude BMC’s idled source emissions in the maintenance plan, representative emissions would not be available since these sources48 ceased operation before the 30 TAC Chapter 117 compliance date for BPA became effective. Without representative data existi ng during the control period, these sources’ typical emissions could not accurately be p redicted. 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 re fineries’ expansions, bo th Valero and Motiva have broken ground. All three refinery project s permitted new and/or modified equipment under nonattainment NSR review. Furthermore, as part of these expansions, the refineries have committed to federally enforceable emissi ons 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 contro ls and shutting down existing equipment in future years as new emissions units become operational.

In contrast, BMC is neither expanding (addi ng 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 milest one years since these sources did not operate during the attainment year.

BMC commented that making adjustments for th e 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 inventor ies 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 emission s and not accurately assess the benefit of proposed control strategies.

Eastman and BMC pointed to the adjustment of sev eral aspects of the emissions inventory in the 2007 DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP revision, particularly EGUs. Eastman references the SIP revision, stating: “where TCEQ found zer o 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 “consistenc y obligates TCEQ to verify the intentions of BMC (and Eastman) regarding planned operati ons.” 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 a ccount for things such as temporarily shutdown EGUs that were expected to be ope ration during the 2009 modeled year.

While the TCEQ has applied some site-specifi c adjustments in a previous SIP revision (as mentioned in 73 FR 40210), these were u sed for modeling purposes in attainment demonstration SIP revisions. In contrast, th e 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 maintena nce plan is consistent with this guidance.