Vol. 81 Tuesday, 

No. 2 January 5, 2016 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and Oklahoma; 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate Visibility Transport 

State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting Visibility and 

Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Final Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
296 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0754; FRL–9940–21– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas and 

Oklahoma; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Visibility Transport State 

Implementation Plan to Address 

Pollution Affecting Visibility and 

Regional Haze; Federal Implementation 

Plan for Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving a revision to the 

Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted on March 31, 2009, to address 

the regional haze requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is 

partially approving this SIP revision as 

meeting certain requirements of the 

regional haze program, including the 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements for facilities other 

than Electric Generating Units (EGUs). 

The EPA is partially disapproving the 

Texas SIP revision for not adequately 

addressing other requirements of the 

regional haze program related to 

reasonable progress, the long-term 

strategy, and the calculation of natural 

visibility conditions. The EPA is 

promulgating a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP), which includes sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emission limits for fifteen 

EGUs located at eight coal-fired power 

plants, to address these deficiencies. 

In a previous rulemaking, the EPA 

had issued a limited disapproval of the 

Texas regional haze SIP with regard to 

Texas’ reliance on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), without 

promulgating a FIP. The EPA is not 

taking final action to address this 

deficiency at this time. The EPA is also 

disapproving portions of several 

separate infrastructure SIP revisions 

submitted by Texas for the purpose of 

addressing the requirements of the CAA 

regarding interference with other states’ 

programs for visibility protection 

(interstate visibility transport) triggered 

by the issuance of the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The EPA is deferring action at 

this time on promulgating a FIP to 

address these deficiencies. 

Finally, the EPA is finalizing its 

proposed partial disapproval of a 

revision to the Oklahoma SIP submitted 

on February 19, 2010, to address the 

regional haze requirements of the CAA. 

Specifically, the EPA is disapproving 

portions of the Oklahoma SIP related to 

reasonable progress and the 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals for the Class I area located within 

the state. The EPA is promulgating a FIP 

to address these deficiencies. 

The EPA takes seriously its 

disapproval of SIPs, or portions thereof, 

and stands ready to work with the States 

to develop SIPs that would replace the 

Federal plans the EPA is promulgating 

today. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0754. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

on the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute 

therefore is not posted to 

regulations.gov. Certain other material, 

such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe 

Kordzi at 214–665–7186; or Kordzi.joe@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Also throughout this 

document, when we refer to the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ), or the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ), we mean Oklahoma and Texas, 

respectively. 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Our Proposed Action 

B. Summary of Our Final Decision 

1. Texas 

2. Oklahoma Reasonable Progress Goals 

3. Federal Implementation Plan 

II. Summary and Analysis of Major Issues 

Raised by Commenters 

A. General Comments 

B. State and Federal Roles in the Regional 

Haze Program 

C. Our Clarified Interpretation of the 

Reasonable Progress and Long-Term 

Strategy Requirements 

D. Consideration of Visibility in the 

Reasonable Progress Analysis 

E. Consultation Between Oklahoma and 

Texas 

F. Source Category and Individual Source 

Modeling 

G. Constitutional Law 

H. Stay of Effective Date, Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, and Executive 

Orders 13405 and 13211 

I. Controls in Addition to CAIR/CSAPR, 

and CSAPR Better Than BART 

J. Installation of Controls Beyond the First 

Planning Period 

K. Cost 

L. Cost versus Visibility Benefit 

M. Natural Conditions 

N. Consistency With Our Other Regional 

Haze Actions 

O. Modeling 

P. Interstate Visibility Transport 

Q. Disapproval of the Oklahoma and Texas 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

R. International Emissions 

S. Grid Reliability 

T. Determination of Nationwide Scope and 

Effect 

III. Final Action 

A. Texas Regional Haze 

B. Oklahoma Regional Haze 

C. Interstate Visibility Transport 

D. Federal Implementation Plan 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

VI. Judicial Review 

I. Introduction 

The purpose of Federal and state 

regional haze plans is to achieve a 

national goal, declared by Congress, of 

restoring and protecting visibility at 156 

Federal Class I areas across the United 

States, most of which are national parks 

and wilderness areas with scenic vistas 

enjoyed by the American public. The 

national goal, as described in CAA 

Section 169A, is ‘‘the prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from man-made air 

pollution.’’ States are required to submit 

SIPs that ensure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of remedying 

anthropogenic visibility impairment in 

Federal Class I areas, such as Big Bend 

National Park in Texas and the Wichita 

Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in 

Oklahoma. 

In today’s action, we are partially 

approving and partially disapproving 

portions of a SIP revision submitted by 

Texas to address the requirements of the 

regional haze program. Texas’ regional 

haze SIP submittal included long-term 

strategies for making reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility at 

all Class I areas impacted by emissions 

from Texas sources and set reasonable 

progress goals for the two Class I areas 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 297 

1 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). 

2See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008) (modified by 550 F.3d 1176). 

3 77 FR at 33647. 

4 77 FR at 33654 (explaining that the EPA was not 

finalizing a FIP for Texas in order to allow more 

time for the EPA to assess the SIP submittal from 

Texas addressing regional haze and noting that 

extra time was needed given ‘‘the variety and 

number of BART eligible sources and the 

complexity of the SIP’’). 

5 76 FR 81728. 

6 76 FR 81728. 

7 76 FR 16177 (‘‘[W]e believe that to properly 

assess whether Oklahoma has satisfied the 

reasonable progress requirements of Section 

51.308(d)(1), we must review and evaluate Texas’ 

submittal. We will do this in the course of 

processing the Texas [regional haze] SIP.’’) 

located within the state, the Big Bend 

and the Guadalupe Mountains National 

Parks. Texas addressed a key element of 

the regional haze program, the BART 

requirements, in part through reliance 

on CAIR. Specifically, for its EGUs, 

Texas relied on CAIR, which was issued 

in 2005, to meet the BART requirements 

for emissions of SO2 and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX). For particulate matter 

(PM) from its EGUs and for other 

categories of sources subject to the 

BART requirements, Texas concluded 

that no other BART controls were 

appropriate. Texas also considered 

whether additional measures beyond 

BART would be appropriate to ensure 

reasonable progress at its Class I areas 

and in Class I areas in nearby states, but 

concluded that no additional measures 

were needed to ensure reasonable 

progress. In its SIP submittal, Texas 

anticipated emissions reductions from 

CAIR, Federal mobile source standards, 

and other anticipated air pollution 

control requirements would adequately 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility by 2018, the end of 

the first planning period. 

We took partial action in 2012 on 

Texas’ regional haze SIP submittal. In 

our 2012 action, we issued a limited 

disapproval of the SIP revision because 

of Texas’ reliance on CAIR to satisfy SO2

and NOX BART and to meet the longterm strategy requirements for its 

EGUs.1 As explained in that action, our 

limited disapproval of Texas’ regional 

haze SIP (and the SIPs of thirteen other 

states addressed in the 2012 action) was 

the result of a decision by the D.C. 

Circuit remanding CAIR to the EPA.2

We concluded that because CAIR had 

been remanded and would remain in 

place only temporarily, we could not 

fully approve regional haze SIP 

revisions that relied on temporary 

reductions from CAIR. By issuing a 

limited disapproval rather than a full 

disapproval, however, we allowed 

Texas and these states to rely on CAIR 

for so long as CAIR was in place.3 We 

addressed the resulting deficiencies in 

the regional haze SIPs of a number of 

the fourteen states through FIPs that 

relied on CAIR’s successor, the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to 

achieve improvements in visibility. 

However, we did not finalize a FIP for 

Texas in that action.4 As a result, the 

deficiencies in Texas’ regional haze SIP 

associated with its reliance on CAIR 

have not been addressed. 

We are also disapproving several SIP 

revisions submitted by Texas to address 

the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. This provision of the CAA 

requires that each state’s SIP have 

adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 

emissions from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other state. To address this 

requirement, the SIP must address the 

potential for interference with visibility 

protection caused by the pollutant 

(including precursors) to which the new 

or revised NAAQS applies. In its SIP 

submittals addressing these 

requirements, Texas indicated that its 

regional haze SIP fulfilled its obligation 

for addressing emissions that would 

interfere with measures required to be 

included in the SIP for any other state 

to protect visibility. 

Finally, we are taking action on an 

element of the Oklahoma regional haze 

SIP submitted in February 2010. We 

previously issued a partial approval, 

and partial disapproval of the Oklahoma 

SIP in 2011, and promulgated a FIP to 

address the deficiencies that we had 

identified in our partial disapproval.5

Our FIP required the installation of 

scrubber retrofits at six units, located at 

three facilities in Oklahoma in order to 

meet BART requirements.6 Due to the 

special interrelationship of the visibility 

impairing transport of pollution 

between Texas and Oklahoma, we 

delayed action on the reasonable 

progress goals for the Wichita 

Mountains until we could review and 

evaluate Texas’ SIP submittal. In today’s 

action, we address the reasonable 

progress goals established by Oklahoma 

for this Class I area. 

A. Our Proposed Action 

When we reviewed the Oklahoma 

regional haze SIP, we noted that sources 

in Texas had significant impacts on 

visibility in the Wichita Mountains. 

Given the magnitude of these interstate 

impacts, we determined that the 

Oklahoma and Texas regional haze SIPs 

were interconnected, especially 

considering the relationship between 

upwind and downwind states in the 

reasonable progress and long-term 

strategy provisions of the Regional Haze 

Rule. Although we were able to act on 

the majority of Oklahoma’s SIP at that 

time, we deferred action on Oklahoma’s 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains until we could first 

assess whether Texas had reasonably 

considered the potential for controls on 

those of its sources that were impacting 

visibility at the Wichita Mountains.7

Having now reviewed the Texas 

regional haze SIP, it is clear that both 

Texas and Oklahoma acknowledged in 

their SIP submittals that sources in 

Texas have a large impact on visibility 

at the Wichita Mountains; indeed, the 

visibility impacts at this Class I area 

from Texas point sources are several 

times greater than the impacts from 

Oklahoma’s own point sources. 

During the interstate consultation 

required by the Regional Haze Rule, 

Oklahoma and Texas discussed the 

significant contribution of sources in 

Texas to visibility impairment at the 

Wichita Mountains, but Texas 

concluded that no additional controls 

were warranted for its sources during 

the first planning period to ensure 

reasonable progress at the Wichita 

Mountains, or at its own Class I areas, 

the Big Bend and the Guadalupe 

Mountains National Parks. In reaching 

this conclusion, Texas relied on an 

analysis that obscured the benefits of 

potentially cost-effective controls on 

those sources or groups of sources with 

the largest visibility impacts in these 

Class I areas by inclusion of those 

controls with little visibility benefit, but 

which served to increase the total cost 

figures. This flawed analysis deprived 

Oklahoma of the information it needed 

to properly assess the reasonableness of 

controls on Texas sources during the 

consultation process and prevented 

Texas from properly assessing the 

reasonableness of controls to remedy 

visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe 

Mountains. As a result, Oklahoma 

established reasonable progress goals for 

the Wichita Mountains that did not 

reflect any emission reductions from 

Texas beyond those that will be 

achieved by compliance with other 

requirements of the CAA. Texas 

established reasonable progress goals for 

its own Class I areas based on a similar 

assessment. 

Our proposed action on the Texas 

regional haze and interstate visibility 

transport SIP submittals and the 

Oklahoma regional haze SIP is 

discussed in detail in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking promulgated on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
298 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

8 79 FR 74818. 

9We explained in our proposed rule that the 

BART Guidelines describe a boiler-operating-day 

‘‘to be any 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight 

and the following midnight during which any fuel 

is combusted at any time at the steam generating 

unit.’’ See 70 FR 39172 (July 6, 2005). To calculate 

a 30 day rolling average based on the boileroperating-day, the average of the last 30 ‘‘boileroperating-days’’ is used. 

December 16, 2014.8 In brief, we 

proposed to partially approve portions 

of the Texas regional haze SIP, 

including the determination by Texas 

that none of its non-EGU BART-eligible 

sources are subject to BART. We 

proposed to find, however, that Texas 

did not satisfy a number of requirements 

related to establishment of its 

reasonable progress goals and long-term 

strategy. We therefore proposed to 

disapprove Texas’ reasonable progress 

goals. We proposed to disapprove 

Texas’ calculation of natural visibility 

conditions and the uniform rates of 

progress for its two Class I areas. We 

proposed to disapprove the portions of 

SIP revisions separately submitted by 

Texas to meet the interstate visibility 

transport requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. These submittals relied on 

the Texas regional haze SIP which, in 

turn, relied on CAIR to achieve the 

necessary emissions reductions. We 

proposed to find that as CAIR had been 

replaced by CSAPR, and CSAPR was 

scheduled to go into effect in 2015, 

Texas could not rely on its regional haze 

SIP to ensure that emissions from Texas 

do not interfere with the measures to 

protect visibility in nearby states. In 

addition, we proposed disapproval of 

these SIP submittals based on our 

proposed conclusion that additional 

control of SO2 emissions in Texas is 

needed to prevent interference with 

measures required to be included in the 

Oklahoma SIP to protect visibility. 

Finally, we also proposed to 

disapprove Oklahoma’s reasonable 

progress goals for the Wichita 

Mountains because Oklahoma did not 

satisfy several of the requirements 

related to setting those goals. In 

assessing the measures necessary to 

achieve the uniform rate of progress, 

Oklahoma demonstrated that 

eliminating all emissions from 

Oklahoma sources would not be 

sufficient to meet the uniform rate of 

progress in 2018. Oklahoma realized 

that the efforts to meet natural visibility 

conditions would require emission 

reductions from other states. The work 

done by the Central Regional Air 

Planning Association (CENRAP) showed 

that SO2 point sources in Texas were a 

significant contributor to haze at the 

Wichita Mountains. However, 

Oklahoma did not pursue this 

information in its consultations with 

Texas. As explained more fully in our 

proposed rule, we believe that the lack 

of development of critical information 

regarding reasonable reductions from 

Texas sources prevented Oklahoma 

from having adequate information to 

establish its reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains. Oklahoma 

should have requested that Texas 

further investigate its sources, or 

requested additional reductions from 

Texas sources to ensure that all 

reasonable measures to improve 

visibility were included in Texas’ longterm strategy and incorporated into the 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains. We proposed to 

find that due to these flawed 

consultations, Oklahoma did not 

consider the emission reduction 

measures necessary to achieve the 

uniform rate of progress for the Wichita 

Mountains and did not adequately 

demonstrate that its reasonable progress 

goals were reasonable. 

We proposed FIPs for Texas and 

Oklahoma to remedy these deficiencies. 

Our proposed Texas FIP included SO2

emission limits on fifteen EGUs located 

at eight Texas facilities in order to make 

reasonable progress at the three Class I 

areas in Texas and Oklahoma. We 

estimate that our FIP will reduce the 

emissions of SO2 from Texas sources by 

approximately 230,000 tons per year. 

We proposed that compliance with 

these emission limits be based on 30- 

Boiler-Operating-Day (BOD) averages.9

The SO2 emission limits were based on 

seven scrubber retrofits, seven scrubber 

upgrades, and the continued operation 

of an existing upgraded scrubber at the 

San Miguel power plant. We proposed 

that compliance with these limits be 

achieved within five years of the 

effective date of our final rule for the 

control assessments based on scrubber 

retrofits, and within three years of the 

effective date of our final rule for the 

control assessments based on scrubber 

upgrades. We proposed that compliance 

be achieved within one year for San 

Miguel. 

We proposed new reasonable progress 

goals for 2018 for Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and for 

the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma 

that take into account the additional 

emission reductions required in our 

proposed FIP for Texas. We proposed 

new estimates of natural conditions for 

the two Class I areas in Texas and 

proposed new uniform rates of progress 

for these areas. We proposed to rely on 

CSAPR to satisfy the SO2 and NOX

BART requirements for EGUs in Texas. 

Finally, we proposed to rely on CSAPR 

and the SO2 emission limits in our 

proposed FIP to address the deficiencies 

identified in Texas’ infrastructure SIP 

revisions. Our proposed FIP for 

Oklahoma did not include any 

additional requirements on emission 

sources within Oklahoma. 

Our electronic docket at 

www.regulations.gov contains Technical 

Support Documents (TSDs) and other 

materials that supported our proposal. 

Some information is protected as CBI 

and thus is not available to the public 

or posted electronically. Due to several 

requests from the public and due to the 

complex nature of our proposal, we 

provided for an extended public 

comment period, which closed on April 

20, 2015. 

B. Summary of Our Final Decision 

Below we present a summary of the 

major points of our final decision 

regarding the Texas regional haze SIP, 

the portions of Texas SIP submittals 

addressing interstate visibility transport, 

and those parts of the Oklahoma 

regional haze SIP that we have not 

previously acted upon. We summarize 

which parts of the Texas and Oklahoma 

regional haze SIPs and the interstate 

visibility transport portions of Texas’ 

SIP submittals we are disapproving, 

which parts are cured by our FIP, and 

which parts we are deferring action 

upon. 

1. Texas 

In this action, we are partially 

approving and partially disapproving 

portions of the SIP revision submitted 

by Texas to address the requirements of 

the regional haze program. We are also 

disapproving portions of several SIP 

revisions addressing the requirements of 

the CAA that prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other state, as described below. 

a. Reasonable Progress Goals 

We are finalizing our disapproval of 

Texas’ reasonable progress goals for Big 

Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. We 

have determined that Texas has not 

demonstrated that its reasonable 

progress goals provide for reasonable 

progress towards meeting the national 

visibility goal. Specifically, we find that 

Texas did not satisfy several of the 

requirements of the regional haze rule at 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) (hereinafter referred 

to as § 51.308(d)) with regard to setting 

reasonable progress goals, most notably 

the requirement to reasonably consider 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 299 

10 79 FR 74838. 

11 79 FR 74838. Additionally, the analysis of 

potential controls in the Texas SIP did not include 

any consideration of the reasonableness of control 

upgrades or increased utilization of existing 

controls to reduce emissions at sources with large 

visibility impacts at nearby Class I areas. These 

controls were validated as especially cost-effective 

by the technical record for this FIP. At costs ranging 

from $368/ton to $910/ton, over 100,000 tpy of SO2

emission reductions can be achieved from a small 

number of scrubber upgrades, resulting in very costeffective visibility benefits at Texas Class I areas 

and Class I areas in other states. 

12The ‘‘four-factor analyses’’ or the ‘‘four factors’’ 

refers to the requirement in § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) that 

in establishing a reasonable progress goal a state 

must consider the costs of compliance, the time 

necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of compliance, and 

the remaining useful life of any potentially affected 

sources, and include a demonstration showing how 

these factors were taken into consideration in 

selecting the goal. 

13 79 FR 74833. 

14 79 FR 74843. 

15 79 FR 74833. 

16 79 FR 74832. 

17 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA– 

454/B–03–005, September 2003. 

18States are ‘‘free to develop alternative 

approaches that will provide natural visibility 

conditions estimates that are technically and 

scientifically supportable. Any refined approach 

should be based on accurate, complete, and 

unbiased information and should be developed 

using a high degree of scientific rigor.’’ Guidance 

for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 

Continued 

the four statutory reasonable progress 

factors under § 51.308 (d)(1)(i)(A) and 

the requirement to adequately justify 

reasonable progress goals that are less 

stringent than the uniform rate of 

progress under § 51.308 (d)(1)(ii). 

At the outset and as we discussed in 

detail in our proposal, we find the set 

of potential controls identified by Texas 

and how it analyzed and weighed the 

four reasonable progress factors under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) was inappropriate.10

We are finalizing our determination that 

Texas’ analysis was deficient and not 

approvable because the large control set 

it selected was not appropriately 

refined, targeted, or focused on those 

sources having the most significant and 

potentially cost-effective visibility 

benefits. We conclude this control set 

included controls on sources that would 

increase total cost figures, but would 

achieve very little visibility benefit. As 

discussed in our proposal, because 

Texas only estimated the visibility 

benefit of all the controls together, it 

was not able to assess the potential 

benefit of controlling those sources with 

the greatest visibility impacts, and 

potentially cost-effective controls. 

Therefore, the effects of those controls 

with the greatest visibility benefits were 

obscured by the inclusion of those 

controls with little visibility benefit. 

This only served to increase the total 

cost figure, making Texas’ potential 

control set seem less attractive.11 We 

therefore finalize our disapproval of the 

portions of the Texas regional haze SIP 

addressing the requirements of § 51.308 

(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas’ reasonable 

progress four-factor analysis.12

We are also finalizing our disapproval 

of Texas’ assessment of the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

the uniform rate of progress for the 

period covered by the SIP, under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). Although Texas 

correctly followed the procedures for 

analyzing and determining the rate of 

progress needed to attain natural 

visibility conditions by the year 2064, 

we find that Texas calculated this rate 

of progress on the basis of, and 

compared baseline visibility conditions 

to, a flawed estimation of natural 

visibility conditions for Big Bend and 

the Guadalupe Mountains.13 As 

discussed in the section below, we are 

finalizing our disapproval of Texas’ 

calculation of natural visibility 

conditions for Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains in this action. 

We also find that Texas failed to 

adequately justify reasonable progress 

goals that are less stringent than the 

uniform rate of progress under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(ii).14 Although we agree 

with Texas that a rate of improvement 

necessary to attain natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 is not reasonable, we 

do not find that the rate of improvement 

that Texas has selected is reasonable, 

because we have determined that Texas’ 

four-factor analysis and the analysis of 

emission measures needed to meet the 

uniform rate of progress does not meet 

the requirements of the Regional Haze 

Rule. We therefore finalize our 

disapproval of the reasonable progress 

goals for Big Bend and the Guadalupe 

Mountains under § 51.308(d)(1)(ii). In so 

doing, we rely on the specific directive 

in § 51.308(d)(1)(iii) that in determining 

whether the State’s goal for visibility 

improvement provides for reasonable 

progress towards natural visibility 

conditions, the Administrator will 

evaluate the demonstrations developed 

by the State pursuant to paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) and (ii). 

With regard to the requirement under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(iv) to consult with other 

states which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at its Class I areas, 

we find that Texas appropriately 

identified those states with the largest 

impacts on Texas Class I areas and 

invited them for consultation. Based on 

our review of the CENRAP’s source 

apportionment modeling and given the 

small modeled contributions from 

individual nearby states, especially 

when only considering anthropogenic 

sources that can be easily controlled in 

comparison with the size of impacts 

from Texas sources and international 

sources, we find that it was reasonable 

for Texas to have focused the analysis 

of additional controls on sources within 

Texas. We agree with Texas’ 

determination that it was not reasonable 

to request additional controls from other 

states at this time. Therefore, we are 

finalizing our determination that Texas 

has satisfied the requirement under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

Under § 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Texas may 

not adopt a reasonable progress goal that 

represents less visibility improvement 

than is expected to result from 

implementation of other requirements of 

the CAA during the applicable planning 

period. As discussed in our proposal, 

we find that Texas’ reasonable progress 

goals for 2018, based on the CENRAP 

model projections, represent at least as 

much visibility improvement as was 

expected to result from implementation 

of other requirements of the CAA (i.e., 

requirements other than regional haze) 

during the applicable planning period.15

In this action we are finalizing our 

approval of the portion of the Texas 

regional haze SIP addressing the 

requirement under § 51.308(d)(1)(vi). 

b. Calculations of Baseline and Natural 

Visibility Conditions 

As required by § 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the 

Regional Haze Rule, Texas calculated 

baseline/current conditions for its two 

Class I areas, Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains, on the most 

impaired and least impaired days. Texas 

calculated baseline visibility conditions 

for Big Bend and the Guadalupe 

Mountains using available monitoring 

data over the 2000–2004 period and the 

new IMPROVE equation, as discussed in 

our proposal.16 We are finalizing our 

approval that Texas has satisfied the 

baseline visibility requirements of 

§ 51.308(d)(2)(i). 

Under § 51.308(d)(2)(iii), Texas must 

determine natural visibility conditions 

for the most impaired and least 

impaired days for the Class I areas in the 

state. Our guidance 17 provides default 

natural conditions for the 20% worst 

and 20% best days for each Class I area 

based on the original IMPROVE 

equation. As documented in our 

guidance, states are allowed to use a 

‘‘refined’’ approach or alternative 

approaches to the guidance defaults to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of their 

Class I areas.18 The default natural 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
300 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

the Regional Haze Rule, EPA– 454/B–03–005, 

September 2003, p 1–11 

19The second version of the natural haze level II 

estimates based on the work of the Natural Haze 

Levels II Committee is available at: http://

vista.cira.colostate.edu/Docs/IMPROVE/Aerosol/

NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_

v2.xls. 20 79 FR 74857. 

conditions in our 2003 guidance were 

updated by the Natural Haze Levels II 

Committee utilizing the new IMPROVE 

equation and included some 

refinements to the estimates for the PM 

components.19 These estimates are 

referred to as the ‘‘NC II’’ default natural 

visibility conditions. Texas chose to 

derive a ‘‘refined’’ estimate of natural 

visibility conditions rather than using 

the default NC II values. Texas started 

with this refined version of default 

natural visibility conditions, but further 

altered some of its parameters 

concerning the contributions of coarse 

mass and fine soil by assuming that 

100% of the fine soil and coarse mass 

concentrations in the baseline period 

should be attributed to natural causes 

and that the corresponding estimates in 

the NC II values should be replaced. We 

are finalizing our determination that 

Texas has not adequately demonstrated 

that all coarse mass and fine soil 

measured in the baseline period can be 

attributed to 100% natural sources and 

we are therefore disapproving Texas’ 

calculated natural visibility conditions 

under § 51.308(d)(2)(iii). We are also 

finalizing our disapproval of the portion 

of the Texas SIP that addresses the 

requirement to calculate the number of 

deciviews by which baseline conditions 

exceed natural conditions for the best 

and worst visibility days at the Texas 

Class I areas, under 

§ 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). Because the 

calculation relies on the determination 

of natural visibility conditions, which 

we are disapproving, we must also 

disapprove Texas’ calculation of the 

level of visibility impairment above 

natural conditions. 

c. Long-Term Strategy 

Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that 

where Texas has emissions that are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory 

Class I area located in another state, it 

must consult with that state in order to 

develop coordinated emission 

management strategies. Texas also must 

consult with any other state having 

emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in any mandatory Class I 

area within it (we have discussed this 

consultation requirement above). Texas 

and Oklahoma agreed that visibility 

impairment at the Wichita Mountains 

due to emissions from sources in Texas 

is significant and that the impacts from 

point sources in Texas are several times 

greater than the impact from Oklahoma 

point sources. Furthermore, the ODEQ 

asserted in its consultations with the 

TCEQ, and elsewhere in its regional 

haze SIP, that it would not be able to 

reach natural visibility by 2064 without 

additional reductions from Texas 

sources. Oklahoma and Texas discussed 

the significant contribution of sources in 

Texas to visibility impairment at the 

Wichita Mountains during the interstate 

consultation process required by the 

Regional Haze Rule. The results of the 

CENRAP analysis demonstrated that 

Texas point sources, and in particular 

EGUs in northeast Texas, have large 

visibility impacts at the Wichita 

Mountains and that cost-effective 

controls were potentially available for 

some of these sources. Ultimately, Texas 

unreasonably determined that no 

additional controls were warranted for 

its sources during the first planning 

period to help achieve reasonable 

progress at the Wichita Mountains. In 

analyzing whether additional controls 

should be required for some of its 

sources under the long-term strategy 

provisions of the Regional Haze Rule, 

Texas relied on the same flawed 

analysis discussed above that it relied 

on to evaluate additional controls under 

the reasonable progress provisions to 

address visibility impairment at Texas’ 

own Class I areas. Texas’ analytical 

approach obscured the contributions of 

individual sources that Texas’ own 

analysis indicated could be costeffectively controlled. This deprived 

Oklahoma of the information it needed 

to properly assess whether there were 

reasonable controls for Texas sources 

and to properly establish reasonable 

progress goals for the Wichita 

Mountains that included the resulting 

emission reductions. We are therefore 

finalizing our disapproval of the portion 

of the Texas regional haze SIP 

addressing the requirement in 

§ 51.308(d)(3)(i) to ‘‘consult with the 

other State(s) in order to develop 

coordinated emission management 

strategies.’’ 

Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if 

Texas emissions cause or contribute to 

impairment in another state’s Class I 

area, it must demonstrate that it has 

included in its regional haze SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the progress goal for that Class I area. 

Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires 

that since Texas participated in a 

regional planning process, it must 

ensure it has included all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process. As discussed 

in our proposal, we find that the 

technical analysis developed by 

CENRAP and supplemented by Texas 

did not provide the information needed 

to evaluate the reasonableness of 

controls on those sources with the 

greatest potential to impact visibility at 

the Wichita Mountains.20 Texas’ ‘‘share 

of the emission reductions needed to 

meet the progress goal’’ for the Wichita 

Mountains was not properly established 

because of the inadequacies in its 

technical analyses, which compromised 

its consultations with Oklahoma. We are 

finalizing our determination that Texas 

did not develop an adequate technical 

basis to inform consultations with 

Oklahoma in order to develop 

coordinated management strategies and 

to identify reasonable reductions from 

its sources. As a result, we find that 

Texas did not incorporate those 

reasonable reductions into its long-term 

strategy. For these reasons we are 

finalizing our determination that Texas 

did not adequately meet the 

requirement in § 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that 

Texas identify all anthropogenic sources 

of visibility impairment considered by it 

in developing its long-term strategy. We 

proposed to find that Texas’ 2002 and 

2018 emission inventories are 

acceptable and that it satisfies 

§ 51.308(d)(3)(iv) and today, we take 

final action to approve that finding. 

However, under § 51.308(d)(3)(iii), 

Texas must document the technical 

basis, including modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions information, on which it 

is relying to determine its 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations necessary for achieving 

reasonable progress in each mandatory 

Class I area it affects. Texas addressed 

this requirement mainly by relying on 

technical analyses developed by 

CENRAP and approved by all state 

participants, but it also performed an 

additional analysis building upon the 

work of CENRAP in order to evaluate 

additional controls under the reasonable 

progress and long-term strategy 

provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. 

As discussed in our proposal, we find 

that this additional analysis was 

inadequate because the large control set 

Texas selected was not appropriately 

refined, targeted, or focused on those 

sources having significant and 

potentially cost-effective visibility 

benefits and did not provide the 

information necessary to determine the 

reasonableness of controls at those 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 301 

21 79 FR 74833. 

22 79 FR 74862. 23 79 FR 74863. 

24 79 FR 74863. 

25 79 FR 74864. 

26 79 FR 74844. 

sources in Texas that have the greatest 

visibility impacts at the Wichita 

Mountains.21 Therefore, we are 

finalizing our disapproval of the portion 

of the Texas regional haze SIP that 

addresses the requirement in 

§ 51.308(d)(3)(iii) to document the 

technical basis on which the state is 

relying to determine its apportionment 

of emission reduction obligations 

necessary for achieving reasonable 

progress at the Wichita Mountains. 

In developing its long-term strategy, 

the state must consider a number of 

factors identified in 

§ 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A)–(G). In this action, 

for the reasons discussed in our 

proposal,22 we are approving several 

portions of the Texas regional haze SIP 

as adequately addressing the following 

provisions of § 51.308(d)(3)(v): (A) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI (Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment); (B) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (D) source 

retirement and replacement schedules; 

(E) smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the state for these purposes; 

(F) enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

(G) the anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source 

emissions over the period addressed by 

the long-term strategy. However, we are 

disapproving the portion of the Texas 

regional haze SIP addressing paragraph 

(C) of § 51.308(d)(3)(v), the requirement 

to consider emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals. As discussed 

in depth elsewhere in this document 

and in our separate Response to 

Comment (RTC) document, we have 

determined that Texas’ analysis is 

inadequate because it does not provide 

the information necessary to determine 

the reasonableness of controls at those 

sources in Texas that significantly 

impact visibility at the Wichita 

Mountains in Oklahoma, or the Texas 

Class I areas. Therefore, we find that 

Texas did not properly consider the 

emissions limitations and schedules for 

compliance necessary to achieve 

reasonable progress at its Class I areas 

or the Wichita Mountains Class I area in 

Oklahoma. 

d. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) requires that the 

Texas regional haze SIP contain a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state. This monitoring 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

Since the monitors used for the 

Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend are 

IMPROVE monitors, we have 

determined that Texas has satisfied this 

requirement.23 Section 51.308(d)(4)(i) 

requires the establishment of any 

additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess whether 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze for all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state are being 

achieved. We approve of Texas’ 

determination under this section that 

the IMPROVE network monitors that are 

already in place are adequate to assess 

Texas’ reasonable progress goals. 

Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that 

Texas establish procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information 

are used in determining the contribution 

of emissions from within Texas to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I areas both within and 

outside the state. The monitors at Big 

Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are 

operated through the IMPROVE 

monitoring program, which is national 

in scope, and other states have similar 

monitoring and data reporting 

procedures, ensuring a consistent and 

robust monitoring data collection 

system. Section 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires 

that the SIP must provide for the 

reporting of all visibility monitoring 

data to the Administrator at least 

annually for each mandatory Class I area 

in the state. Section 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also 

requires that Texas provide for other 

elements, including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures, 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility. We are finalizing our 

determination that Texas has met these 

requirements through participation in 

the IMPROVE program. 

Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that 

Texas maintain a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I area. The 

inventory must include emissions for a 

baseline year, emissions for the most 

recent year for which data are available, 

and estimates of future projected 

emissions. Texas must also include a 

commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. As discussed in the 

proposal, Texas has provided in the SIP 

a baseline emission inventory, estimates 

of future emissions, and emissions for 

the most recent year for which data was 

available at the time the SIP was 

developed.24 We approve the portion of 

the Texas regional haze SIP that 

addresses this requirement. 

We also approve Texas’ coordination 

with the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

under 40 CFR 51.308(i). As detailed in 

our proposal, Texas has satisfied these 

requirements through communications 

with the FLMs, providing for review of 

the draft Texas regional haze SIP by the 

FLMs, and describing how all FLM 

comments were addressed in the SIP. 

Texas also provided procedures for 

continuing consultations.25

e. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

We approve Texas’ BART 

determinations for non-EGUs under 40 

CFR 51.308(e). We are approving Texas’ 

determination of which non-EGU 

sources in the state are BART-eligible 

and the determination that none of the 

state’s BART-eligible non-EGU sources 

are subject to BART because they are 

not reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

any Class I areas. We reviewed the 

various modeling techniques utilized by 

the TCEQ in evaluating and screening 

out the BART-eligible non-EGU sources 

and we concur with the results of 

analysis.26 We are approving the 

provisions in Texas’ BART rules at 30 

Tex. Admin. Code (TAC) 116.1500– 

116.1540, with the exception of 30 TAC 

116.1510(d), which contains regulatory 

language addressing EGUs’ reliance on 

CAIR to meet the BART requirements. 

However, we are not finalizing our 

proposed actions with regard to the 

state’s BART-eligible EGU sources. As 

described above, we issued a limited 

disapproval of the Texas regional haze 

SIP in 2012 because of Texas’ reliance 

on CAIR to meet certain requirements of 

the regional haze program. To address 

the deficiencies in Texas’ plan arising 

from its reliance on CAIR to meet the 

SO2 and NOX BART requirements for its 

EGUs, we proposed to substitute 

reliance on CSAPR. We previously 

determined that CSAPR would provide 

for greater reasonable progress than 

BART and established regulations that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
302 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

27 77 FR 33642. 

28EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 79 F.3d 

118 (D.C. Cir.). 29 79 FR 74871, 74872. 

allow certain states to rely on CSAPR to 

meet the SO2 and NOX BART 

requirements for EGUs.27 CSAPR has 

been subject to extensive litigation, 

however, and on July 28, 2015, the D.C. 

Circuit Court issued a decision 

upholding CSAPR but remanding 

without vacating the CSAPR emissions 

budgets for a number of states.28

Specifically, the court invalidated a 

number of the Phase 2 ozone-season 

NOX budgets and found that the SO2

budgets for four states resulted in overcontrol for purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(i). Texas’ ozone-season 

NOX budget and SO2 budget are both 

involved with this remand, and we are 

currently in the process of determining 

the appropriate response to the remand. 

Given the uncertainty arising from the 

remand of Texas’ CSAPR budgets, we 

have concluded that it would not be 

appropriate to finalize our proposed 

determination to rely on CSAPR as an 

alternative to SO2 and NOX BART for 

EGUs in Texas at this time. We note that 

some of the sources for which we are 

finalizing SO2 controls in this action are 

also potentially subject to the BART 

requirements. Should we determine in 

the future that it is necessary to perform 

source-specific BART determinations 

for these sources instead of relying on 

CSAPR, we anticipate that the SO2

controls we are finalizing today, which 

are currently the most stringent 

available, will also be sufficient to 

satisfy the SO2 BART requirement. 

In addition, we note that we proposed 

to approve Texas’ determination that for 

its EGUs no PM BART controls were 

appropriate, based on a screening 

analysis of the visibility impacts from 

just PM emissions and the premise in 

our proposal that EGU SO2 and NOX

were covered separately by participation 

in CSAPR allowing consideration of PM 

emissions in isolation. Because of the 

CASPR remand and resulting 

uncertainty regarding SO2 and NOX

BART for EGUs, we have also decided 

not to finalize our proposed approval of 

Texas’ PM BART determination. We 

will address PM BART for EGUs in 

Texas in a future rulemaking as well. 

f. Interstate Visibility Transport 

The EPA is also disapproving portions 

of several separate infrastructure SIP 

revisions submitted by Texas for the 

purpose of addressing the requirements 

of the CAA regarding interference with 

other states’ programs for visibility 

protection (interstate visibility 

transport). Section 110(a) of the CAA 

directs states to submit a SIP that 

provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS, which is commonly referred to 

as an infrastructure SIP. Among other 

things, CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 

that SIPs contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit interference with measures 

required to protect visibility in other 

states. We have concluded that to meet 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): (1) Texas may not rely 

on its regional haze SIP, which relied 

heavily upon CAIR, to ensure that 

emissions from Texas do not interfere 

with measures to protect visibility in 

nearby states and (2) additional control 

of SO2 emissions in Texas is needed to 

prevent interference with measures 

required to be included in the 

Oklahoma SIP to protect visibility. 

Because the Texas regional haze SIP 

does not ensure that Texas emissions 

would not interfere with measures 

required to be included in the SIP for 

any other state to protect visibility, as 

required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of 

the Act, we are taking final action to 

disapprove portions of the Texas SIP 

submittals that address CAA provisions 

for prohibiting air pollutant emissions 

from interfering with measures required 

to protect visibility in any other state for 

the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Specifically, we are 

disapproving portions of the following 

SIP submittals made by Texas for new 

or revised NAAQS: 

• April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 

1997 PM2.5 (24-hour and annual) 

• May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 

1997 PM2.5 (24-hour and annual) 

• November 23, 2009: 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5

• December 7, 2012: 2010 NO2

• December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour 

Ozone 

• May 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO2

We proposed to rely on CSAPR and 

the emission reductions required by our 

FIP for Texas to address these 

deficiencies in Texas’ SIP submittals, 

but we have determined that it is not 

appropriate to finalize this 

determination at this time. Again, given 

the uncertainty following the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s partial remand of the 

CSAPR budgets, we do not consider it 

appropriate to rely on CSAPR at this 

time to address the deficiencies on the 

Texas SIP, included those associated 

with interstate visibility transport 

obligation with respect to visibility. 

Therefore, this action does not finalize 

the portion of our proposed FIP 

addressing Texas’ visibility transport 

obligations, as that portion of the FIP 

would have partially relied on CSAPR. 

We will address the visibility transport 

requirements for Texas in a future 

rulemaking, once the issues surrounding 

the partial remand are resolved. 

2. Oklahoma Reasonable Progress Goals 

We are taking final action to 

disapprove the reasonable progress 

goals established by Oklahoma, and we 

are approving one portion and 

disapproving the other portions of the 

Oklahoma regional haze SIP that 

address the requirements of 

§ 51.308(d)(1). We find that Oklahoma’s 

flawed consultation with Texas denied 

it the knowledge it needed—the extent 

to which cost-effective controls were 

available for those sources or groups of 

sources in Texas with the greatest 

potential to impact visibility at the 

Wichita Mountains—in order to 

properly construct its reasonable 

progress goal for the Wichita Mountains. 

Oklahoma and Texas discussed the 

significant contribution of sources in 

Texas to visibility impairment at the 

Wichita Mountains during the interstate 

consultation process required by the 

Regional Haze Rule. The results of the 

CENRAP analysis demonstrated that 

Texas point sources, and in particular 

EGUs in northeast Texas, have 

significant visibility impacts on the 

Wichita Mountains and that costeffective controls were potentially 

available for some of these sources. 

However, Oklahoma did not pursue the 

point in its consultations with Texas 

under § 51.308(d)(1)(iv). Oklahoma did 

not have adequate information to 

establish its reasonable progress goal for 

the Wichita Mountains, and should 

have requested that the TCEQ further 

investigate these sources or requested 

additional reductions from Texas 

sources to ensure that all reasonable 

measures to improve visibility were 

included in Texas’ long term strategy 

and incorporated into Oklahoma’s 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains. Furthermore, 

because of the flawed consultations 

with Texas, Oklahoma did not consider 

the emission reduction measures 

necessary to achieve the uniform rate of 

progress for the Wichita Mountains and 

did not adequately demonstrate that the 

reasonable progress goals it established 

were reasonable based on the four 

statutory factors under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(ii).29 We therefore take 

final action to disapprove the reasonable 

progress goals as established by 

Oklahoma, and the portion of the 

Oklahoma regional haze SIP that 

addresses the requirements of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 303 

30 79 FR 74870. 

31 79 FR 74873. 

32See Cost TSD and FIP TSD for detailed 

discussion of our technical approach. 

33CAMx is a photochemical grid model 

(Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions). CAMx model code and user’s guide 

can be found at http://www.camx.com/download/

default.aspx. Model code used in our analysis is 

available with the modeling files. 

34Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer at http://www.src.com/

verio/download/download.htm. 

35CAA Section 169A(g), Section 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

36 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

Under the Regional Haze Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Geographic Strategies Group, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. See section 5.0. 

37Our initial analysis of the Tolk facility 

indicated a potential shortage of water, meriting a 

special consideration of the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of compliance. 

38We analyzed SDA at 95% control with a floor 

of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu, and wet FGD at 98% control 

with a floor of 0.04 lbs/MMBtu. 

39 Documentation regarding our IPM Model can 

be found here: http://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/

power-sector-modeling. 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(i) through (v) with respect 

to Oklahoma’s establishment of its 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains. 

Under § 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Oklahoma 

may not adopt a reasonable progress 

goal that represents less visibility 

improvement than is expected to result 

from implementation of other 

requirements of the CAA during the 

applicable planning period. As 

discussed in our proposal, we find that 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

for 2018, based on the CENRAP model 

projections, represent at least as much 

visibility improvement as was expected 

to result from implementation of other 

requirements of the CAA (i.e., 

requirements other than regional haze) 

during the applicable planning period.30

In this action we are approving the 

portion of the Oklahoma regional haze 

SIP that addresses the requirement 

under § 51.308(d)(1)(vi). 

3. Federal Implementation Plan 

As explained above, we have 

identified a number of deficiencies in 

the SIP revisions submitted by Texas 

and Oklahoma to address the CAA’s 

regional haze requirements and are 

finalizing partial disapproval of those 

plans. Accordingly, in this action we are 

also finalizing a FIP to address the 

deficiencies identified by our partial 

Texas SIP disapproval, except for those 

identified in our prior disapproval of 

the provisions in the Texas SIP 

addressing the EGU BART 

requirements. In this rulemaking, we are 

also disapproving those portions of the 

Texas SIP addressing the interstate 

visibility transport provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and are also not 

finalizing a FIP to address these 

deficiencies. 

a. Four-Factor Analysis 

During our review of the reasonable 

progress and long-term strategy 

provisions of the Texas regional haze 

SIP, we realized that a more in-depth 

analysis of Texas sources was needed to 

determine whether additional measures 

should be required to ensure reasonable 

progress. Although our technical 

approach is more fully described in our 

proposal 31 and in our TSDs,32 it can be 

summarized as follows: 

• We used an analysis known as 

Q/d (i.e., annual emissions divided by 

the distance between the source and 

Class I area) as an initial screening test 

on over 1,600 facilities in Texas to 

determine which of these sources have 

the greatest potential to impact visibility 

at Class I areas. We identified 38 

facilities (many facilities had multiple 

units) that were potentially the largest 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

downwind Class I areas. 

• We realized that, due to the 

particular challenges presented by the 

geographic distribution and number of 

sources in Texas and the ability of a full 

photochemical model to assess visibility 

impacts on the 20% worst days, CAMx 

photochemical modeling 33 was better 

technically suited to our needs than the 

more widely used CALPUFF model.34

We therefore contracted to have CAMx 

source apportionment modeling 

performed to determine which, if any, of 

these facilities had significant impacts. 

• The CAMx modeling revealed that 

a relative handful of the point sources 

in Texas (less than 1%) were 

responsible for a large percentage of the 

visibility impairment at impacted Class 

I areas. 

• Based on our consideration of these 

modeled visibility impacts, we 

determined that nine facilities (with 21 

units) merited further modeling to 

assess what the visibility benefits might 

be from requiring emission reductions at 

these units. We modeled high and low 

emissions scenarios that spanned the 

available control scenarios for each unit. 

After identifying the sources with the 

largest visibility impacts at the three 

Class I areas of interest, and modeling 

the estimated visibility benefits 

corresponding to a robust range of 

potential controls, we considered 

whether controls on these sources 

would be necessary to ensure reasonable 

progress. As required by the CAA and 

the Regional Haze Rule, we took into 

account the following factors: 35 (1) 

Time necessary for compliance, (2) 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

(3) remaining useful life, and (4) the 

costs of compliance. This analysis is 

commonly referred to as a ‘‘four factor 

analysis.’’ Our Reasonable Progress 

Guidance 36 notes the similarity 

between some of the reasonable progress 

factors and the BART factors and 

suggests that the BART Guidelines be 

consulted regarding the consideration of 

costs, energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts, and remaining 

useful life. We therefore relied upon our 

BART Guidelines for assistance in 

assessing the reasonable progress 

factors, as applicable. 

We noted that, with one exception,37

the issues relating to three of these 

factors—compliance time, energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts, 

and remaining useful life—were 

common to all of the units we analyzed. 

Specifically, with the exception of the 

two units at the Tolk facility, these three 

factors did not present any issues that 

would impact the selection of the 

controls we analyzed. As a result, we 

proceeded to analyze the remaining 

factor, the costs of compliance. 

A number of the sources with the 

largest visibility impacts had units with 

no current SO2 controls. For each of 

these units, we analyzed Dry Sorbent 

Injection (DSI) at both a 50% control 

level and at either a 80% or 90% control 

level (depending on the type of 

particulate controls employed at the 

unit), thus bracketing our analyses 

between moderate and maximum levels 

of control. We also analyzed Flue Gas 

Desulfurization (FGD or ‘‘scrubbers’’) at 

these units. For both Spray Dryer 

Absorption (SDA—a type of dry 

scrubber), and wet FGD scrubbers, we 

analyzed control levels slightly below 

the maximum level of control these 

technologies have been demonstrated as 

capable of achieving at other EGUs.38

We then adapted our Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM) 39 cost algorithms 

that had been developed for DSI, SDA, 

and wet FGD and performed our cost 

analyses for potential controls on these 

units. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
304 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

40By ‘‘underperforming,’’ we mean scrubber 

systems that are meeting their permit limits, but are 

capable of achieving greater levels of control 

through increased utilization and optimization. 

41See 79 FR 9353 n.137. We also used the same 

reasoning in our final action on the Arizona 

regional haze SIP. See 79 FR 52420. 

42Texas used a $2,700/ton cost-effectiveness 

threshold, without regard to visibility benefit. 

While we found flaws in the way Texas established 

and used this threshold, it is illustrative of the costeffectiveness of the controls required in this 

rulemaking. Conservatively escalating the $2,700/

ton value from when it was first developed for the 

CAIR rule, which was finalized on March 10, 2005, 

to the time of our analysis, which was conducted 

in 2014, results in a value of $3,322/ton (i.e., the 

Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index for 2005 = 

468.2, and that for 2014 = 576.1; $2,700 × 576.1/ 

468.2 = $3,322). 

43The TCEQ conducted BART screening 

modeling with CAMx for the majority of the BARTeligible sources in Texas. The TCEQ requested to 

use CAMx instead of CALPUFF because of the 

advantages of CAMx to evaluate many sources 

individually in one or two modeling runs and the 

technical advantages of CAMx over CALPUFF when 

large distances are involved. As discussed in a 

response to comment in the modeling section of 

this document, we approved the TCEQ’s approach 

of using CAMx for BART screening in 2007. 

44See the Modeling section of the RTC document 

and our FIP TSD, beginning on page A–35, in which 

we explain why key differences in CALPUFF for 

BART and CAMx modeling for RP preclude the 

comparison of their respective results. Some of the 

major differences are: (1) CALPUFF uses maximum 

24-hour emission rates, while CAMx uses annual 

average emission rates; (2) CALPUFF focuses on the 

day with the 98th percentile highest visibility 

impact from the source being evaluated, whereas 

CAMx focuses on the average visibility impacts 

across the 20% worst days regardless of whether the 

impacts from a specific facility are large or small; 

and (3) CAMx models all sources of emissions in 

the modeling domain, which includes all of the 

continental U.S., whereas CALPUFF only models 

the impact of emissions from one facility without 

explicit chemical interaction with other sources’ 

emissions. 

45Many commenters alleging inconsistency with 

our previous actions failed to appreciate this point 

and attempt to compare directly CALPUFF results 

to CAMx modeled results. 

46For a full discussion on our review of all the 

modeling results, and factors that we considered in 

evaluating and weighing all the results, precedents, 

and other policy concerns please see Appendix A 

of our FIP TSD. 

47See our FIP TSD at A–75. 

Some of the units we analyzed were 

already fitted with underperforming 40

wet FGDs. For each of these units, we 

conducted control cost analyses for 

upgrading those scrubbers, using sitespecific information obtained from the 

facilities under the authority provided 

by CAA section 114. Because the 

information we obtained was claimed as 

CBI, and our subsequent analyses that 

relied on it are also protected, we 

cannot share them with the public. 

However, our analyses were available 

for review by the affected facilities. 

Similarly, our responses to comments 

that incorporate information subject to 

CBI claims are in a separate document 

available to the CBI claimants that is 

part of the administrative record of this 

action but is not available for public 

review. 

We also considered projected 

visibility benefits in our analysis. As we 

previously stated in proposing to take 

action on an Arizona regional haze 

SIP: 41

While visibility is not an explicitly listed 

factor to consider when determining whether 

additional controls are reasonable, the 

purpose of the four-factor analysis is to 

determine what degree of progress toward 

natural visibility conditions is reasonable. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the 

projected visibility benefit of the controls 

when determining if the controls are needed 

to make reasonable progress. 

Having identified the sources that 

have the greatest visibility impacts on 

the three Class I areas of interest, the 

visibility benefits that could be obtained 

by controlling those sources, and the 

costs of potential controls, we 

developed a strategy to determine which 

sources, if any, should be controlled 

under the reasonable progress and longterm strategy provisions of the CAA and 

Regional Haze Rule. To make this 

determination, we took into account the 

cost-effectiveness ($/ton of emissions 

removed) of the potential controls along 

with their projected visibility benefits. 

The ample precedent of other SIPs and 

FIPs has established a range of costeffectiveness values within which 

controls have generally been required to 

meet provisions of the Regional Haze 

Rule. All of the new DSI, SDA, and wet 

FGD controls and upgraded scrubber 

controls we costed easily fell within this 

range. In fact, the highest costeffectiveness value for the controls we 

analyzed was $3,221/ton for the Tolk 

Unit 172B SDA, a value that is less than 

the cost threshold adopted by Texas, 

after adjusting for the escalation of costs 

over time.42 For sources other than Tolk, 

all of the controls we are requiring are 

more cost-effective than Texas’ $2,700/ 

ton threshold, even without an 

adjustment. 

As explained above, due to the 

challenges presented by the geographic 

distribution and number of sources in 

Texas and the ability of a full 

photochemical model to assess visibility 

impacts on the 20% worst days, we 

determined that the CAMx 

photochemical model was best suited to 

our needs. While CALPUFF modeling 

was often used for assessing visibility 

benefits in other regional haze SIP 

actions, the large transport distances in 

Texas and our concerns about the 

technical capabilities of CALPUFF made 

the use of CALPUFF impractical.43 As 

we have discussed in our FIP TSD and 

our separate RTC document, the results 

of our CAMx modeling cannot be 

directly compared to the results of 

CALPUFF modeling, which was used in 

the vast majority of other BART 

determinations and some reasonable 

progress determinations, because of 

differences between the models, model 

inputs, and metrics used.44 Many of 

these differences result in CAMx 

modeled visibility impacts and benefits 

that are much lower than the CALPUFF 

modeled visibility impacts and benefits 

relied on in other actions. For a more 

thorough explanation of this complex 

issue, please refer to our FIP TSD and 

discussion in the RTC document. As a 

result, we were unable to rely on prior 

visibility analyses based on the use of 

CALPUFF in other actions as precedent 

for assessing the results of our CAMx 

visibility analysis in this action.45

To evaluate the projected visibility 

benefits of controls in our cost 

evaluation, we considered a number of 

metrics, such as change in deciviews 

under 2018 projected levels of air 

pollution at the three Class I areas and 

under estimated natural visibility 

conditions, change in light extinction, 

and change in the percentage of total 

light extinction.46 We also considered 

the visibility benefit of emission 

reductions from recent actual emission 

levels versus CENRAP 2018 projected 

emission levels at these sources. As we 

discuss further in our FIP TSD and in 

responses in our RTC document, to 

provide context regarding the 

significance of individual source 

impacts, we compared the individual 

source impacts with CENRAP source 

apportionment modeling results for 

impacts from all emission sources 

within a state and impacts from all 

emission sources within a state within 

a specific source type. We also 

compared these individual source 

impacts to the impact levels used by the 

states for triggering consultation with 

another state about its overall impacts, 

and the estimated range of anticipated 

visibility benefits resulting from 

required controls in other actions.47

Ultimately, after considering all four 

factors, we identified a set of reasonable 

controls for the first planning period for 

those sources with the largest visibility 

impacts that would provide for 

meaningful visibility improvements 

towards the goal of natural visibility 

conditions. 

After extending our public comment 

period from the original date of 

February 17, 2015, to an extended date 

of April 20, 2015, we considered and 

responded to thousands of comments 

both for and against our proposal, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 305 

48See our FIP TSD, Section 4.4 and 4.5. Our Cost 

TSD develops the bases for the costs and emission 

limits. 49 79 FR 74823. 50See Section 6 of our Cost TSD. 

51 79 FR 74885. 

52See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74885, and 

section 10 of our FIP TSD. 

most significant of which we summarize 

in section II below. While these 

comments resulted in some adjustments 

to our cost-effectiveness estimates for 

our proposed scrubber upgrades, 

ultimately these changes were not so 

significant as to change our proposed 

control decision. After careful 

consideration of all of the comments 

and the information provided, we find 

that the units and the control levels 

should be finalized as proposed. 

b. Final SO2 Emission Limits 

As discussed further in our FIP 

TSD,48 our emission limits are based on 

the installation of scrubber retrofits, 

scrubber upgrades, and in the case of 

San Miguel, the continued operation of 

its already performed scrubber upgrade. 

Consistent with our proposal, the final 

FIP requires that the SO2 emission 

limits contained in Table 1 below be 

met on a 30 BOD period basis. 

TABLE 1—FINAL 30-BOILEROPERATING-DAY SO2 EMISSION LIMITS

Unit 

Final SO2

emission 

limit 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

Scrubber Upgrades: 

Sandow 4 .......................... 0.20 

Martin Lake 1 .................... 0.12 

Martin Lake 2 .................... 0.12 

Martin Lake 3 .................... 0.11 

Monticello 3 ....................... 0.06 

Limestone 2 ...................... 0.08 

Limestone 1 ...................... 0.08 

San Miguel * ...................... 0.60 

Scrubber Retrofits: 

Big Brown 1 ...................... 0.04 

Big Brown 2 ...................... 0.04 

Monticello 1 ....................... 0.04 

Monticello 2 ....................... 0.04 

Coleto Creek 1 .................. 0.04 

Tolk 172B .......................... 0.06 

Tolk 171B .......................... 0.06 

* As we noted in our proposal, we do not 

anticipate that San Miguel will have to install 

any additional control in order to comply with 

this emission limit. 

As we discuss in our proposal,49 we 

find that five years is an adequate 

amount of time to allow for the 

installation of scrubber retrofits, and 

three years is an adequate amount of 

time to allow for the installation of 

scrubber upgrades. We also find that 

one year is an adequate amount of time 

for compliance for San Miguel, for 

which we do not anticipate the need for 

the installation of any additional 

equipment. We are therefore finalizing 

our requirements as proposed providing 

that compliance with the limits in Table 

1 be achieved within: 

• Five years of the effective date of 

our final rule for Big Brown Units 1 and 

2, Monticello Units 1 and 2, Coleto 

Creek Unit 1, and Tolk Units 171B and 

172B. 

• Three years of the effective date of 

our final rule for Sandow 4; Martin Lake 

Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 3; and 

Limestone Units 1 and 2. 

• One year of the effective date of our 

final rule for San Miguel. 

c. Treatment of Potential Error in 

Scrubber Upgrade Efficiency 

Calculations 

In the Cost TSD that accompanied our 

proposal, we discussed how we 

calculated the SO2 removal efficiency of 

the units we analyzed for scrubber 

upgrades.50 We noted that, due to a 

number of factors that we were unable 

to accurately quantify, our calculations 

of current removal efficiencies could 

contain some error. Based on the results 

of our scrubber upgrade cost analysis, 

however, we did not believe that any 

such errors, if present, would affect our 

proposed decision to require the 

scrubber upgrades because they were all 

cost-effective (low $/ton of emissions 

removed). In other words, were we to 

make reasonable adjustments in the 

additional tons removed under the FIP 

limits to account for any potential error 

in our calculation of current scrubber 

removal efficiencies, we would still 

propose to upgrade these SO2 scrubbers. 

After considering comments and other 

information submitted by the facility 

owners in response to our proposal, and 

as discussed more fully in our responses 

to comments on cost in the RTC 

document and section III below, we 

continue to conclude that upgrading an 

underperforming SO2 scrubber is one of 

the most cost-effective pollution control 

measures a coal-fired power plant can 

implement to improve visibility at Class 

I areas. 

We also proposed that the units 

required to conduct scrubber upgrades 

must meet SO2 emission limits based on 

95% removal in all cases. This removal 

efficiency is below the upper end of 

what an upgraded wet SO2 scrubber can 

achieve, which is 98–99%, as we noted 

in our Cost TSD. We also noted that a 

95% removal efficiency assumption 

provides an adequate margin of error, 

such that all of the units should be able 

to comfortably attain the emission limits 

we proposed. However, for the operator 

of any unit that disagreed with us on 

this point, our proposal included a 

pathway for such operators to seek and 

for us to consider revised emission 

limits in this final action by submitting 

specific comments on the issue and 

taking other specific steps.51 We did not 

receive any comments from an owner or 

operator that was interested in using 

this pathway to potentially obtain a 

modified SO2 emission limit. While we 

remain open to discussions concerning 

this procedure, we are finalizing the 

emission limits and compliance 

schedule for the affected units as 

proposed. 

Similarly, to ensure that San Miguel 

can meet our final FIP emission 

limitation, we are finalizing the 

following compliance option for the 

owner and operator of San Miguel as an 

alternative to the final emission limit of 

0.60 lbs/MMBtu based on a 30 day BOD 

average: 

• Install a CEMS at the inlet of the 

scrubber system. The 30 BOD SO2

average from the existing outlet CEMS 

must read at or below 6.0% (94% 

control) of a 30 BOD SO2 average from 

the inlet CEMS. 

By no later than its compliance date, 

San Miguel must inform us in writing of 

its decision to select this option for 

compliance. The FIP provides 

automatically for this compliance 

option and therefore if San Miguel 

chooses it, no SIP revision submittal is 

required from Texas. 

d. Natural Conditions for the Texas 

Class I Areas 

Consistent with our proposal and as 

discussed further in our FIP TSD,52 we 

are finalizing the natural conditions for 

the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend 

as follows: 

TABLE 2—NATURAL CONDITIONS (NC 

II) FOR THE GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS

AND BIG BEND

Class 1 Area 

20% Best 

days 

(dv) 

20% Worst 

days 

(dv) 

Guadalupe 

Mountains ...... 0.99 6.65 

Big Bend ........... 1.62 7.16 

We recommend that the State of Texas 

re-evaluate the natural conditions for its 

Class I areas in its next regional haze 

SIP in consultation with us and the 

FLMs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
306 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

53See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and 

section 11 of our FIP TSD. 

54See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and 

section 12 of our FIP TSD. 

55See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and 

section 13 of our FIP TSD. 

e. Calculation of Visibility Impairment 

for the Texas Class I Areas 

Consistent with our proposal and as 

discussed further in our FIP TSD,53 our 

final recalculated natural visibility 

conditions, and our calculation of 

visibility impairment for the Guadalupe 

Mountains and Big Bend are found in 

the table below. We recalculated the 

number of deciviews by which baseline 

visibility conditions exceed natural 

visibility conditions for these Class I 

areas pursuant to § 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). 

Specifically, in our calculations, we 

replaced Texas’ calculations of natural 

visibility conditions for its Class I areas 

with the adjusted default values (NC II), 

as discussed in our proposal. We then 

determined the amount the baseline 

visibility values exceeded the natural 

visibility conditions to calculate 

visibility impairment for each area. We 

are finalizing the following estimates of 

visibility impairment for the Guadalupe 

Mountains and Big Bend: 

TABLE 3—REVISED VISIBILITY METRICS FOR THE CLASS I AREAS IN TEXAS

Class I Area Most Impaired (dv) Least Impaired (dv) 

Baseline Visibility Conditions, 2000–2004 

Big Bend .................................................................................................................................. 17.30 5.78 

Guadalupe Mountains .............................................................................................................. 17.19 5.95 

Natural Visibility Conditions 

Big Bend .................................................................................................................................. 7.16 1.62 

Guadalupe Mountains .............................................................................................................. 6.65 0.99 

Extent Baseline Exceeds Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Big Bend .................................................................................................................................. 10.14 4.16 

Guadalupe Mountains .............................................................................................................. 10.54 4.96 

f. Consideration of the Uniform Rates of 

Progress 

Consistent with our proposal and as 

discussed further in our FIP TSD,54 we 

are finalizing the uniform rates of 

progress for the 20% worst days for the 

Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend 

contained in Table 4 below. 

Specifically, in our calculations, we 

replaced Texas’ calculations of natural 

visibility conditions for its Class I areas 

with the adjusted default values (NC II), 

as discussed in our proposal, and we 

recalculated the uniform rates of 

progress as follows: 

TABLE 4—CLASS I AREA UNIFORM RATES OF PROGRESS

Class I Area Baseline 

conditions 

Annual 

improvement 

needed to 

meet URP 

Visibility at 

2018 

Improvement 

needed by 

2018 

Natural 

conditions 

at 2064 

(dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) 

Big Bend .............................................................................. 17.30 0.17 14.93 2.37 7.16 

Guadalupe Mountains .......................................................... 17.19 0.18 14.73 2.46 6.65 

g. Revised Reasonable Progress Goals for 

the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend 

We are finalizing our technical 

analysis that was lacking in Texas’ 

development of its reasonable progress 

goals for the Guadalupe Mountains and 

Big Bend. As discussed in our proposal 

and FIP TSD,55 we are establishing new 

reasonable progress goals based on our 

technical analysis. The new reasonable 

progress goals are as follows: 

TABLE 5—REASONABLE PROGRESS

GOALS FOR 2018 FOR THE GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS AND BIG BEND

Class I area 

20% Best 

days 

(dv) 

20% Worst 

days 

(dv) 

Guadalupe 

Mountains .. 5.70 16.26 

Big Bend ....... 5.59 16.57 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 307 

56Table 44 of our proposal (79 FR 74887) shows 

the additional visibility benefit anticipated from the 

scrubber retrofits. For Guadalupe Mountains, we 

estimate an additional 0.12 dv benefit on the 20% 

worst days based on 2018 projected background 

conditions resulting in a visibility goal of 16.14 dv 

if all required controls were in place by 2018. For 

Big Bend, we estimate an additional 0.09 dv benefit 

on the 20% worst days based on 2018 projected 

background conditions resulting in a visibility goal 

of 16.48 dv if all required controls were in place 

by 2018. We note that Table 45 provides the same 

visibility benefit estimates based on reducing recent 

actual emissions rather than 2018 CENRAP 

projected emission levels. 

57See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and 

section 13 of our FIP TSD. 

58Table 44 of our proposal (79 FR 74887) shows 

the additional visibility benefit anticipated from the 

scrubber retrofits. For Wichita Mountains, we 

estimate an additional 0.30 dv benefit on the 20% 

worst days based on 2018 projected background 

conditions resulting in a visibility goal of 21.03 dv 

if all required controls were in place by 2018. We 

note that Table 45 provides the same visibility 

benefit estimates based on reducing recent actual 

emissions rather than 2018 CENRAP projected 

emission levels. 

Our new reasonable progress goals for 

2018 reflect only the additional 

estimated visibility benefit from the 

required controls anticipated to be in 

place by 2018, which are the scrubber 

upgrades. While the required scrubber 

retrofits will provide for additional 

visibility improvement at the Class I 

areas 56 that we consider necessary for 

reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility conditions, we do not 

anticipate these controls to be 

implemented until after 2018. As we 

note above, these estimates of future 

visibility conditions presume that 

CSAPR continues to be implemented 

and is a viable alternative to sourcespecific BART. As discussed above, 

given the uncertainty arising from the 

remand of some of the state CSAPR 

budgets, we have determined it would 

not be appropriate to finalize the 

portion of our FIP relying on CSAPR as 

an alternative to SO2 and NOX BART for 

EGUs in Texas. Should additional BART 

controls be required for any of the 

BART-eligible EGUs and should those 

controls in combination with other 

requirements on EGUs achieve emission 

reductions as of 2018 that are materially 

different than the emission reductions 

considered in quantifying the 

reasonable progress goals in this action, 

these reasonable progress goals would 

have to be revised at the same time any 

additional BART controls are proposed. 

h. Revised Reasonable Progress Goals 

for the Wichita Mountains 

We are finalizing our technical 

analysis that was lacking in Oklahoma’s 

development of reasonable progress 

goals for the Wichita Mountains, 

including appropriate consideration of 

emission reduction measures in Texas 

that Oklahoma should have asked Texas 

explicitly to obtain during its 

consultations with Texas. We are 

establishing new reasonable progress 

goals, as discussed in more detail in our 

proposal and FIP TSD,57 based on our 

technical analysis and accounting for 

the emission reductions required in 

Texas that we anticipate being in place 

by 2018. Consistent with our action 

regarding the Texas reasonable progress 

goals discussed in the previous section, 

our recalculated reasonable progress 

goals for 2018 in the table below reflect 

only the additional estimated visibility 

benefits from the required controls 

anticipated to be in place by 2018, 

which are the scrubber upgrades. While 

the required scrubber retrofits will 

provide for additional visibility 

improvement at the Class I areas,58 we 

do not anticipate these controls to be 

implemented until after 2018. As we 

note above, these estimates of future 

visibility conditions presume that 

CSAPR is a viable alternative to sourcespecific BART. As discussed earlier in 

this document, given the uncertainty 

arising from the remand of some of the 

state CSAPR budgets, we have 

determined it would not be appropriate 

to finalize the portion of our FIP relying 

on CSAPR as an alternative to sourcespecific SO2 and NOX BART for EGUs 

in Texas. Should additional BART 

controls in Texas ultimately be required 

for any of the BART-eligible EGUs and 

should those controls in combination 

with other requirements on EGUs 

achieve emission reductions as of 2018 

that are materially different than the 

emission reductions considered in 

quantifying the reasonable progress 

goals for Oklahoma in this action, the 

reasonable progress goals would have to 

be revised at the same time any 

additional BART controls are proposed. 

TABLE 6—REASONABLE PROGRESS

GOALS FOR 2018 FOR THE WICHITA

MOUNTAINS

Class I Area 

20% Best 

days 

(dv) 

20% Worst 

days 

(dv) 

Wichita Mountains ........... 9.22 21.33 

II. Summary and Analysis of Major 

Issues Raised by Commenters 

We received both written and oral 

comments at the public hearings we 

held in Austin and Oklahoma City. We 

also received comments by the Internet 

and the mail. The full text of comments 

received from these commenters, except 

what was claimed as CBI, is included in 

the publicly posted docket associated 

with this action at www.regulations.gov. 

The CBI cannot be posted to 

www.regulations.gov, but is part of the 

record of this action. Our RTC 

document, which is also included in the 

docket associated with this action, 

provides detailed responses to all 

significant comments received, with the 

exception of those responses that rely 

on CBI and is a part of the 

administrative record for this action. 

The responses that rely upon CBI are in 

a separate document that is part of the 

record of this action but is not available 

for public review. In total, we received 

approximately 2,500 pages of significant 

comments. Below we provide a 

summary of the more significant 

comments received and a summary of 

our responses to them. Our RTC 

document is organized similarly to the 

structure present in this section (e.g., 

Cost, Modeling, etc.). Therefore, if 

additional information is desired 

concerning how we addressed a 

particular comment, the reader should 

refer to the appropriate section in the 

RTC document. 

A. General Comments 

Comment: We received 4,500 

comments in support of our rulemaking, 

specifically regarding the requirements 

that Texas coal-fired EGUs reduce SO2

emissions. These comments were from 

members representing various 

organizations, members of Congress, 

officials of government agencies, and 

members of the general public. At the 

public hearings in Austin, Texas, and 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, over 100 

people expressed general support for the 

plan. The speakers at the public 

hearings included members of various 

organizations and members of the 

general public. Representatives of three 

Federal Land Management agencies also 

wrote comments in support of our 

action. Many of these same commenters 

also asked us to consider the impacts of 

NOX pollution and to consider 

additional coal-fired EGUs for control. 

Response: We thank the commenters 

for participating in the rulemaking and 

acknowledge their support of this 

action. We address NOX emissions in 

our modeling section below. We address 

the inclusion of additional coal-fired 

EGUs in our cost and modeling sections 

below. 

Comment: We received five comment 

letters and emails from citizens and a 

representative from one organization 

that stated general opposition. 

Response: These comments were too 

general to give us a basis for a specific 

response. Please see our detailed 

responses in this action and additional 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
308 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

59See, e.g., our proposal at 79 FR 74844 (noting 

our agreement with ‘‘Texas’ determination that was 

not reasonable to request additional controls from 

other states at this time’’) and 74823 (describing 

how Oklahoma’s response to public comments on 

its regional haze SIP ‘‘acknowledged that sources in 

Texas had significant impacts on visibility in 

Wichita Mountains, but maintained that it did not 

have the regulatory authority to require emission 

reductions in other states’’). 

60 79 FR 74841 and 74854. 

detail in our RTC document, in which 

we provide substantial explanations and 

reasons for disapproving elements of the 

Texas and Oklahoma SIPs and finalizing 

our FIP. 

Comment: As a general matter, a 

number of commenters took issue with 

our usages of the terms ‘‘reasonable’’ 

and ‘‘significant’’ as used in our 

proposal and TSDs and contended they 

were inappropriate or extra-statutory 

terms. 

Response: We consider the general 

use of ‘‘reasonable’’ and ‘‘significant’’ in 

this action to be appropriate. The word 

‘‘reasonable’’ is not extra-statutory in 

this action because it is part of the 

statutory term ‘‘reasonable progress,’’ 

see CAA ection 169A(g). In turn, 

‘‘significant’’ may be used according to 

its ordinary meaning (as in our reference 

above to ‘‘significant comments’’). This 

word is elsewhere employed consistent 

with our guidance and previous actions. 

See, e.g., our Reasonable Progress 

Guidance at 3–2. These terms are 

generally used in rulemaking actions, 

including use by Texas and Oklahoma 

in their regional haze actions.59 We use 

these terms appropriately throughout 

this rulemaking action, for example, 

when explaining it was ‘‘reasonable’’ to 

expect great variation in the 

effectiveness of emission reductions 

between two sources given the 

difference in distances between these 

two facilities and the Class I areas, or 

when describing CENRAP visibility 

modeling as demonstrating that a 

‘‘significant’’ portion of the visibility 

impacts to Class I areas in a number of 

states on the worst 20% days for both 

2002 and 2018 were attributable to 

Texas sources.60

B. State and Federal Roles in the 

Regional Haze Program 

Some commenters argued that our 

proposal to disapprove Texas’ and 

Oklahoma’s regional haze SIPs 

disregarded the primary role of the 

states under the CAA, the Regional Haze 

Rule, and relevant case law. We do not 

agree. Congress designed the CAA to 

provide for states to take the lead in 

developing SIPs but also required EPA 

to review SIPs for compliance with 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

We recognize that states have the 

primary responsibility of drafting a SIP 

to address the requirements of the 

regional haze program. We also 

recognize that we have the 

responsibility of ensuring that the state 

plans, including regional haze SIPs, 

conform to the CAA requirements. We 

have determined that the Texas and 

Oklahoma SIPs do not meet certain 

elements of these Federal requirements 

and are accordingly partially 

disapproving these SIPs. 

Additionally, our review of SIPs is not 

limited to a ministerial review and 

approval of a state’s decisions. Some 

commenters argued that the principles 

of cooperative Federalism in the CAA 

require EPA to defer to states in their 

development of SIPs, so long as 

necessary statutory requirements are 

met. Commenters stated that our 

proposal ignores such limits and would 

impose FIPs that ignore the primary 

implementation role given to Texas and 

Oklahoma. We disagree with the 

commenters’ arguments regarding 

cooperative Federalism. Under this 

framework, the CAA directs us to act if 

a state fails to submit a SIP, submits an 

incomplete SIP, or submits a SIP that 

does not meet the statutory 

requirements. Thus, the CAA provides 

us with a critical oversight role in 

ensuring that SIPs meet the CAA’s 

requirements. 

Commenters stated that Texas’ plan 

was complete by operation of law, met 

all requirements, and that we had no 

authority to impose a FIP. We disagree. 

The commenters confuse the action of 

merely submitting a SIP and having it 

deemed complete with the action of 

submitting a SIP that complies with the 

applicable Federal requirements. We 

agree that the CAA gives each state 

flexibility in developing a SIP, but in 

doing so, it must ensure the SIP meets 

Federal requirements. We must review 

the state’s SIP and determine whether it 

meets such Federal requirements. If it 

does not, we must disapprove it (or 

portions thereof), and adopt a FIP to 

address the disapproved parts. In 

undertaking such a review, we do not 

‘‘usurp’’ the state’s authority arbitrarily, 

as some commenters stated, but rather 

we ensure that such authority is 

reasonably exercised. In this instance, 

portions of the states’ SIPs were not 

approvable for reasons discussed 

elsewhere in this document, the 

responses to comments, and the 

proposed rulemaking. 

Some commenters argued that the 

appropriate remedy for a substantially 

inadequate plan under our Regional 

Haze Rule is periodic updates, as 

opposed to a FIP. We disagree. The 

Regional Haze Rule’s requirements for 

comprehensive periodic revisions (see 

40 CFR 51.308(f)) and periodic progress 

reports (see 40 CFR 51.308(g)) are very 

different from the authority to impose a 

FIP when there is a determination that 

a SIP is not approvable. As we have 

stated elsewhere, we have the authority 

and obligation to impose a FIP to fill in 

such gaps. The provisions of the 

Regional Haze Rule regarding states’ 

ongoing responsibility to periodically 

revise their regional haze SIPs do not 

override this responsibility. 

C. Our Clarified Interpretation of the 

Reasonable Progress and Long-Term 

Strategy Requirements 

Several commenters criticized the 

aspect of our proposal that provided 

potential commenters and states with 

clarification regarding our interpretation 

of the reasonable progress and long-term 

strategy provisions found at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) and (3). Some of these 

commenters alleged that our proposal 

did not clarify an existing 

interpretation, but rather outlined a new 

one that was being applied to Texas and 

Oklahoma after the fact. They argued 

that the provisions in question require 

upwind states to include in their longterm strategy only those measures 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals set by downwind states, 

regardless of whether the goals were 

based on sound analyses and adequate 

interstate consultation or reflect all 

reasonable control measures. Some 

commenters argued that upwind states 

have no obligation to conduct fourfactor analyses with respect to 

downwind Class I areas at all. In 

essence, these commenters asserted that 

the only obligation that the CAA and 

Regional Haze Rule impose upon 

upwind states is a requirement to 

consult with their neighbors and make 

good on any commitments made during 

the consultation process. They further 

argued that their preferred 

interpretation is mandated by the plain 

language of the Regional Haze Rule, 

such that the interpretation laid out in 

our proposal is plainly erroneous and 

not entitled to judicial deference. Other 

commenters asserted the opposite. They 

agreed with our clarifications and 

argued that our interpretation of the 

provisions found at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

and (3) is not only reasonable, but 

mandated by the CAA and the plain 

language of the provisions themselves. 

After carefully considering these 

comments, we stand by our clarified 

interpretation as outlined in the 

proposal. The alternative interpretations 

offered by some of the commenters are 

not in accord with the plain language of 

CAA sections 169A(b)(2) and (g)(1), 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 309 

61See, e.g., Appendix 2–2 to the Texas Regional 

Haze SIP at 24 (‘‘Further, a four-factor analysis is 

necessary for the set of sources in the respective 

areas of influence that impact each of the Class I 

areas that Texas’ emissions impact.’’) (emphases 

added) (‘‘The TCEQ has used the four-factor 

analysis, as required, for the set of Texas sources 

impacting Class I areas, to determine whether all 

reasonable reductions have been required.’’) 

(emphasis added). 

62WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919 

(10th Cir. 2014). 

63Am. Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 

(D.C. Cir. 2002). 

64Correspondingly, under § 51.308(d)(1) of the 

Regional Haze Rule, promulgated in response to 

this mandate, states must ‘‘establish goals 

(expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable 

progress towards achieving natural visibility 

conditions’’ for each Class I area within a state. 

Reasonable progress goals are interim goals that 

represent measurable, incremental visibility 

improvement over time toward the goal of natural 

visibility conditions. Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) 

requires states to consider the four statutory factors 

when establishing their reasonable progress goals. 

65 FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 

529 U.S. 120, 132–33 (2000) (quoting Davis v. 

Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 

(1989), Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 

(1995), and FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 

385, 389 (1959)). 

which require both upwind and 

downwind states to include in their 

SIPs ‘‘emission limits, schedules of 

compliance and other measures as may 

be necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward the national goal’’ and 

to determine what controls are 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

by considering the four statutory factors. 

The commenters’ view that upwind 

states are not required to conduct fourfactor analyses for downwind Class I 

areas is inconsistent with Texas’ own 

view of the requirements of the CAA 

and the Regional Haze Rule. Texas itself 

conducted a four-factor analysis for 

downwind Class I areas (albeit a flawed 

one) and stated in its own response-tocomments document that it was 

required to do so.61 Indeed, the 

commenters’ alternative interpretations 

are premised largely on a fundamental 

misunderstanding of the regional haze 

planning process. The commenters seem 

to suggest that states set their reasonable 

progress goals first and then determine 

what controls are necessary to achieve 

them. In their view, if a downwind state 

sets a reasonable progress goal that does 

not assume emission reductions from an 

upwind state, then the upwind state has 

no obligation to include control 

measures in its long-term strategy. Such 

an interpretation is not consistent with 

the CAA, our regulations and guidance, 

or how such analyses are conducted in 

reality. To set their reasonable progress 

goals, states consider the anticipated 

visibility conditions at a Class I area in 

a future year. In order to do so, they 

must first determine the level of 

emission reductions that will result 

once the control measures necessary to 

make reasonable progress are installed 

and estimate the visibility benefit 

anticipated from those reductions. In 

determining the control measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress, 

states must conduct four-factor analyses, 

considering costs and other factors. If an 

upwind state were not required to 

participate or if emission reductions 

from upwind sources were not 

considered in this process, there would 

be no way for downwind states to set 

reasonable progress goals that account 

for all reasonable control measures. 

D. Consideration of Visibility in the 

Reasonable Progress Analysis 

Comment: Many commenters 

maintained that, unlike with BART, 

visibility is not one of the statutory or 

regulatory factors that states must 

consider in determining reasonable 

progress and setting reasonable progress 

goals. As a result, some commenters 

argued that EPA is not permitted to 

disapprove a state’s four-factor analysis 

based on the manner in which a state 

considered visibility impacts or 

visibility benefits in determining 

reasonable progress. They argued that 

EPA’s statutory role does not extend to 

dictating ‘‘how’’ a state considers the 

four factors, especially considering the 

flexibility states have when determining 

reasonable progress. Other commenters 

asserted that EPA placed too much 

weight on visibility, a non-statutory 

factor, in analyzing Texas’ SIP and in 

promulgating a FIP. Some commenters 

alleged that states and EPA were barred 

from considering visibility in a 

reasonable progress analysis altogether. 

Several commenters suggested that, had 

we not considered visibility benefits 

when promulgating a FIP for Texas, we 

would not have required any SO2

controls. One commenter cited to 

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA 62 to 

support its contention that neither the 

CAA nor the Regional Haze Rule 

requires source-specific analysis in the 

determination of reasonable progress. 

Other commenters cited to American 

Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA 63 to support 

their assertion that we impermissibly 

isolated visibility as a factor and in so 

doing constrained authority Congress 

conferred on the states. 

Response: We disagree with these 

comments. The commenters appear to 

be stating that states (or EPA when 

promulgating a FIP) either cannot or 

need not consider visibility in any way 

in determining reasonable progress and 

that we therefore must approve a state’s 

reasonable progress goals and long-term 

strategy as long as all four mandatory 

reasonable progress factors are analyzed 

to some degree. This view is at odds 

with the overarching purpose of the 

CAA’s visibility provisions. Congress 

declared as a national goal in CAA 

section 169A(a)(1) the ‘‘prevention of 

any future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ CAA section 169A(b)(2) 

required the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations to assure 

‘‘reasonable progress toward meeting 

the national goal.’’ Thus, the entire 

purpose of the reasonable progress 

mandate is to achieve the national goal 

of natural visibility conditions at each 

Class I area. 

CAA section 169A(g)(1) goes on to 

state that, in determining ‘‘reasonable 

progress,’’ states must consider four 

factors: ‘‘the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, and the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and the remaining useful life of any 

existing source subject to such 

requirements.’’ This consideration is 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘four-factor 

analysis.’’ 64 The crux of the 

commenter’s argument seems to be that, 

because this list of factors does not 

include visibility, states can ignore 

visibility altogether or, if they choose, 

consider it in any fashion they want. 

While we agree that visibility is not 

one of the four mandatory factors 

explicitly listed for consideration in 

CAA section 169A(g)(1) or 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), the term ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ itself means reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

natural visibility conditions. The 

Supreme Court has stated that, ‘‘[i]n 

determining whether Congress has 

specifically addressed the question at 

issue, a reviewing court should not 

confine itself to examining a particular 

statutory provision in isolation. The 

meaning—or ambiguity—of certain 

words or phrases may only become 

evident when placed in context. It is a 

‘fundamental canon of statutory 

construction that the words of a statute 

must be read in their context and with 

a view to their place in the overall 

statutory scheme.’ A court must 

therefore interpret the statute ‘as a 

symmetrical and coherent regulatory 

scheme’ and ‘fit, if possible, all parts 

into an harmonious whole.’ ’’ 65

To ensure a coherent regulatory 

scheme, we believe that states (or EPA 

when promulgating a FIP) can consider 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
310 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

66For example, in VISTAS states, to select the 

specific point sources that would be considered for 

each Class I area, VISTAS first identified the 

geographic area that was most likely to influence 

visibility in each Class I area and then identified the 

major SO2 point sources in that geographic area. 

The distance-weighted point source SO2 emissions 

(Q/d) were combined with the gridded extinctionweighted back-trajectory residence times. The 

distance-weighted (Q/d) gridded point source SO2

emissions were then multiplied by the total 

extinction-weighted back-trajectory residence times 

on a cell-by-cell basis and then normalized. VISTAS 

Area of Influence Analyses, 2007, is available in the 

docket for this action. 

67North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 766 (8th 

Cir. 2013). 

68 77 FR 57864, 57899, 57901; see also Montana 

Proposed Rule, 77 FR 23988, 24062. 

69 79 FR 9318 n.137 (finalized based on this same 

reasoning at 79 FR 52420); TX TSD at 7 n.6; FIP 

TSD at 12; 79 FR 74874. 

70We also note that practical implementation 

concerns could arise if a state as large and sourcenumerous as Texas required all cost-effective 

controls at once. 

71 ‘‘In determining reasonable progress, CAA 

Section 169A(g)(1) requires States to take into 

consideration a number of factors. However, you 

have flexibility in how to take into consideration 

these statutory factors and any other factors that 

you have determined to be relevant.’’ 2007 

Guidance at 2–3, 4–2, and 5–1. 

visibility when determining reasonable 

progress in at least two ways. First, 

states can consider the visibility impacts 

of sources when determining what 

sources to analyze under the four-factor 

framework. CAA section 169A(b)(2) 

does not provide any direction 

regarding which sources or source 

categories a state should analyze when 

determining reasonable progress. 

Similarly, CAA section 169A(g)(1) refers 

to ‘‘any existing source subject to such 

requirements,’’ but unlike the BART 

provisions, does not identify which 

existing sources or source categories 

should be subject to reasonable progress 

requirements. Given this statutory 

ambiguity, we believe that allowing 

states to consider visibility impacts 

when determining the scope of the 

reasonable progress analysis is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute 

‘‘as a harmonious whole.’’ Accordingly, 

states can develop screening metrics 

that target those sources with the 

greatest visibility impacts for further 

analysis. Our 2007 guidance advocated 

this approach, and nearly all states, 

including Texas, used metrics like Q/d 

to consider the potential visibility 

impacts of their sources and screen out 

those sources with low visibility 

impacts.66 We followed this same 

approach in our FIP by using both Q/d 

and a second metric based on a source’s 

modeled percent contribution to total 

visibility impairment at impacted Class 

I areas. If states or we could not 

consider visibility impacts as a way of 

identifying which sources should be 

considered for additional controls, then 

states would have no rational way to 

differentiate between hundreds of 

sources that vary in distance from Class 

I areas, emit different visibility 

impairing pollutants in varying 

amounts, and are subject to diverse 

meteorological conditions that affect the 

transport of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. The result would be a 

cumbersome analysis encompassing 

hundreds of sources (or in the case of 

Texas, well over a thousand), many of 

which may have little if any impact on 

visibility in Class I areas. Congress 

could not have intended such an 

incongruous result. 

Second, once a universe of sources 

has been identified for analysis, we 

believe that states can consider the 

visibility improvement that will result 

from potential control options when 

weighing the four statutory factors. 

Allowing consideration of visibility 

improvement is appropriate for several 

reasons. Most importantly, it aligns with 

Congress’ national goal, which is to 

remedy existing impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas. While section 

169A(g)(1) of the CAA contains a list of 

factors states must consider when 

determining reasonable progress, we do 

not believe that list is exclusive. As the 

Eighth Circuit Court acknowledged in 

North Dakota v. EPA, states can take 

visibility improvement into account 

when evaluating reasonable progress 

controls so long as they do so in a 

reasonable way.67 We have iterated this 

position in previous regional haze 

actions. For example, in our final rule 

on the Montana regional haze SIP, we 

stated, ‘‘We agree that visibility 

improvement is not one of the four 

factors required by CAA section 

169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), however, it (along 

with other relevant factors) can be 

considered when determining controls 

that should be required for reasonable 

progress.’’ 68 Similarly, in our final rule 

on the Arizona regional haze SIP, we 

concluded that, ‘‘while visibility is not 

an explicitly listed factor to consider 

when determining whether additional 

controls are reasonable, the purpose of 

the four-factor analysis is to determine 

what degree of progress toward natural 

visibility conditions is reasonable. 

Therefore it is appropriate to consider 

the projected visibility benefit of the 

controls when determining if the 

controls are needed to make reasonable 

progress.’’ 69

Further, allowing states to consider 

visibility improvement alongside the 

four statutory factors ensures that only 

those cost-effective controls that will 

achieve reasonable visibility benefits are 

required during each phase towards the 

national goal. If states were not 

permitted to consider visibility 

improvement when conducting their 

control determinations, then states 

arguably would have to require all costeffective controls during the first 

planning period (assuming no limiting 

energy or non-air quality environmental 

impacts) regardless of whether some of 

those controls would be far more 

beneficial than others.70 Oddly, some of 

the commenters appear to be suggesting 

that, if we had not considered visibility 

benefits in our analysis, we would not 

have controlled certain sources. On the 

contrary, we decided not to require 

certain cost-effective controls in this 

planning period because they would not 

achieve as much benefit as other 

controls. If these commenters are correct 

and the consideration of visibility 

benefits is impermissible in a four-factor 

analysis, then we would have required 

all cost-effective controls, including 

those at the Parish and Welsh facilities. 

We also note that Congress did not 

provide any direction as to how states 

should consider ‘‘the costs of 

compliance’’ when determining 

reasonable progress. One permissible 

way a state could ‘‘consider’’ costs is to 

compare them to prospective benefits. 

In other words, we believe the first 

statutory factor is capacious enough to 

allow for a comparison of costeffectiveness to visibility improvement. 

Finally, we note that our 2007 guidance 

explicitly permits states to consider 

other relevant factors when conducting 

a four-factor analysis,71 and many states, 

including Texas, did so. In conclusion, 

we believe that states are permitted, but 

not required, to consider visibility 

improvement alongside the four 

statutory factors when making their 

reasonable progress determinations, 

with the important caveat that they 

must do so in a reasonable fashion. 

Some commenters alluded that 

visibility improvement is irrelevant to a 

four-factor analysis because Congress 

did not include it as one of the four 

factors, but did include it as a factor to 

be considered in determining BART. We 

do not find this reasoning to be 

persuasive. The sources that Congress 

subjected to the BART requirement (i.e., 

sources grandfathered from the PSD 

requirement) were not necessarily 

sources that would have an impact on 

visibility impairment. As such, Congress 

included specific language in CAA 

sections 169A(b)(2)(A) and 169A(g)(2) to 

ensure that only those grandfathered 

sources that cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment and that would 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 311 

72North Dakota, 730 F.3d at 766. 73See Section B.2 of the Texas TSD and Section 

V.C.3 of our proposal (79 FR 74818). 74 In contrast, Texas conducted a proper visibility 

analysis using natural background conditions 

elsewhere in its SIP when the state assessed the 

visibility impacts of its BART sources. See Texas 

Regional Haze SIP, Appendix 9–5 at 2–11 (‘‘The 

source’s HI [haze index] is compared to natural 

conditions to assess the significance of the source’s 

visibility impact. EPA guidance lists natural 

conditions (bnatural) by Class I area in terms of 

Mm¥1 (EPA, 2003b) and assumes clean conditions 

with no anthropogenic or weather interference. The 

visibility significance metric for evaluating BART 

sources is the change in deciview (del-dv) from the 

source’s and natural conditions haze indices.’’). 

75Texas concluded, ‘‘At a total estimated cost 

exceeding $300 million and no perceptible 

visibility benefit, Texas has determined that it is not 

reasonable to implement additional controls at this 

time.’’ Texas regional haze SIP at 10–7. 

result in visibility improvement if 

controlled would be required to install 

BART. On the other hand, the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions is central to the notion of 

reasonable progress, so Congress had no 

need to include language regarding 

visibility improvement in CAA section 

169A(g)(1). 

We also disagree with the commenters 

that we cannot disapprove a state’s SIP 

where the state has considered visibility 

improvement in an unreasonable 

fashion. As the Eighth Circuit explained 

in North Dakota, ‘‘[a]lthough the state 

was free to employ its own visibility 

model and to consider visibility 

improvement in its reasonable progress 

determinations, it was not free to do so 

in a manner that was inconsistent with 

the CAA.’’ 72 Like the State of North 

Dakota, Texas chose to evaluate 

visibility improvement alongside the 

four statutory reasonable progress 

factors, but did so in an unreasonable 

way. We discuss several ways that 

Texas’ consideration of visibility 

improvement in its reasonable progress 

determinations was unreasonable 

elsewhere in this document, in our 

proposal, and in our Texas TSD.73 One 

point worth mentioning here, however, 

is that Texas estimated the visibility 

improvement of potential controls by 

making comparisons to degraded 

background conditions instead of to 

natural background conditions, which is 

precisely the same mistake that North 

Dakota made.74 The end result of this 

and other errors in Texas’ analysis was 

that Texas unreasonably concluded that 

the total cost of additional controls was 

not worth the visibility benefits of those 

controls and that no additional controls 

were reasonable for this planning 

period.75 We are appropriately 

disapproving this portion of Texas’ SIP. 

The fact that Texas’ decision to evaluate 

visibility improvement was 

‘‘discretionary’’ does not mean that 

Texas was free to exercise that 

discretion in an unreasonable manner. 

We note that the Tenth Circuit’s 

decision in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA 

does not address the issues present in 

this case. There, the Tenth Circuit Court 

merely held that the CAA does not 

require a state to conduct a sourcespecific reasonable progress analysis. 

The Court did not hold that a state is 

free to conduct any type of analysis 

irrespective of whether or not the 

analysis is reasonable. Nor did the Court 

hold that the CAA prevents states or the 

EPA from conducting a source-specific 

analysis if that approach is determined 

to be appropriate. 

Finally, we disagree with the 

commenter that we elevated visibility 

improvement to a place of primary 

importance, either in disapproving 

Texas’ SIP or in promulgating our FIP. 

The flaws with Texas’ consideration of 

visibility benefits were only one aspect 

of our disapproval. Moreover, we stated 

on multiple occasions in our proposal 

that we considered all four statutory 

factors in our analysis. Our analysis 

does not give greater weight to one 

factor over another; rather, we 

considered all four factors fully, 

revealing that the cost factor, which 

included visibility improvement 

consideration, was the most 

determinative in our decisions. The 

American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA 

case is inapposite. There, the D.C. 

Circuit Court faulted how EPA assessed 

the statutory fifth factor of visibility 

improvement in a BART determination 

(not a reasonable progress 

determination) by using a regional, 

multi-source, group approach to 

assessing the visibility improvement 

factor, while assessing the other four 

statutory BART factors on a sourcespecific basis. Here, not only is the 

analysis at issue not being performed 

under BART, but we did not give greater 

weight to our consideration of visibility 

improvement within the cost factor, or 

consider the cost factor in a different 

fashion from the other three reasonable 

progress factors. 

Comment: Some commenters stated 

that regional haze is the contribution of 

numerous emission sources to visibility 

impairment and that, while the 

contribution from any single source may 

be ‘‘insignificant,’’ the aggregate impact 

from all sources is significant. These 

commenters argued that, by using the Q/ 

d screening metric, the EPA already 

took potential visibility impacts (and 

benefits of control) into account. They 

argued that the EPA cannot use 

visibility again during the four-factor 

analysis as an ‘‘off-ramp’’ to not control 

a source. Furthermore, the EPA should 

not break a facility down into its 

constituent parts because doing so can 

diminish each individual impact to the 

point where it becomes relatively 

insignificant. Such a ‘‘divide and 

exempt’’ approach is contrary to 

Congress’ goal that Class I areas 

eventually return to natural visibility 

conditions. One commenter stated that 

the EPA should have conducted fourfactor analyses for all 38 facilities 

identified in the Q/d analysis. 

Response: We agree that regional haze 

is, by definition, visibility impairment 

caused by numerous emission sources. 

We also agree that, while some sources 

may have very small visibility impacts, 

aggregate impacts can be significant. 

However, while there are undoubtedly 

thousands of sources within Texas that 

individually have small contributions to 

regional haze, there are also many 

sources that, even in isolation, have 

relatively large visibility impacts. In this 

first planning period, we identified the 

most significant sources that impact 

visibility, determined whether costeffective controls were available for 

these sources, and balanced the costs of 

those controls against their visibility 

benefits. As we discussed in more detail 

above, if we had adopted the 

commenters’ suggestion and controlled 

all large sources where cost-effective 

controls were available, we likely would 

have controlled many additional 

sources. Given the iterative nature of the 

regional haze program, we think that it 

was a reasonable approach to require 

only those cost-effective controls with 

the largest benefits this planning period. 

We expect that Texas will control 

additional sources, which by then will 

be the largest contributors to 

impairment, during future planning 

periods. 

As we explain further in supporting 

documents, we also disagree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that we should 

have screened only by using the Q/d 

metric. A Q/d analysis compares a 

source’s emissions and distance to 

nearby Class I areas to provide an initial 

estimate of the potential visibility 

impacts of those sources. After 

conducting our Q/d analysis, we then 

used photochemical modeling to 

estimate the visibility impacts of this set 

of sources in a much more refined 

manner that accounts for chemistry, 

meteorological conditions, and stack 

parameters in addition to emissions and 

location. The results of our modeling 

indicated that a subset of 38 facilities 

were the primary contributors to 

visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. We then used the modeling results 

to narrow the group of sources further 

because it was reasonable to conduct a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
312 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

76CENRAP conducted a control sensitivity 

analysis to evaluate the impact of point source 

emission reductions across all CENRAP states given 

a maximum dollar per control level of $5,000/ton; 

however, the results ‘‘were intended to be a starting 

point for control discussions that would require 

much greater refinement.’’ Technical Support 

Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality 

Modeling to Support Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans, September 12, 2007 at 2–37). 

77 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP at 3–1. 

full four-factor analysis only for the 

subset of sources with the largest 

facility-and unit-level visibility impacts, 

as described in detail in our supporting 

documents. 

E. Consultation Between Oklahoma and 

Texas 

Comment: The regulations require 

that Texas’ long-term strategy reflect the 

emission reductions requested and 

agreed to by the CENRAP states. EPA 

points to no flaws in the CENRAP 

regional planning process in which 

Texas and Oklahoma participated 

together. The EPA asserts that the TCEQ 

should have provided information 

necessary to identify reasonable 

reductions, which the Regional Haze 

Rule does not require. Oklahoma did 

not request additional controls on Texas 

sources or disagree with Texas’ 

determination that no additional 

controls were warranted during the first 

planning period. 

Nonetheless, the EPA arbitrarily 

disapproved the Texas consultation 

process with Oklahoma without 

reference to its rules, guidance, and 

prior SIP approvals. The proposal never 

details what information Oklahoma 

lacked in establishing its reasonable 

progress goals, and EPA must provide a 

more adequate explanation of how 

additional information would have 

changed Oklahoma’s ultimate 

determination that additional controls 

on Texas sources would not move the 

Wichita Mountains perceptibly closer to 

its regional haze goals. 

Response: We disagree that 

participation alone in a Regional 

Planning Organization (RPO) process 

(here CENRAP) will always be enough 

to meet the requirements for 

consultation under the Regional Haze 

Rule. The rule does not negate the 

requirement that a state have a complete 

and technically adequate analysis so 

that consultations are well informed. 

The RPOs, such as CENRAP, provided 

technical analyses, including emission 

inventory development and air quality 

modeling to project future visibility 

conditions and additional information 

on sources of visibility impairment to 

facilitate consultations and support the 

development of the states’ regional haze 

SIPs. 

Although Texas participated in 

CENRAP, it retained the duty to do 

whatever additional analysis was 

necessary to fully address the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

for addressing its long-term strategy and 

setting its reasonable progress goals. 

While the long-term strategy 

requirements allow a state to rely on the 

RPO technical analysis, that is true only 

to the extent it provides the necessary 

information. A state must address any 

gaps in that analysis. For Texas, 

inadequate information existed not only 

for the reasonable progress analysis for 

its own Class I areas, but also for the 

long-term strategy development for 

addressing significant impacts at the 

Wichita Mountains. CENRAP was not 

required, nor did it provide statespecific analyses and information on the 

cost-effectiveness and visibility benefits 

of potential control strategies under 

consideration by each state to address 

the specific sources or groups of sources 

within that state that have the largest 

visibility impacts. Rather, CENRAP 

provided more general information on 

overall projected visibility conditions, 

potential controls and associated costs 

for some sources and the potential 

benefit of regional emission reductions 

to inform the development of potential 

control strategies that may require 

additional analysis.76 For example, 

while the CENRAP analysis identified 

that impacts from EGUs in Texas were 

significant, it did not provide a refined 

analysis to fully assess the costeffectiveness and visibility benefits of 

controlling those sources, including not 

providing information on the costeffectiveness of scrubber upgrades for 

those sources with existing, 

underperforming scrubbers. As Texas 

states in its regional haze SIP, ‘‘While 

Texas participates in CENRAP and 

benefits from the technical work 

coordinated by the RPO, Texas has sole 

responsibility and authority for the 

development and content of its Regional 

Haze SIP.’’ 77

Recognizing that the information 

made available by CENRAP indicated 

the significant impact of Texas 

emissions and potential for costeffective controls, Texas used the 

CENRAP analysis as a starting point, 

and performed supplemental analysis 

for both its reasonable progress and 

long-term strategy demonstrations. 

However, that additional technical 

analysis performed by Texas was flawed 

and therefore did not provide the type 

of information necessary to fully 

evaluate the reasonableness of controls 

at Texas sources with the largest 

potential to impact visibility at its own 

Class I areas and the Wichita 

Mountains. Allowing this lack of 

adequate information to continue was a 

critical misstep for ODEQ in setting its 

reasonable progress goals, and a critical 

misstep for Texas when determining its 

fair share of emissions reductions under 

the long-term strategy requirement. The 

plain language of the CAA requires that 

states consider the four factors used in 

determining reasonable progress in 

developing the technical basis for the 

reasonable progress goals both in their 

own Class I areas and downwind Class 

I areas. Such documentation is 

necessary so that interstate 

consultations can proceed on an 

informed basis, and so that downwind 

states can properly assess whether any 

additional upwind emissions reductions 

are necessary to achieve reasonable 

progress at their Class I areas. Therefore, 

Texas had an obligation to provide 

appropriate information to Oklahoma so 

it could establish a proper progress goal 

for the Wichita Mountains. Further, 

Texas had an obligation to conduct an 

appropriate technical analysis, and 

demonstrate through that analysis 

(required under paragraph (d)(3)(ii)), 

that it provided its fair share of 

emissions reductions to Oklahoma. In 

summary, Texas was required through 

the consultation process to provide 

Oklahoma the information it needed to 

establish its reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains, and it failed 

to do so. 

Comment: Oklahoma possessed more 

than adequate information about 

impacts and potential controls but 

correctly decided it was not reasonable 

to request any further reductions from 

Texas sources during the first planning 

period. Oklahoma was in agreement 

with Texas on the goal and measures for 

the Wichita Mountains. EPA may 

disagree with that choice in hindsight 

and may wish Oklahoma’s and Texas’ 

agreement was different, but that is an 

unlawful basis for disapproving 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress 

consultation with Texas and 

disapproving Oklahoma’s reasonable 

progress goals. 

Response: While we agree that 

Oklahoma possessed more than 

adequate information from the CENRAP 

analyses about impacts from Texas 

sources at a certain level of aggregation, 

and some knowledge concerning 

potential controls for some of these 

sources, we do not agree that it was 

reasonable for Oklahoma to stop at this 

point. Despite the information it did 

have, Oklahoma never explicitly asked 

Texas for reductions even though there 

was clear evidence from the CENRAP 

analyses that Texas sources, particularly 

EGUs in northeast Texas, were 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 313 

significantly impacting the Wichita 

Mountains and that cost-effective 

controls were likely available on some 

of these sources. 

The Regional Haze Rule required that 

Oklahoma use the consultation process 

under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) in the 

development of reasonable progress 

goals in tandem with Texas. 

Nevertheless, throughout the 

consultations, Oklahoma failed to 

explicitly request that Texas further 

investigate whether reasonable controls 

were available or that Texas reduce 

emissions from these significantly 

impacting sources to ensure that all 

reasonable measures to improve 

visibility were included in Texas’ longterm strategy and incorporated into 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains. This failure 

resulted in the development of improper 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains. 

Comment: Even if EPA’s disapproval 

of Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

were authorized and supported, that 

disapproval does not allow EPA to 

disapprove Texas’ long-term strategy. 

Regardless of EPA’s view of Oklahoma’s 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains, it is undisputed 

that Texas’ SIP includes the measures 

necessary to secure Texas’ agreed-to 

apportionment of emission reductions 

to meet the reasonable progress goals for 

the Wichita Mountains established by 

Oklahoma, and thus EPA must approve 

Texas’ SIP. 

Response: We disagree that 

disapproval of Oklahoma’s reasonable 

progress goals for the Wichita 

Mountains does not allow us to 

disapprove Texas’ long-term strategy. 

We are disapproving the Texas longterm strategy because the analysis 

underlying it is technically flawed. 

Because of these flaws, Texas’ SIP 

submittal does not include all the 

measures necessary to secure its 

apportionment of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the progress 

goal that should account for all 

reasonable control measures for the 

Wichita Mountains, or its own Class I 

areas. We are disapproving the 

Oklahoma reasonable progress goals for 

the Wichita Mountains not because of 

the technically flawed Texas long-term 

strategy, but because Oklahoma’s 

consultations with Texas were flawed, 

which prevented it from adequately 

developing its reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains. Also, 

because Oklahoma’s consultations with 

Texas were flawed, Oklahoma did not 

adequately consider the emission 

reduction measures necessary to achieve 

the uniform rate of progress for the 

Wichita Mountains and did not 

adequately demonstrate that the 

reasonable progress goals it established 

were reasonable based on the four 

statutory factors. See our previous 

responses concerning the comments on 

Texas allegedly meeting the ‘‘agreed-to 

apportionment.’’ 

Comment: EPA never raised any of 

the concerns it asserts and it never 

second-guessed the process or the data 

that the states were developing—as it 

does now, years after that process has 

been completed and on the eve of the 

next planning period. In truth, Texas 

and Oklahoma did exactly what EPA 

encouraged them to do. 

Response: Our task under the CAA is 

to review a SIP once it is formally 

submitted by the state and determine if 

it meets the CAA and our rules. There 

is no requirement in the CAA that we 

must review, evaluate, and comment on 

a state’s proposed SIP revision before it 

is formally submitted to us. 

Nevertheless, we note that we sent 

comment letters to Texas and Oklahoma 

during their public comment periods, 

raising many of the issues presented 

herein. We stated that Texas should 

specifically demonstrate that it included 

all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of the emission reductions 

necessary for achieving reasonable 

progress in the Wichita Mountains and 

document its technical basis. 

Furthermore, we stated that the Texas 

reasonable progress/long-term strategy 

technical analysis raised concerns about 

whether it appropriately evaluated 

whether there were additional 

reasonable controls available to help 

reduce its impact on the Wichita 

Mountains. For Oklahoma, we stated it 

did not appear that ODEQ actually 

requested reductions from Texas and we 

urged Oklahoma to ensure Texas was 

aware of its sources’ impact and 

encourage reductions as necessary. In 

both letters, we stated that additional 

concerns would surface during the 

review of the final SIP submittals. 

Comment: EPA’s consultation 

disapprovals of Oklahoma and Texas are 

the first time EPA has disapproved a 

state regional haze consultation. This 

new approach of second-guessing 

regional agreements—years after they 

are reached and implemented—would 

undermine and chill the regional 

planning process, and discourage states 

from participating. 

Response: We disagree that this is a 

new approach on the consultation 

requirements and we also disagree that 

our position undermines or chills the 

regional planning process. While our 

regulations allow states to work together 

in RPOs, like CENRAP, this is not a 

stopping point for states to fall back on 

as a rationale not to meet the CAA and 

Regional Haze Rule. We have not 

disapproved other states’ reasonable 

progress/long-term strategy consultation 

processes because the particular facts of 

the situation for Texas and Oklahoma 

did not arise. We believe our 

clarification that upwind states have an 

obligation to reasonably assess potential 

control measures to address impacts in 

Class I areas in downwind states will 

encourage states to work together to 

address regional haze. 

F. Source Category and Individual 

Source Modeling 

Comment: EPA proposed to 

disapprove Texas’ regional haze SIP 

because EPA determined that Texas was 

required to conduct a source-specific 

analysis of certain facilities to meet the 

reasonable progress requirements. EPA 

guidance and judicial precedent have 

stated that a source-specific analysis or 

source-by-source demonstration is not 

required to determine reasonable 

progress. 

Response: We disagree with these 

comments as our proposal to disapprove 

the SIP was decidedly not based on the 

supposed use of a source category-based 

analysis by Texas. Therefore, these 

comments have not accurately described 

the proposed basis of disapproval. We 

understand many of these comments 

arose because our proposal included a 

statement that ‘‘individual sources were 

not considered by the TCEQ.’’ This 

statement was not offered to propose a 

basis for disapproval, but we 

understand it is susceptible to being 

taken out of context (particularly in 

consideration of the comments 

received). It is perhaps more plain to 

state that individual sources were not 

effectively considered by the TCEQ. As 

our proposal and the Texas SIP itself 

make clear, Texas did, in fact, partially 

evaluate controls for certain individual 

sources. In evaluating these controls, 

Texas employed a large, superficially 

refined control set consisting of a mix of 

large and small sources from a number 

of different source categories located 

within varying distances of Class I areas. 

It did assess individual source data for 

some factors such that we do not 

necessarily agree with commenters who 

brand it a ‘‘source category analysis.’’ 

Whatever its label, we proposed to 

disapprove Texas’ reasonable progress 

analysis because it was flawed in 

several specific ways. A primary flaw 

was that the control set was overinclusive. It included controls on 

sources that served to increase the total 

cost with little visibility benefit. As was 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
314 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

78 79 FR 74838 (‘‘[W]e believe that individual 

benefits were masked by the inclusion of those 

controls with little visibility benefit that only 

served to increase the total cost figures.’’) 

79On this point, it also bears noting that Texas’ 

EGUs operate within a state that is at least three 

times larger than 38 of the states and a full 60% 

larger than California, the next largest of the 

contiguous states. 

80See for instance 70 FR 39171: ‘‘You should 

evaluate scrubber upgrade options based on the 5 

step BART analysis process.’’ 

81CAA section 110(a)(2)(E); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2)(E) (requiring assurances of ‘‘. . . 

adequate, personnel, funding, and authority under 

State . . . law to carry out’’ SIP requirements); 

Section 2.1(c) of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. 

noted in our proposal,78 Texas adopted 

this approach despite evidence in the 

record of identified source-specific, 

cost-effective controls that would have 

resulted in large emission reductions on 

certain EGUs, and despite source 

apportionment modeling that identified 

large impacts from EGU sources in 

northeast Texas. Our proposal explained 

that this approach obscured benefits 

that might be obtained from individual 

sources and only considered aggregated 

costs. As we also explained, the 

submitted analysis failed to study or 

consider scrubber upgrade candidates. It 

was accordingly under-inclusive of 

large, highly cost-effective emissions 

reductions that would lead to significant 

improvements in visibility. These points 

are validated by the technical record for 

this FIP. 

Therefore, whether the state’s analysis 

is labelled a source category analysis, an 

analysis of multiple individual sources, 

or some hybrid, we conclude that it 

contained serious deficiencies that 

would materially affect the outcome of 

the state’s SIP process. As a result, we 

conclude this component of the SIP 

requires disapproval. 

Finally, it bears noting that the 

approach we have taken in our FIP to 

identifying appropriate controls does 

not dictate the approach that Texas or 

any other state must take to assess 

controls. Given Texas’ size and the 

range of distances from point sources to 

Class I areas, the mix of controls at 

EGUs and other large point sources in 

the state, and the overall significance of 

the impacts from these point sources, 

we considered it appropriate to 

undertake a source specific analysis to 

avoid the potential for over-controlling 

sources.79 In some circumstances, 

depending on the types of sources at 

issue, the impacts from these sources 

relative to other causes of visibility 

impairment, the types of controls under 

consideration, and other such factors, a 

source category approach can be 

appropriate. Ultimately, however, while 

there is flexibility in available analytical 

approaches, states cannot adopt an 

approach to reasonable progress, which 

by its nature overlooks cost-effective 

controls that would otherwise be 

viewed as being beneficial. 

Comment: Because of guidance and 

precedent that ‘‘source category’’ 

analyses can be appropriate, individual 

sources or point sources cannot be 

subject to source-specific controls to 

meet reasonable progress. Individual 

sources can be subject to control for 

purposes of addressing BART or RAVI 

requirements but additional, sourcespecific controls may not lawfully be 

imposed. 

Response: We disagree with the 

argument that, because a source 

category analysis may be appropriate in 

some circumstances, sources cannot be 

subject to source-specific controls to 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility. It is unclear how a 

state would develop a SIP containing 

‘‘emission limits, schedules of 

compliance, and other measures may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress,’’ 

as required by CAA section 169(A)(b)(2), 

without the option of source-specific 

controls going forward. There is nothing 

in the visibility provisions of the CAA 

or the Regional Haze Rule suggesting 

otherwise. 

Comment: Information on FGD 

scrubber upgrades cannot be used to 

disapprove the SIP because that 

information was acquired through EPA’s 

authority to obtain information under 

CAA section 114, but the state has no 

equivalent corresponding authority. 

EPA comment letters and 

communications in past years had not 

informed the state of the importance of 

analyzing scrubber upgrades. 

Response: Neither of these 

observations would justify our 

approving a flawed component of a SIP 

revision—in this case an analysis within 

that SIP revision—that, among other 

things, had unreasonably overlooked the 

option of FGD upgrades. Our 2005 

BART rule discussed the state 

evaluation of scrubber upgrades in 

several places.80 The technical 

information in our proposal validates 

FGD upgrades as an option that should 

have been considered, and we consider 

this technical record to have been 

reinforced and further validated with 

additional information and comments 

provided in support of the proposal. 

Even as we acknowledge that the TCEQ 

does not have authority (or any present 

delegation of authority) to request 

information under CAA section 114, 

this is not any kind of determinative 

limitation on the state’s technical and 

regulatory capacities and tools for 

producing and developing information 

on an air pollution control measure 

such as FGD upgrades. Texas has 

engaged in air quality control planning 

and air pollution prevention under the 

CAA for decades, and the Texas agency 

or agencies responsible for SIP adoption 

and implementation are required to 

possess the necessary legal authority 

under state law to adopt and implement 

all SIP measures.81 Consequently, in 

this case, the TCEQ bore the 

responsibility of developing or 

requesting information needed to 

properly assess scrubber upgrades. 

Lastly, as we state above, any past EPA 

comment letters would be intended to 

be helpful to the improvement of any 

SIP revision that is under development, 

but they do not constitute agency action 

on that SIP revision or constitute any 

assurance of positive action on that 

revision upon submission and review. 

Instead and as always, EPA has to 

formally discharge its responsibilities to 

review any SIP submittal under the 

provisions of CAA section 110(k). 

Accordingly, the issue of TCEQ’s 

knowledge, notice, or lack thereof on 

FGD scrubber upgrades cannot be 

resolved in any way that would shield 

the SIP revision from this basis for 

disapproval. 

G. Constitutional Law 

One commenter cited to the 

Commerce Clause, Fifth Amendment 

and Constitutional non-delegation 

principles in support of its contention 

that EPA should not be able to regulate 

sources under our regional haze 

program. We disagree with these 

comments. First, under the Commerce 

Clause, the commenter argues that we 

cannot regulate regional haze on the 

theory that regulated conduct—such as 

‘‘carbon emissions’’ from coal-fired 

power plants—will have some effect on 

interstate commerce. We disagree with 

the comment because owners and 

operators of the Texas sources subject to 

this regional haze FIP are engaged in 

economic activities (the operation of 

coal-fired power plants) that cause hazeforming air pollution to travel into other 

states and substantially affect interstate 

commerce. Each of the Federal Class I 

areas receives substantial numbers of 

visitors, including those from out-ofstate, each year. Our regulation of these 

sources of visibility impairing pollution 

pursuant to the CAA is squarely within 

the Federal government’s Commerce 

Clause authority. Our regulation of 

emissions from coal-fired power plants, 

which cause and contribute to regional 

haze in multiple states, to fill a gap left 

by disapproval of a SIP seeks to fulfill 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 315 

82 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2). 

83 Id. at 7491(g)(1). 

84 Id. at 7491(b)(2)(A) & (g)(2). 

85Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 

(1997). 

86 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1)(A). 

the regional haze provisions of the CAA, 

which in turn are constitutional 

exercises of Congress’s power under the 

Commerce Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution. 

Second, the commenter contends that 

our Regional Haze Rule suffers from a 

non-delegation problem. We disagree. 

The CAA’s visibility provisions provide 

extensive intelligible principles that 

guide our exercise of discretion. CAA 

section 169A, as well as other 

provisions, required us to promulgate 

regulations directing the states to revise 

their SIPs to include emission limits 

and other measures as necessary to 

make ‘‘reasonable progress.’’ 82 Congress 

defined reasonable progress to be the 

consideration of four statutory factors, 

including cost and energy impacts.83

Congress also directed our regulations to 

require BART for a specific universe of 

older sources, and again provided a set 

of statutory factors states must consider 

when determining what control 

technology constitutes BART.84 These 

two sets of statutory factors, among 

several other provisions and definitions 

in CAA section 169A that provide 

specific instructions to EPA and states, 

clearly constitute intelligible principles 

under the framework set forth in the 

case cited by the commenter. The 

Regional Haze Rule, which we 

promulgated pursuant to the statutory 

mandate in CAA section 169A, reflects 

these same intelligible principles and 

has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit 

Court. 

Third, a commenter claims that the 

EPA has commandeered the states in 

violation of the Fifth Amendment of the 

Constitution. We disagree with this 

comment. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

held that, ‘‘the Federal Government may 

not compel the states to implement 

Federal regulatory programs.’’ 85 The 

CAA in no way compels a state to 

implement Federal regulatory programs. 

The CAA, instead, authorizes the EPA to 

promulgate and administer a FIP if a 

state fails to submit an adequate SIP.86

The EPA will implement the FIP, with 

no actions required by any part of the 

government of Texas. 

H. Stay of Effective Date, Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, and Executive 

Orders 13405 and 13211 

Comment: Any final action should 

stay the effectiveness and effective date 

of the action or establish a delayed 

effective date to allow for ‘‘judicial 

vetting’’ of EPA’s determinations. 

Response: We have reviewed these 

requests and do not agree that taking 

these measures with our final rule 

would be appropriate. Our final rule 

initiates the effectiveness of the action 

to ensure the requirements of the CAA 

are carried into effect. This result is 

consistent with the CAA and with the 

regulatory rulemaking process more 

generally. We note that CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) allows, in limited fashion, 

for a stay of effectiveness of a rule 

during any proceeding for 

reconsideration, but this authority 

presupposes the rule’s finalization, the 

rule’s effectiveness, and the filing of an 

administrative petition for 

reconsideration. Making the rule 

effective also ensures the finality of the 

action ‘‘for purposes of judicial review.’’ 

See CAA section 307(b). Nothing in our 

response here limits or inhibits the 

filing of a petition for judicial review or 

the powers of a reviewing court. 

Comment: EPA should update both its 

atmospheric modeling platforms as part 

of the upcoming Appendix W rewrite 

and the cost manual in order to support 

reasonable future assessments of 

visibility impacts and appropriate 

control strategies consistent with the 

Committee Report associated with the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2014. 

Response: As a general matter, 

wherever possible, we intend to follow 

the committee report instructions 

associated with the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2014, even where 

not specifically incorporated by 

reference into the CAA itself. We are 

currently working to update our 

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ in 

appendix W to part 51 of title 40, Code 

of Federal Regulations, and we 

proposed updates on July 29, 2015. 

Also, as of the date of responding to this 

comment, we have proposed updates to 

chapters within our Control Cost 

Manual. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

if we change the final rule to not 

include SO2 reductions at one of the 

affected facilities, we must conduct an 

analysis under Executive Order 13045— 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. Another commenter suggested 

that polluters need to reconsider a 

business model that burdens low 

income communities, especially those 

with minority populations, with the 

effects of air pollution, and urged that 

EPA is accountable to low income, 

underserved, and vulnerable 

communities in Texas that are 

constantly being ignored. 

Response: As explained more fully in 

a later section of this document and in 

our RTC document, Executive Order 

13045 does not apply. To the extent our 

final rule limits emissions of SO2, this 

will also increase the level of 

environmental protection and beneficial 

effect on human health for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

Comment: EPA has improperly 

avoided analyzing and evaluating 

potential energy-related impacts of the 

proposed rule on reliability and prices 

of electricity in Texas and the ERCOT 

region, despite Executive Order 13211 

requiring such evaluation. The EPA is 

using a loophole in Executive Order 

12866, despite meeting the cost and 

effect criteria and the order’s purpose, to 

avoid evaluating the potential energy 

impacts of the proposed action as 

required by Executive Order 13211. 

Moreover, the proposed rule is 

inconsistent in claiming the rule is both 

of national scope and effect and not of 

general applicability. Additionally, CAA 

section 169A(g) requires that the state 

and the Administrator consider the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance 

when determining BART. Finally, citing 

ERCOT’s recent report, the proposed FIP 

affects a significant portion of Texas’ 

base load power generation fleet and the 

potential for adverse effects from the 

EPA’s proposed rule is actually 

increased, not lessened, because the 

costs and impacts of the rule are focused 

within a smaller region. Therefore, 

regardless of Executive Order 13211 

applicability, EPA should evaluate and 

consider the impacts of the proposed 

FIP on the reliability and price of 

electricity in Texas. 

Response: As explained more fully in 

a later section of this document and our 

RTC document, Executive Order 13211 

does not apply as this action is not a 

rule of general applicability under 

Executive Order 12866. Our 

determination regarding this is not 

inconsistent with our determination that 

the rule is of national scope and effect, 

as these are different determinations 

that we fully evaluated under their 

respective standards, and are not 

directly comparable. Additionally, we 

did consider the commenter’s concerns 

regarding grid reliability and price of 

electricity, as discussed more fully in 

the Grid Reliability section of this 

document, so we did not ‘‘utilize a 

loophole’’ in the applicability 

provisions of Executive Order 12866 to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
316 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

87EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 795 F.3d 

118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

88 ‘‘In short, EPA’s 2014 SO2 emissions budgets 

for Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina 

require each of those States to reduce emissions by 

more than the amount necessary to achieve 

attainment in every downwind State to which it is 

linked. The reductions on those four States are 

unnecessary to downwind attainment anywhere. 

Those emissions budgets are therefore invalid.’’ 

EME Homer City, at 129 (citing EME Homer, 134 S. 

Ct. 1584, 1608–9 (2014)) (internal quotations 

omitted). 89 70 FR 39104, 39143. 

90See CAA Sections 110(c) and 303(y). 

91 79 FR 74874, citing Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze 

Program, Section 5.2. By statute, the long-term 

strategy for making reasonable progress may extend 

‘‘ten to fifteen years.’’ CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(B); 

42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B). 

avoid consideration of the concerns 

raised in this comment. 

I. Controls in Addition to CAIR/CSAPR, 

and CSAPR Better Than BART 

Comment: Texas is the only state 

included in CSAPR for which EPA is 

issuing a FIP for reasonable progress. 

EPA proposed to issue a FIP that would 

replace Texas’ reliance on CAIR to 

satisfy the BART requirement for EGUs 

with reliance on CSAPR. But EPA’s 

proposal otherwise disregarded 

CSAPR’s more stringent SO2 and NOX

emission budgets for Texas, as 

compared to CAIR, as well as the 

additional trading restrictions imposed 

by CSAPR. For all other states that have 

relied on either CAIR or CSAPR, EPA 

found such participation to satisfy the 

states’ reasonable progress obligation for 

the first planning period for those 

sources. EPA should not require 

controls beyond BART for BART 

sources because it is reasonable to 

conclude that no additional emissions 

controls are necessary for BART sources 

in the first planning period. 

Response: As discussed elsewhere in 

this document, although we proposed to 

rely on CSAPR to address the BART 

requirements for EGUs in Texas, we are 

not finalizing that proposed action. On 

July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court 

issued its decision in EME Homer City 87

upholding CSAPR but remanding 

without vacating a number of the Rule’s 

state emissions budgets, including 

Texas’ budgets. We are currently in the 

process of determining the appropriate 

response to the remand, and the extent 

to which the SO2 and NOX CSAPR 

budgets for Texas will change is 

currently unknown. The uncertainties 

regarding the CSAPR SO2 budgets are 

particularly relevant given our rule’s 

focus on this pollutant.88 Even 

assuming, however, that EME Homer 

City had not invalidated the CSAPR 

NOX and SO2 budgets for Texas and that 

we were taking final action to address 

the BART requirements through reliance 

on CSAPR, we do not agree that we are 

prohibited from requiring controls 

beyond CSAPR for purposes of 

reasonable progress. We noted in 2005 

that the determination that CAIR 

provided for greater reasonable progress 

than BART did not answer the question 

of whether more than CAIR would be 

required in a regional haze SIP.89

Furthermore, such a simplistic 

comparison ignores the meaningful 

differences between Texas and the other 

states cited by commenters in which no 

controls on NOX and SO2 from EGUs 

beyond CSAPR were required. As 

explained in our proposed rulemaking, 

allowing Texas to rely on CSAPR to 

meet its reasonable progress obligations 

is not appropriate, considering the large 

impact of Texas sources on visibility at 

Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, 

and the Wichita Mountains and the 

availability of cost-effective controls 

even after considering CAIR/CSAPR’s 

previously projected reductions. 

Comment: EPA should disapprove 

Texas’ determination to exclude all 

BART-eligible sources from being 

subject to BART and EPA should do 

source by source BART for NOX.

Further, if EPA does not finalize the 

proposed controls for reasonable 

progress, then EPA should do source by 

source BART for SO2. EPA’s proposal to 

rely on CSAPR as an alternative to 

BART is unlawful for three reasons. 

First, EPA’s proposal exempts sources 

from BART requirements without 

complying with the statutory 

prerequisites for such an exemption. 

Second, even if EPA could relieve the 

sources of the obligation to install BART 

controls, the ‘‘Better than BART’’ rule 

upon which EPA relies is flawed. Third, 

the ‘‘Better than BART rule’’ is no 

longer valid given the substantial 

changes in CSAPR allocations and 

compliance deadlines. 

Response: As discussed above, we are 

not finalizing our proposed action to 

rely on CSAPR to address BART due to 

the partial remand of CSAPR in EME 

Homer City. We will address the 

question of appropriate SO2 and NOX

BART limits for EGUs in Texas in a 

future rulemaking. Comments 

concerning the appropriateness of 

CSAPR as an alternative for BART in 

Texas are not relevant to this action. 

Additionally, we are finalizing the 

proposed controls for reasonable 

progress. Therefore, the comment that 

we should do source-by-source BART 

for SO2 if the reasonable progress 

controls are not finalized is moot. 

J. Installation of Controls Beyond the 

First Planning Period 

Several comments assert that our FIP 

authority is limited to ‘‘filling the gaps’’ 

in a state’s SIP submission. These 

commenters further contend that our 

FIP authority is limited by the scope of 

the SIP submission. Because the 

required reasonable progress goals 

should be met at the conclusion of the 

first planning period, the commenters’ 

argument continues, our FIP authority is 

likewise limited to those controls that 

can be implemented by 2018. We 

disagree. Our authority to use a FIP to 

address a ‘‘gap’’ or ‘‘inadequacy’’ in a 

SIP refers to a ‘‘gap’’ in the plan’s 

coverage of requirements contained in 

the statute and regulations, and is not 

limited to the specific ‘‘gap’’ left by the 

disapproved portions of the scope of 

action covered in the state’s SIP 

submission, as commenters suggest.90

In this action, we are determining 

whether Texas has addressed the 

regional haze requirements set forth in 

the CAA and our implementing 

regulations. Our FIP determines that 

under a proper assessment of reasonable 

progress factors, additional controls for 

some sources in Texas are warranted for 

the first planning period. Regulatory 

delays created by a complex Texas 

submission and EPA actions regarding 

the state’s regional haze requirements, 

including the time needed for EPA to 

assess the complex 2009 submission 

and the thousands of comments 

received on our proposed action, cannot 

provide an exemption from the CAA 

requirement to address regional haze. 

Nor can regulatory delays make 

additional delays excusable when the 

requisite CAA analysis concludes the 

controls are warranted at the earliest 

opportunity to make reasonable 

progress. Additionally, there is nothing 

in the CAA or the regional haze rules 

that constrains our FIP authority to only 

those controls that can be installed in 

the first planning period. While 

reasonable progress goals reflect that 

degree of visibility improvement 

attainable during the first planning 

period (which extends to 2018), as was 

indicated in our proposal, the long-term 

strategy requirements of the program by 

their very nature look beyond these 

interim goals to the state’s ‘‘long term’’ 

approach to addressing regional haze 

and may include control measures and 

accompanying visibility improvements 

that extend beyond the first planning 

period.91 The commenter’s concerns 

center upon controls that are not 

accounted for in the numerical 

reasonable progress goals, but rather as 

we acknowledge, are part of the longVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:31 Jan 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05JAR2.SGM 05JAR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 317 

92See our Reasonable Progress Guidance, page 5– 

2: ‘‘It may be appropriate for you to use this factor 

to adjust the RPG to reflect the degree of 

improvement in visibility achievable within the 

period of the first SIP if the time needed for full 

implementation of a control measure (or measures) 

will extend beyond 2018.’’ 

93See discussion beginning on page 3 of our Cost 

TSD for more information concerning our use of the 

IPM cost algorithms. 94We believe that the IPM cost algorithms 

provide study level accuracy. See pdf page 17 of our 

Control Cost Manual: ‘‘[a]‘‘study’’ level estimate 

[has] a nominal accuracy of ± 30% percent. 

According to Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s 

Handbook, a study estimate is ‘. . . used to estimate 

the economic feasibility of a project before 

expending significant funds for piloting, marketing, 

land surveys, and acquisition . . . [However] it can 

be prepared at relatively low cost with minimum 

data.’ ’’ 

95See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74876, and 

section 4.5 of our FIP TSD. 

term strategy and needed for reasonable 

progress. 

Comments also asserted that our 

proposed FIP disregards the ‘‘time 

necessary for compliance’’ factor of the 

reasonable progress analysis. As we 

discuss in detail in the RTC document, 

we are required by regulation to 

‘‘consider’’ time necessary for 

compliance when establishing 

reasonable progress goals, and we 

satisfied this requirement by proposing 

reasonable progress goals that account 

only for those controls that can be fully 

installed within the first planning 

period, as is consistent with our 

Reasonable Progress Guidance.92 For the 

scrubber retrofits that may require up to 

five years to fully install, we exercised 

our authority to propose a long-term 

strategy including emission limits that 

require controls that may not be 

operational during the planning period 

and therefore are not included in the 

reasonable progress goals. We also note 

that we expect that design and 

construction of the scrubber retrofits 

will begin within the planning period, 

in order to meet the five-year 

compliance date. This approach is 

consistent with other FIPs issued by 

EPA and takes into account the time 

engagement required to promulgate a 

FIP within a planning period and the 

significance of the CAA’s contemplated 

ten to fifteen year long-term strategy. 

Other comments asserted that our 

requirement for controls outside of the 

planning period is inconsistent with 

previous FIPs. We disagree with this 

comment. First, we have proposed or 

promulgated FIPs requiring controls 

with compliance dates beyond the first 

planning period, including FIPs for 

Arkansas and Wyoming. The Oklahoma 

FIP includes requirements beyond the 

first planning period as the result of a 

stay during litigation. Further, we have 

applied the requirements of the regional 

haze program to ensure consistency in 

the requirements upon the sources 

subject to regulation. If we were to 

follow the commenters’ arguments and 

fail to require application of necessary 

controls on Texas sources past the first 

planning period, those sources would be 

treated inconsistently with sources in 

other states that were required to apply 

the controls necessary to meet the 

CAA’s requirement to address regional 

haze. We cannot agree to inconsistent 

application of necessary controls at 

Texas sources due to delays in 

promulgating a FIP or time-intensive 

installation schedules, but rather, we 

address these program requirements 

through the long-term strategy, which, 

as discussed above, allows for control 

strategies that can begin design and 

construction but cannot be completed 

within the planning period. 

Several comments assert that our 

regulatory delays preclude EPA from 

imposing certain emission limitations 

that may not be achieved within the first 

planning period. Despite any delays in 

finalizing our action on the Texas SIP or 

in promulgating the FIP, we have a duty 

to act on the SIP and a duty to fulfill the 

regional haze requirements of the Act, 

including the authority to promulgate a 

FIP that imposes the controls required 

by the CAA where a SIP submission 

fails to do so. This duty and authority 

is not forfeited or constrained by delays, 

whatever their cause. We likewise 

disagree with commenters who consider 

it inappropriate for controls to be 

required after the planning period 

because corresponding visibility 

benefits may not be realized during the 

planning period. The fact that benefits 

of such controls may not be realized 

within the first planning period does 

not affect our determination that the 

controls are necessary nor deprive us of 

our authority to impose the 

requirements. 

A commenter asserted that all of the 

controls required under the proposed 

FIP can be installed within the first 

planning period. We agree that in some 

cases scrubber retrofits can and have 

been installed in less than five years; 

however, we do not have the 

information necessary to make that 

determination for each specific facility 

included under the proposed FIP. Thus, 

we proposed an installation timeframe 

consistent with past successful BARTrelated scrubber retrofits that, while 

conservative, ensures the necessary time 

to install the controls. 

K. Cost 

We received numerous comments 

related to the cost analyses we 

performed to support the seven scrubber 

retrofits and the seven scrubber 

upgrades we proposed. These comments 

were received from both industry and 

environmental groups, and covered all 

aspects of our cost analyses. 

Some of the comments we received 

from industry concerning our proposed 

scrubber retrofits were objections to our 

use of the IPM cost algorithms that were 

developed by Sargent and Lundy (S&L) 

under contract to us. As we discuss in 

our Cost TSD, we programmed the DSI, 

SDA, and wet FGD cost. algorithms, as 

employed in version 5.13 of our IPM 

model, into spreadsheets.93 Industry 

stated these cost algorithms were not 

accurate enough to warrant their use in 

individual unit-by-unit cost analyses 

and that our use of them violated our 

Control Cost Manual. Others stated the 

IPM cost algorithms do not consider 

site-specific costs, or in the case of wet 

FGD, do not adequately consider 

wastewater treatment. 

In summary, we disagree with these 

commenters and conclude that the IPM 

cost algorithms provide reliable, studylevel, unit-specific costs for regulatory 

cost analysis such as required for BACT, 

BART, and reasonable progress.94 We 

received other comments relating to our 

scrubber retrofit cost analyses, but none 

of them caused us to revise our scrubber 

retrofit cost-effectiveness basis. We also 

received a number of comments that our 

proposed emission limits were too 

stringent. We disagree with these 

comments and present several lines of 

evidence, including real-world data 

demonstrating that our proposed 

emission limits are not only achievable, 

but are in fact conservative in many 

cases. 

As we discuss in our proposal,95 our 

scrubber upgrade analyses were based 

on information we received in response 

to our requests under CAA section 

114(c). This information was claimed as 

CBI under 40 CFR 2.203(b). As a 

consequence, we are obligated to protect 

the confidentiality of that information 

while it is subject to such claims, which 

precludes us from publicly posting this 

in our docket at regulations.gov. CBI 

information, while a part of our 

rulemaking docket, is protected from 

public disclosure under our CBI 

requirements. Although we received 

some public domain comments on our 

proposed scrubber upgrades, most were 

claimed as CBI. We analyzed that 

information, and as we discuss below in 

our comment response summary, we 

have modified certain aspects of our 

analyses. Like our proposed scrubber 

upgrade cost analyses, our revised 

scrubber upgrade cost analyses are 

similarly treated as CBI but are available 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
318 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

96When we refer to Earthjustice, we also mean 

the National Parks Conservation Association and 

the Sierra Club as these groups collectively 

submitted comments. These groups also contracted 

with independent technical experts including Ms. 

Victoria Stamper, Dr. H. Andrew Gray, and Dr. 

George D. Thurston. 97See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74885. 

98 79 FR 74838. 

99Conservatively escalating the $2,700/ton value 

from when it was first developed for the CAIR rule, 

which was finalized on March 10, 2005, to the time 

of our analysis, which was conducted in 2014, 

results in a value of $3,322/ton (i.e., the Chemical 

Engineering Plant Cost Index for 2005 = 468.2, and 

that for 2014 = 576.1; $2,700 × 576.1/468.2 = 

$3,322). 

100See Appendix 10–1 of the Texas Regional 

Haze SIP. For example, the costs of scrubbers for 

Big Brown (Acct No F10020W) Units 1 and 2 were 

determined to be $1,573 and $1,540, respectively. 

for review by the respective facilities. 

This prevents us from being able to 

publicly disclose the details of our 

analyses. Our revised scrubber upgrade 

analyses changed our proposed costeffectiveness basis from where all 

scrubber upgrades were less than $600/ 

ton, to where all scrubber upgrades 

ranged from between $368/ton to $910/ 

ton. This is well within a range that we 

believe is cost-effective, given the 

visibility benefits that will result from 

the installation of those controls. 

Below we present a summary of our 

responses to the more significant 

comments we received that relate to our 

proposed cost analyses. 

Comment: We received information 

from Luminant and NRG claimed as CBI 

concerning our proposed scrubber 

upgrades. These companies hired S&L 

who alleged that we made various errors 

in our cost analyses and that our 

proposed SO2 emission rates were too 

low. In related comments, Luminant 

stated that it hired S&L to review our 

scrubber upgrade cost analyses and, in 

so doing, it found multiple flaws. S&L 

states that many of our assumptions are 

not valid, especially those regarding the 

accuracy and scope of the CBI estimates 

we relied upon, our calculation of SO2

baseline emissions, achievable 

efficiency, and our calculations of the 

operating costs. We also received 

comments from the TCEQ that we 

should have provided more detail about 

how we developed the costs for these 

scrubber upgrades. Earthjustice 96

submitted information concerning 

previous scrubber upgrades that 

supports the reasonableness of our 

assumed control level of 95%. 

Response: As explained above, 

because Luminant and NRG claimed the 

above information as CBI, we were 

required to separate out such CBI and 

respond to it in a separate CBI protected 

document (organized by claimants). 

Although this information is a part of 

our record to this action, we cannot post 

it to our electronically posted public 

docket at www.regulations.gov. We 

disagree with the TCEQ that we should 

have provided more information 

concerning the cost of the scrubber 

upgrades we analyzed. Our scrubber 

upgrade cost information was based on 

information supplied under CBI claims 

by the affected facilities in response to 

requests for information under CAA 

section 114(a). Accordingly, although 

this information is still in our docket, 

and is being used to support our 

decision making, it cannot be included 

in our publicly posted docket at 

www.regulations.gov and can only be 

disclosed by us to the extent permitted 

by CAA section 114(c) and our 

regulations governing treatment of CBI 

as set out at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

We generally disagree that our 

analysis was flawed. We specifically 

used information provided by 

Luminant’s and NRG’s own 

independent contractors (e.g. S&L) 

whom they hired to assist in providing 

information responsive to our CAA 

section 114 requests. We have reviewed 

the scrubber upgrade cost analyses 

performed by S&L that were provided 

with separate comments from NRG and 

Luminant and adopted S&L’s 

methodology, which mainly concerned 

operational costs. However, we noted 

many errors and undocumented cost 

figures in S&L’s analyses. We corrected 

these errors and rejected some of S&L’s 

undocumented assertions and/or costs. 

Nevertheless, in order to produce a 

conservative scrubber upgrade cost 

analysis and set many of the issues that 

Luminant raises aside, we incorporated 

many of Luminant’s cost items. The 

resulting costs for Luminant’s scrubber 

upgrades increased slightly, resulting in 

a range of $368/ton to $910/ton for all 

of the scrubber upgrades, but remained 

well within a range that we believe is 

cost-effective, given the visibility 

benefits that will result from the 

installation of those controls. 

Comment: San Miguel stated that it 

should not be included in our FIP, but 

if it was included, its SO2 emission limit 

should be increased and its emission 

averaging period should be changed 

from a monthly basis to an annual basis. 

Response: We have reanalyzed the 

monthly emission data for San Miguel, 

including calculating the 30 BOD 

average for it since it completed its 

scrubber upgrades. We reaffirm our 

proposed conclusion that based on the 

coal that San Miguel has historically 

burned over the last several years, and 

its demonstrated ability to remove 94% 

of the sulfur from that coal, that it 

should be able to meet our proposed 

emission limit of 0.60 lbs/MMBtu based 

on a 30 BOD average. We also believe 

additional spare capacity exists in San 

Miguel’s scrubber system. However, 

similar to what we discussed in our 

proposal,97 and in section I.B.3.b, of this 

action, we offer San Miguel the 

opportunity to install a Continuous 

Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) at 

its scrubber inlet and demonstrate that 

it maintain at least 94% control based 

on a 30 BOD average. Our RTC 

document has more details on these 

options. 

Comment: The TCEQ summarized its 

approach to analyzing controls for 

reasonable progress and stated that its 

approach was adequate. In particular, 

the TCEQ defended its use of a $2,700/ 

ton threshold for control, which it stated 

was used in CAIR, and its decision that 

the cost of the controls was not worth 

the improvement in visibility. 

Response: As we note in our 

proposal,98 we disagree with the TCEQ 

that its approach to reasonable progress 

was adequate. We note that to the extent 

that TCEQ’s cost threshold was 

reasonable, our estimate of the costs of 

the controls required by our FIP fall 

below the $2,700/ton threshold used by 

Texas, with one exception. For the one 

source with estimated costs exceeding 

$2,700/ton, the costs of controls is less 

than the $2,700 threshold selected by 

Texas, after adjusting for the escalation 

of costs over time.99 The TCEQ’s 

potential control set consisted of a mix 

of large and small sources, located at 

various distances from Class I areas, 

with a large geographical distribution. 

Some controls would likely result in 

significant visibility benefits, but some 

would result in little to almost no 

visibility benefits. Because it only 

estimated the visibility benefit of all the 

controls together and weighed those 

benefits against the total cost of 

controlling the mix of sources under 

consideration, the TCEQ was not able to 

assess the benefit of controlling 

individual sources or the subset of 

sources with significant, and potentially 

cost-effective, visibility benefits. Larger 

individual benefits were obscured by 

the inclusion of those controls with 

little visibility benefit that only served 

to increase the total cost figures. As a 

result, despite its own conclusions that 

controls below $2,700/ton were 

available for a number of sources,100

and CENRAP’s modeling results that 

Texas point sources impact the visibility 

at the Wichita Mountains several times 

more than the impacts from Oklahoma’s 

own point sources, Texas ultimately 

decided to not control these sources. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 319 

101 70 FR 39167. 

102Response to Technical Comments for Sections 

E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice for the 

Oklahoma Regional Haze and Visibility Transport 

Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2010–0190, 12/13/2011, pdf 116. 

103 ‘‘When promulgating its own implementation 

plan, [EPA] did not need to use the same metric as 

Oklahoma. The guidelines merely permit the BARTdetermining authority to use dollar per deciview as 

an optional method of evaluating cost 

effectiveness.’’ Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 

1221 (10th Cir. 2013). 

Furthermore, Texas’ analysis did not 

include consideration of scrubber 

upgrades on key sources with large 

visibility impacts and potentially very 

cost-effective controls. Texas’ flawed 

analysis prevented it from properly 

considering whether reasonable controls 

were available on the subset of sources 

or group of sources with the largest 

visibility impacts. Although our 

Regional Haze Rule and our Reasonable 

Progress Guidance provide states with 

latitude in approaching reasonable 

progress, states must still meet the 

requirements of the CAA and Federal 

requirements. We conclude that Texas’ 

approach was flawed and this 

fundamental critical flaw in Texas’ 

analyses cannot be approved. 

Comment: Earthjustice agreed with 

our conclusion that Texas’ approach to 

reasonable progress obscured 

potentially cost-effective controls. 

Earthjustice also generally supported 

our reasonable progress/long-term 

strategy analysis, concluded that in 

comparison with other actions our costs 

were conservative (high) but reasonable, 

but stated that additional units should 

have been proposed for control. 

Earthjustice criticized our emission 

baseline methodology of eliminating the 

high and low values from the 2009– 

2013 emission data and averaging the 

resulting three years of data. It 

reanalyzed our scrubber retrofit costeffectiveness calculations for Big Brown, 

Monticello, Coleto Creek, Welsh Units, 

W. A. Parish, and Tolk Units 1 and 2, 

using a straight 5-year average of the 

2009–2013 emissions, and concluded 

our costs were too high. Earthjustice 

generally stated our assumed DSI SO2

removal efficiency was too high. 

Earthjustice believed we should have 

considered coal blending with low 

sulfur coal and lignite drying. 

Earthjustice also provided an analysis 

for Novel Integrated Desulfurization 

(NID). Earthjustice concluded that our 

calculated cost-effectiveness values 

were too high, and that NID was also a 

viable alternative to SDA and wet FGD 

and offered some advantages. 

Response: We confirm that one of our 

intentions in performing our cost 

analyses was to conservatively estimate 

many of the individual cost parameters 

(tending toward a higher cost estimate) 

and demonstrate that even doing this, 

our proposed scrubber upgrade and 

scrubber retrofit cost analyses were costeffective. We believe we have met that 

goal. We disagree with Earthjustice that 

we should have proposed additional 

units for control and respond to this 

comment in the Modeling section of this 

document and the RTC document. We 

continue to believe our five-year 

emission baseline methodology, with 

the elimination of the highest and 

lowest emission years, is appropriate. 

The BART Guidelines, which we drew 

upon for some of our reasonable 

progress/long-term strategy analyses, 

state that the emission baseline, ‘‘should 

represent a realistic depiction of 

anticipated annual emissions for the 

source. In general, for the existing 

sources subject to BART, you will 

estimate the anticipated annual 

emissions based upon actual emissions 

from a baseline period.’’101 We 

eliminated the high low values from the 

2009–2013 emission to better address 

issues such as variations in coal sulfur 

content, capacity usage, operations, etc., 

and make the baseline more 

representative of typical, recent plant 

operations. The difference between our 

baseline calculations and a straight 

2009–2013 average is small and would 

not change our conclusion that the 

scrubber upgrades we proposed are very 

cost-effective. We also believe our DSI 

analysis strategy was appropriate. We 

analyzed DSI at both a 50% control 

level that is likely achievable for all the 

units, and the highest level of control 

the units were potentially capable of 

achieving, with design factors and costs 

adjusted accordingly, thus bracketing 

the problem. 

We do not believe there is enough 

information concerning NID 

installations at this time to warrant an 

intensive analysis of that technology. 

Given the vendor advertised control 

efficiency of NID, the selection of NID 

technology rather than wet FGD would 

not change our proposed SO2 limits. 

With the exception of Tolk, the non-air 

quality environmental impacts of a NID 

and wet FGD are similar and do not 

warrant eliminating either technology. 

We proposed that the units in question 

meet certain SO2 emission limits, but 

we did not mandate a specific control 

technology in doing so. Consequently, 

any unit, including the ones discussed 

herein, may elect to use a NID to 

achieve our required SO2 emission 

limits. 

With respect to the comment that we 

should have considered blending the 

coal used at the units with low sulfur 

coal, we note that most of the units in 

question either burn lower sulfur 

Powder River Basin (PRB) coal or they 

blend it with lignite. We do not believe 

we have the necessary technical 

information (e.g., fuel sulfur content, 

availability, cost, contractual 

information, etc.) to properly consider 

fuel blending or fuel switching. 

Nevertheless, the emission reductions 

achieved by switching to cleaner coal 

are much less than the emission 

reductions anticipated due to the 

implementation of the required controls. 

We agree that in some circumstances 

coal drying can be a viable technology 

for improving boiler efficiency and, in 

the process, reduce emissions because 

less coal is burned to achieve the same 

heat input to the boiler. However, we 

are not required to consider every 

potential technology under the 

reasonable progress and long-term 

strategy provisions of the Regional Haze 

Rule, which applies to the analysis in 

question. We considered both SDA and 

wet FGD, and the next most promising 

SO2 removal control, DSI. Were we to 

have considered coal drying, it would 

have ranked below DSI in its ability to 

remove SO2. 

Comment: Luminant provided general 

objections to our cost analyses and 

stated our analysis relies entirely on a 

cost-per-ton metric but ignores what it 

considers the more meaningful cost-perdeciview metric. 

Response: Luminant’s general cost 

comments are addressed with 

specificity in the cost section of our RTC 

document. We reject Luminant’s 

contention that we should have used the 

$/dv metric, a contention we also 

rejected and addressed in our Oklahoma 

FIP.102 We note that to use the $/dv 

metric as the main determining factor 

would most likely require the 

development of thresholds of acceptable 

costs per deciview of improvement for 

both single and multiple Class I 

analyses. In Oklahoma v. EPA, the 

Tenth Circuit Court recognized our 

authority to use a different metric when 

promulgating a FIP.103

Comment: S&L cited to capital costs at 

Monticello 3 and Sandow 4, including 

spray headers and mist eliminators, that 

we mistakenly removed from our 

scrubber upgrade cost analyses. 

Response: S&L is correct that we did 

in fact remove these capital costs from 

our scrubber upgrade cost analyses 

because we noted these costs were 

included in a 2013 Use Determination 

Application to the TCEQ, which 

identified that new replacement tower 

spray nozzles and mist eliminators had 

been installed. We wrongly assumed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
320 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

104See for instance our ‘‘Response to Technical 

Comments for Sections E. through H. of the Federal 

Register Notice for the Oklahoma RH and Visibility 

Transport Federal Implementation Plan,’’ Docket 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0190, 12/13/2011. 

105Response to Technical Comments for Sections 

E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice for the 

Oklahoma RH and Visibility Transport Federal 

Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2010–0190, 12/13/2011. See discussion beginning 

on page 36. 

106Please see our docket for inclusion of this 

communication, which are in the form of emails 

transmitting letters and other information. 

107 ‘‘Plant X’’ is the actual name of a nearby EGU 

also owned by Xcel. 

that after having identified that its 

scrubber system could be upgraded costeffectively, and having performed some 

of those modifications, Luminant had 

installed new upgraded spray headers 

and nozzles rather than replacing its 

worn out spray header and nozzles with 

the less efficient original design. 

However, based on the comment 

received on this, we added these costs 

back into our updated scrubber upgrade 

cost analyses and the result was a very 

minor increase in the cost-effectiveness 

value (higher $/ton). This did not affect 

our conclusion that upgrading the 

scrubbers for these units is very costeffective. 

Comment: S&L states that in 

escalating costs, we should have 

assumed its 2006 reports were in 2005 

dollars and we should have escalated 

our costs out to 2015. S&L also objected 

to our use of a 10% increase to our 

escalation to account for escalation 

outside of the customary five-year 

window, our deletion of Allowance for 

Funds During Construction (AFUDC), 

and our deletion of owner’s costs. S&L, 

GLCC, and CCP allege our use of a 30- 

year life for our scrubber retrofit and 

scrubber upgrades analyses is 

inconsistent with our Control Cost 

Manual. Earthjustice supported our 30- 

year assumed life. 

Response: We agree with S&L that we 

should have assumed its 2006 reports 

were in 2005 dollars, and we have made 

the appropriate correction to our 

escalation calculations. We disagree that 

we should have carried our escalation 

costs forward to 2015, because we used 

the most recent emission data that was 

available, for both the cost analyses and 

modeling, which was 2013 data. As we 

explain in more detail in the Cost 

section of the RTC document, based on 

consideration of the CEPCI cost indices 

over the 2005–2013 period, we conclude 

that our approach of adding an 

additional 10% to our escalated cost is 

reasonable and likely conservative. As 

we have noted in a number of previous 

actions, AFUDC and owner’s costs are 

not allowable under the Control Cost 

Manual overnight approach.104 We refer 

S&L to our response to the scrubber life 

issue in our Oklahoma FIP in which we 

supported a 30-year life.105 Because 

none of the facilities involved have 

entered into (or offered to enter into) 

enforceable commitments to shut down 

the applicable units earlier, we have 

continued to use a 30-year equipment 

life for scrubber upgrades, as we believe 

that is proper. 

Comment: Xcel notes that in 

performing our dry scrubber cost 

analysis for Tolk, we failed to consider 

that there is a general water scarcity in 

the area with no surface water 

availability, and that to obtain the 

additional amount of water necessary to 

support the operation of dry scrubbers, 

Xcel would have to attempt to purchase 

water rights from existing farmers along 

with a gathering system or look at other 

costly alternatives. Based on the 

historical cost of water rights in the 

area, this is an additional capital cost of 

approximately $40 million that was not 

included in EPA’s cost estimates. 

Earthjustice encouraged us to 

investigate Xcel’s water rights, and 

estimated the cost to purchase 

additional water rights based on 

assumptions we used to assess this issue 

for the Gerald Gentleman facility in 

Nebraska. 

Response: We have conducted an 

extensive investigation of the issue 

raised in Xcel’s comments, including 

additional communication with Xcel 

and the High Plains Water District, in 

order to clarify some of Xcel’s 

assertions.106 We conclude that Xcel’s 

asserted water requirements for dry 

scrubbing are much higher than other 

similar dry scrubbing installations, and 

the basis for the disparity is 

unsupported. As confirmed by our 

communications with the High Plains 

Water District and Xcel, we also 

conclude that Xcel has multiple lines of 

access to adequate supplies of water 

sufficient to supply the proposed dry 

scrubbers (SDA) without the need to 

buy additional water rights. First, we 

calculate that water already available at 

Tolk is almost enough to satisfy the 

additional water demand of our 

proposed dry scrubbers. Second, we 

note that Xcel receives blowdown water 

from nearby Plant X 107 and that Xcel 

offered testimony to the Public Utility 

Commission of Texas that two units in 

Plant X will retire in 2019 and 2020, 

which will free up additional water that 

could be used to satisfy the additional 

water demand of our proposed dry 

scrubbers. Third, we believe that Xcel 

has access to additional unexploited 

water rights that are more than adequate 

to supply our proposed dry scrubbers. 

Lastly, we acknowledge that Tolk’s 

ultimate sources of water, the Ogallala 

Aquifer, continues to be depleted. 

However, considering the water needed 

by our proposed dry scrubbers is by 

Xcel’s own account only approximately 

9 to 12% of the total plant’s needs, the 

aquifer’s depletion will be a limiting 

factor on the operation of the plant 

itself, not on the operation of the 

scrubbers. 

Comment: Xcel alleged that in our 

cost analysis we failed to consider that 

our proposed dry scrubbers would (1) 

end Tolk’s sales of its fly ash or require 

the installation of additional baghouse 

capacity, and (2) require additional 

landfill capacity. Xcel also alleged that 

we did not adequately consider DSI and 

non-air environmental impacts, and that 

our assumption of a 30-year operating 

life is wrong. 

Response: We disagree with these 

comments. Our cost analysis did 

include an additional baghouse that 

could be installed upstream of the dry 

scrubber which can preserve Tolk’s 

existing fly ash sales. Also, our cost 

analysis included landfill costs, which 

based on Xcel’s own information, are 

adequate to cover the additional 

disposal costs. We also believe our DSI 

cost methodology, in which we 

bounded the range of expected DSI 

performance, was adequate and 

demonstrated that DSI was not costeffective when compared to the dry 

scrubber we costed for Tolk. Lastly, as 

we discuss in our responses to other 

comments, we believe our assumption 

of a 30-year life is proper, and we note 

that in testimony to the Public Utility 

Commission of Texas (PUCT), Tolk 

assumed similar equipment lives. 

Comment: S&L states we 

overestimated SO2 reductions (and thus 

our cost-effectiveness calculation was 

too low) for scrubber upgrades due to 

our SO2 baseline methodology in which 

we eliminated the high and low annual 

average values from 2009–2013 and 

averaged the remaining three yearly 

values. Earthjustice stated we 

overestimated our cost-effectiveness 

calculations for our scrubber retrofits in 

part due to our SO2 baseline 

methodology. Earthjustice stated it 

would have been more appropriate to 

use a five-year annual average emissions 

baseline, five-year annual average SO2

rate in lb/MMBtu, and five-year average 

gross heat rate and MW-hrs generated, 

based on data from 2009 to 2013. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. As we note in our 

proposal, we used the BART Guidelines 

for some aspects of our analysis and 

believe our methodology is in agreement 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 321 

108 70 FR 39167. ‘‘The baseline emissions rate 

should represent a realistic depiction of anticipated 

annual emissions for the source.’’ See also 79 FR 

74874. 

109See our RTC document for much more detail 

on our analysis, and the file, ‘‘Selected scrubber 

retrofit efficiencies.xlsx,’’ which is in our docket 

and contains the plots discussed. The performance 

of each scrubber in our data set is summarized in 

the file, ‘‘Selected scrubber retrofit 

efficiencies.xlsx.’’ 

110Where ‘‘data point’’ represents a valid daily 

SO2 monitored value. 

111While the underlying expert report submitted 

by the Department of Justice in that case is 

protected from release under Court order, the 

testimony of the government expert witness that 

substantially accords with it, as well as our 

conclusions in responding to this comment, has 

been added to our docket. 

112Our AirControlNET tool is out of date and no 

longer supported. 

113 77 FR 42852 (July 20, 2012). 

114Memorandum from Jim Staudt to Doug Grano, 

EPA, ‘‘Review of Estimated Compliance Costs for 

Wyoming Electricity Generating Units (EGUs)— 

revision of previous memo’’, February 7, 2013, 

EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0026–0086. 

115 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011). 

116 80 FR 33515. 

with the relevant language in that 

regard.108 We calculated our baseline 

SO2 emissions by first acquiring the 

2009 to 2013 emissions as reported to us 

by the facilities in question. This is 

reflective of the actual emissions from 

the underperforming scrubber systems 

installed at the units in question. We 

then calculated the uncontrolled SO2

emissions by acquiring U.S. Energy 

Information Agency coal usage data. We 

used these two figures to calculate the 

level of control for each year. In so 

doing, we eliminated the highest and 

lowest annual emission values from 

2009–2013 to better address the issues 

S&L raises in its other comments 

(variations in coal sulfur content, 

capacity usage, operations, etc.) and to 

make the baseline more representative 

of typical, recent plant operations. The 

difference between our baseline 

calculations and a straight 2009–2013 

average is small and does not change 

our proposed conclusion that the 

scrubber upgrades we proposed are very 

cost-effective. 

Comment: S&L stated that our 

assumption that wet FGD retrofits can 

achieve 98% reduction or a controlled 

SO2 emission rate of 0.04 lb/MMBtu is 

unrealistic and cannot be sustained on 

a continuous, long-term basis. 

Earthjustice stated that our assumed 

scrubber retrofit emission rates were not 

stringent enough. 

Response: We disagree with S&L. 

First, we note that vendors routinely 

guarantee SO2 emission limits at least as 

stringent as, or more stringent than, 

what we have proposed. We have also 

conducted extensive analysis of a 

number of SO2 scrubber retrofits in 

which we have plotted their 30 BOD 

SO2 emission limits.109 Of the units we 

analyzed, 13 retrofit units have 

guaranteed control efficiencies of 95% 

to 99%, with eight of them guaranteed 

at 98% to 99%. With one exception, 

these eight units are achieving 98% to 

99% SO2 control, when calculated using 

a very conservative method we have 

adopted. We also demonstrate that units 

similar to the ones in question are able 

to continuously sustain SO2 limits lower 

than what we have proposed for at least 

one year, and in some cases much 

longer. For instance, three of the units 

have achieved a maximum 30-day BOD 

equal to or less than our proposed SO2

emission limit for scrubber retrofits of 

0.04 lb/MMBtu: 

• Scherer Unit 2: 0.01 lb/MMBtu based 

on 485 data points 110

• Iatan Unit 1: 0.02 lb/MMBtu based on 

2,004 data points 

• Boswell Energy Center: 0.03 lb/

MMBtu based on 1,881 data points 

Our technical conclusions are also 

consistent with past judicial findings 

regarding achievable removal 

efficiencies and control rates, including 

conclusions in the already five years 

past case of United States v. Cinergy 

Corp., 618 F. Supp. 2d 942, 947 and 

961–962 (S.D. Ind. 2009).111 Thus, we 

disagree with S&L that our proposed 

scrubber retrofit SO2 emission limits are 

not realistic or maintainable on a longterm basis. We agree with Earthjustice 

that it may be possible that many of the 

scrubber retrofit units can achieve 

greater control efficiencies than we 

proposed. Greater control efficiencies 

would result in a more favorable costeffectiveness (lower $/ton) and more 

visibility improvement. This is another 

area in which we strove to be 

conservative in our analyses in order to 

demonstrate that even with many 

conservative cost assumptions the 

scrubber retrofits we proposed are costeffective. 

Comment: S&L stated that our use of 

the IPM cost algorithms was not in 

keeping with our Control Cost Manual 

and because of the limited number of 

site-specific inputs, the IPM cost 

algorithms provide order-of-magnitude 

control system cost estimates, but do not 

provide case-by-case project-specific 

cost estimates meeting the requirements 

of the BART Guidelines, nor do the IPM 

equations incorporate the cost 

estimating methodology described in 

the Control Cost Manual. 

Response: We disagree with S&L. As 

we stated in our Cost TSD, we relied on 

the methods and principles contained 

within the Control Cost Manual, namely 

the use of the overnight costing method. 

In fact, the Control Cost Manual does 

not include any method for estimating 

the costs of any of the SO2 control 

methods evaluated in this action. We 

note our strategy of relying on a publicly 

available control cost tool is similar to 

the strategy the states themselves 

employed in the development of their 

own SIPs. For instance, as explained in 

the Texas SIP, the TCEQ used the 

control strategy analysis completed by 

the CENRAP, which depended on the 

EPA AirControlNET tool 112 to develop 

cost per ton estimates. We have used 

IPM cost models to estimate BART costs 

in other similar rulemakings including 

our Arizona regional haze FIPs,113 the 

Wyoming regional haze FIP,114 and to 

supplement our analysis in the 

Oklahoma FIP.115 S&L used real world 

cost data to construct its cost algorithms 

and confirm their validity. These cost 

models have been updated and 

maintained since their introduction in 

2010 and have been continuously used 

by us since that time. These control 

costs are based on databases of actual 

control project costs and account for 

project specifics such as unit size, coal 

type, gross heat rate, and retrofit factor, 

and they require unit specific inputs 

such as reagent cost, waste disposal 

cost, auxiliary power cost, labor cost, 

gross load, and emission information. 

We believe that the IPM cost models 

provide reliable study-level, unitspecific costs for regulatory cost 

analysis such as required for BACT, 

BART, and reasonable progress. Lastly, 

we are confident in the basic 

methodology behind the S&L cost 

algorithms such that in our recent 

proposal for updating the SCR chapter 

of the Control Cost Manual,116 we 

presented an example costing 

methodology that is based on the IPM 

S&L SCR algorithms, which were 

developed using a similar methodology 

to the wet FGD, SDA, and DSI cost 

algorithms discussed herein. 

Comment: S&L stated that the IPM 

cost algorithms do not adequately 

consider site specific information and it 

cites to a number of possibilities 

including demolition and relocation of 

equipment, modifications that may be 

required to the existing ash handling 

systems, replacement of the existing 

induced draft fans or booster fan 

modifications, modifications/upgrades 

to the existing auxiliary power system, 

and labor productivity. S&L criticized 

our use of a retrofit factor of 1.0 for all 

units, and stated that the inlet 

temperature of Big Brown and 

Monticello units was 360–370 F, which 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
322 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

117Control Cost Manual, p. 2–3. 

118LUMINANT_000277496.pdf and LUMINANT_

REGHAZ_1–000001183 to –000001257.pdf. 

119We recently proposed approval of NID as 

BART for the Flint Creek Unit 1 in Arkansas (80 FR 

18944). Other recent installations include the 

Homer City Units 1 and 2, Boswell Unit 4, Brayton 

Point Unit 3, and Indian River Unit 4. 

120Response to Technical Comments for Sections 

E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice for the 

Oklahoma Regional Haze and Visibility Transport 

Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2010–0190, 12/13/2011, pdf 116. 

121Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1221 (10th 

Cir. 2013). 

122See our FIP TSD, page A–35 and modeling 

section of the RTC document. 

123 It is generally recognized that a change in 

visibility of 1.0 deciview is humanly perceptible. 

124See the discussion in our FIP TSD, beginning 

on page 6. 

125 70 FR 39129. 

126 76 FR 81739. 

is above the 300 F assumed value in the 

IPM algorithms, and would result in a 

flue gas volume increase of 10%, 

requiring additional costs. 

Response: We note that the IPM cost 

algorithms, which are derived from real 

world costs, already have retrofit issues 

built into them. Our assumption of a 

retrofit factor of 1.0, which represents 

an average retrofit difficulty, likely 

overestimates the costs of some facilities 

(e.g., Tolk) that have no retrofit issues. 

We solicited comments on all aspects of 

our scrubber retrofit cost analyses, but 

received little of the site-specific 

information to which S&L cites. Also, 

S&L provides no documentation for 

those it does cite. Regardless, these 

types of issues result in small increases 

in costs that are well within the 

required +/¥30% accuracy 117 and do 

not affect cost-effectiveness conclusions 

due to the conservative nature of our 

estimates, as demonstrated elsewhere in 

these responses. 

S&L does not provide any 

documentation to support its contention 

that the IPM wet FGD cost algorithms 

are based on a generic scrubber inlet 

temperature of 300 F. We have 

researched all available references on 

this issue and cannot find anything to 

support this conclusion. Rather, we 

conclude that the IPM cost algorithms 

estimate costs from regression equations 

based on actual completed projects. 

There are a number of factors other than 

temperature that affect the volume of 

gas flow that passes through a scrubber 

system. These include the amount of inleakage in the system (which often 

increases due to inefficient or worn 

seals in the air preheater) and the type 

and characteristics of the coal that is 

being burned. This is made clear by 

examination of two of the scrubber 

retrofit reports for Big Brown (one of the 

units S&L cites), which were issued by 

S&L in 2004 and 2007, we received in 

response to our CAA Section 114 

requests.118 The 2004 report indicated 

that the design flue gas flow rate at the 

scrubber inlet was approximately 19.7% 

less than that in the 2007 report. 

However, both reports indicated that the 

reference temperature at the inlet was 

370 °F—the same temperature S&L 

references in its comment—and both 

were at the same pressure. It is clear 

there are many variables that impact 

flow beyond temperature. We therefore 

conclude that S&L has not documented 

its temperature assertion, available 

information does not support it, and its 

temperature inference is too simple to 

properly characterize the situation. In 

any case, even assuming a 10% increase 

in gas flow rate, would not result in a 

significant enough increase in cost to 

impact our decision regarding these 

facilities. 

Comment: S&L states the IPM cost 

module includes costs only for minor 

physical and chemical wastewater 

treatment. However, wastewater 

treatment standards proposed by EPA, 

and anticipated to be published as a 

final rule in 2015, will likely require 

significantly more advanced treatment 

of FGD wastewaters. S&L states this 

could add $30–$40 million to the cost 

of a retrofit wet FGD control system and 

we should have included these costs in 

our estimates. 

Response: Because our wastewater 

treatment rules have not been finalized, 

and therefore we do not know with 

certainty whether any additional costs 

may be incurred, it is not appropriate 

for us to include those costs in our costeffectiveness calculations. Even if those 

costs prove to be substantial, other 

options are available, including zero 

liquid discharge systems and the 

selection of a SO2 control technology 

that achieves the emission limit without 

generating a wastewater stream, such as 

NID scrubbers, which we believe are 

capable of achieving our emission 

limits, and have been selected in some 

recent installations.119 In addition, we 

believe that at least one of the studies 

that produced actual costs that were 

used to construct the IPM cost 

algorithms included wastewater 

treatment costs. Lastly, we did not 

receive any documentation from any 

facility to substantiate any wastewater 

treatment costs, including the figures 

that S&L cites. 

Comment: Luminant and others allege 

we did not properly balance costs and 

visibility benefit and stated we should 

have used the dollar per deciview ($/dv) 

metric. 

Response: We disagree that the $/dv 

metric is more meaningful than our use 

of the $/ton metric in conjunction with 

our consideration of the visibility 

benefit from the installation of controls. 

As we noted in our Oklahoma FIP,120

use of the $/dv metric would most likely 

require the development of thresholds 

of acceptable costs per deciview of 

improvement for BART determinations 

for both single and multiple Class I 

analyses, and we have not developed 

such thresholds. This decision by EPA 

not to use this metric in a FIP was 

reviewed and upheld in Oklahoma v. 

EPA by the Tenth Circuit Court.121 We 

see no reason to deviate from our view 

of the dollar per deciview metric in the 

reasonable progress context that applies 

here. We also note that the use of the 

dollar per deciview metric is further 

complicated in the present case due to 

our use of CAMx modeling. As we 

discuss in our proposal and elsewhere 

in the Modeling section of this 

document and in Modeling Sections of 

our RTC document, there is no way to 

directly compare the CAMx modeling 

we used in our proposed Texas/

Oklahoma FIPs with previous CALPUFF 

modeling results because of differences 

in the models, model inputs, and 

metrics used.122

L. Cost Versus Visibility Benefit 

Comment: Our proposed controls 

would not result in perceptible visibility 

improvements and thus should not be 

finalized. Commenters also stated that 

the required controls result in miniscule 

or insignificant visibility improvements. 

Response: We disagree that the 

Regional Haze Rule requires that 

controls on a source or group of sources 

result in perceptible visibility 

improvement.123 As we noted in our 

TSDs, we derived much of our approach 

to the analysis of control costs and 

visibility impacts from the BART 

Guidelines.124 In a situation where the 

installation of BART may not result in 

a perceptible improvement in visibility, 

the visibility benefit may still be 

significant, as explained by the Regional 

Haze Rule: 125

Even though the visibility improvement 

from an individual source may not be 

perceptible, it should still be considered in 

setting BART because the contribution to 

haze may be significant relative to other 

source contributions in the Class I area. 

We accordingly disagree that selection 

of control measures should be 

contingent upon perceptible visibility 

improvement. As we stated in our 

previous rulemaking addressing the 

BART determinations in Oklahoma: 126


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 323 

127FIP TSD at A–35. 

128Light extinction, in units of inverse 

megameters (Mm¥1), is the amount of light lost as 

it travels over one million meters. The haze index, 

in units of deciviews (dv), is calculated directly 

from the total light extinction, bext, as follows: HI 

= 10 ln(bext/10). 

129We note that the impacts from Big Brown and 

other facilities are even larger when considering 

recent actual emissions rather than the CENRAP 

2018 projected emissions. 

130See Texas Regional Haze SIP Appendix 4–1: 

Summary of Consultation Calls and Section X.A. of 

the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP. 

Given that sources are subject to BART 

based on a contribution threshold of no 

greater than 0.5 deciviews, it would be 

inconsistent to automatically rule out 

additional controls where the improvement 

in visibility may be less than 1.0 deciview or 

even 0.5 deciviews. A perceptible visibility 

improvement is not a requirement of the 

BART determination because visibility 

improvements that are not perceptible may 

still be determined to be significant. 

Thus, in our visibility improvement 

analysis, we have not considered 

perceptibility as a threshold criterion for 

considering improvements in visibility 

to be meaningful. Rather, we have 

considered visibility improvement in a 

holistic manner, taking into account all 

reasonably anticipated improvements in 

visibility and the fact that, in the 

aggregate, improvements from controls 

on multiple sources will contribute to 

progress towards the goal of natural 

visibility conditions. Visibility impacts 

below the thresholds of perceptibility 

cannot be ignored because regional haze 

is produced by a multitude of sources 

and activities which are located across 

a broad geographic area. In this action, 

as discussed below, we found that the 

required cost-effective controls reduce 

visibility impairment from those sources 

with the largest visibility impacts and 

result in meaningful visibility benefits 

towards the goal of natural visibility 

conditions. 

As we have noted and discussed in a 

separate response to comment, the 

results of the CAMx modeling we have 

utilized in our proposal cannot be 

directly compared to the results of 

CALPUFF modeling, which has been 

utilized in the vast majority of other 

BART and reasonable progress/longterm strategy actions, because of 

differences in the models, model inputs, 

and metrics used.127 Many of these 

differences result in CAMx modeled 

visibility impacts and benefits that are 

much lower than the CALPUFF 

modeled visibility impacts and benefits 

relied on in other actions. We disagree 

with commenters that the visibility 

benefits from the controls in our FIP are 

miniscule when the differences in 

modeling analyses are considered. We 

observe that several comments that are 

critical of the extent of the visibility 

benefits have cited only to benefits from 

the scrubber upgrades, omitting the total 

anticipated visibility benefit from all 

required controls. As we discuss in the 

FIP TSD and in separate responses to 

comments, we believe it is necessary to 

consider visibility benefits based on 

‘‘clean’’ natural background conditions 

to assess the full potential for visibility 

benefits from controls. For example, we 

estimated that the required controls 

provide for over 3 dv improvement on 

20% worst days at the Wichita 

Mountains when estimated using a 

‘‘clean’’ background and result in 

improving projected visibility 

conditions by 0.45 dv over the visibility 

conditions projected by CENRAP and 

Texas for 2018 and an estimated 0.62 dv 

improvement in the visibility conditions 

in 2018 when considering recent actual 

emissions (values are for 20% worst 

days). The required controls result in a 

greater than 5% improvement in overall 

visibility conditions at the Wichita 

Mountains on the 20% worst days. We 

also estimate that the required controls 

significantly reduce the projected delay 

in meeting natural visibility, helping to 

achieve that goal 25 to 30-years earlier 

at Big Bend and the Guadalupe 

Mountain by our projections. 

The CENRAP modeling showed that 

Texas sources have significant visibility 

impacts at the Wichita Mountains and 

the Texas Class I areas. Our analysis 

identified those point sources with the 

greatest contributions to visibility 

impairment at these Class I areas, and 

the required controls reduce visibility 

impairment from those sources with the 

largest impacts where controls were 

determined to be available and 

reasonable for this first planning period. 

For example, the Monticello and Big 

Brown facilities are projected to 

contribute approximately 1.3 Mm¥1 and 

1.2 Mm¥1, respectively, to visibility 

impairment on the 20% worst days at 

the Wichita Mountains in 2018 based on 

the CENRAP 2018 projected emissions 

for these facilities.128 This is 1.7% and 

1.5% of the total visibility impairment 

at the Wichita Mountains.129 In our FIP 

TSD we noted that Texas used an 

impact extinction level threshold of 0.5 

Mm¥1 (a level less than half of the 

estimated impact from the Monticello or 

Big Brown facilities) from all sources in 

a state as a threshold for inviting 

another state to consult. Oklahoma 

selected a threshold of 1.0 Mm¥1 to 

determine which states should consult 

in analyzing visibility impairment at the 

Wichita Mountains.130 We also noted 

that the largest projected contribution 

from all point sources within a state at 

the Wichita Mountains after Texas 

(14%) is Oklahoma at 3.9%. In other 

words, elimination of all point sources 

in Oklahoma would result in less 

visibility benefit (3.9%) than the 

required controls (greater than 5%). As 

these facts demonstrate, the identified 

facilities have significant impacts on 

visibility conditions. Our technical 

record makes it equally plain that the 

required controls reduce impacts from 

these sources and result in meaningful 

visibility benefits towards the goal of 

natural visibility conditions. 

Comment: Texas’ choice of 0.5 

deciview as a benchmark for total 

visibility improvement (from all 

sources) to use in its four-factor analysis 

was reasonable and consistent with EPA 

guidelines. Under the BART Guidelines, 

a source ‘‘contributes to any visibility 

impairment,’’ and thus becomes subject 

to BART, if it has an impact greater than 

0.5 deciview at any Class I area. It is 

thus logical that a level of visibility 

improvement at a single Class I area that 

is less than the threshold at which a 

source becomes subject to BART in the 

first place would be deemed 

insignificant for all sources. Indeed, in 

other regional haze actions, EPA has 

‘‘defer[red]’’ to states’ consideration of 

the 0.5 deciview threshold. And given 

Congress’s special emphasis on BART 

sources, Texas’ reference to the BART 

0.5 deciview threshold to evaluate 

reasonable progress for the first 

planning period was conservative, and 

Texas could reasonably determine that 

total visibility benefits below the BART 

threshold for an individual source 

should be deferred until a later planning 

period for reasonable progress. 

Response: We disagree that Texas’ 

choice of a 0.5 dv visibility threshold, 

including the manner in which it was 

applied, was proper in its analysis. 

First, the quote from our BART 

Guidelines was based on CALPUFF 

modeling and not CAMx modeling. 

Texas extrapolated results from CAMx 

modeling to estimate the visibility 

improvement due to all the identified 

controls in their analysis and then 

compared it to a threshold developed 

for CALPUFF modeling. As we state in 

the FIP TSD and discuss in detail in our 

response to comments, ‘‘[a] common 

metric used in BART visibility modeling 

using CALPUFF is the BART screening 

level of 0.5 del-dv used by most states 

for screening out facilities from further 

BART consideration. However, there are 

a number of factors that make the two 

analyses different and not comparable, 

invalidating the use of the BART 

screening metric, or other such 

comparisons with modeled visibility 

impacts for reasonable progress with 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
324 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

131FIP TSD at A–35 and modeling section of the 

RTC document. 

132FIP TSD at A–38. ‘‘For example, see Figure 

A.3–5 which shows the del-dv change due to a 10 

(1/Mm) change at both the 2018 projected 

extinction level [‘‘dirty background’’] and the 2064 

natural visibility conditions [‘‘clean background’’] 

extinction level for the Wichita Mountains. In the 

‘dirty background’ case the 10 (1/Mm) yields a 1.26 

del-dv, whereas in the ‘clean background’ case the 

same 10 (1/Mm) yields a 3.86 del-dv improvement. 

In this example, the ‘clean background’ situation 

yields a del-dv improvement 3 times greater than 

the ‘dirty background’ for the same level of 

extinction improvement. 

133 ‘‘. . ., if there were 100 sources each changing 

visibility by 0.1 deciviews, the total impact would 

be a 10-deciview change in visibility. In this 

hypothetical example, all 100 sources would be 

contributing, in equal amounts, to substantial 

visibility impairment . . . .’’ 70 FR 39121. 

134Written Report of George D. Thurston 

Regarding the Public Health Benefits of EPA’s 

Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Texas And 

Oklahoma Regional Haze, April 18, 2015. Visibility 

And Health Modeling Technical Support Document 

to Comments Of Conservation Organizations, 

prepared by Dr. H. Andrew Gray, April 20, 2015. 

CAMx or CMAQ.’’ 131 In the FIP TSD 

and in separate responses to comments 

we discuss the differences in the 

models, model inputs, and metrics used. 

Many of these differences contribute to 

CAMx modeled visibility impacts and 

benefits for reasonable progress being 

much lower than the CALPUFF 

modeled visibility impacts and benefits 

for BART relied on in other actions. As 

detailed in the FIP TSD, these 

differences include the emission rates 

modeled, the metrics used and whether 

the deciview impacts are calculated 

based on ‘‘clean’’ natural background 

conditions or a ‘‘dirty’’ background 

based on degraded visibility conditions 

projected for 2018. The CALPUFF 

emissions modeled for BART are 

representative of maximum emission 

rates and are therefore usually 

significantly larger (often in the range of 

double) than average emission rates 

used in CAMx modeling for a 

reasonable progress analysis. One of the 

main metric differences is that the 

CALPUFF analysis for BART utilizes a 

clean background and compares the 8th 

highest daily maximum impact from the 

specific source modeled to compare 

against a 0.5 dv threshold to indicate 

significant impacts while the visibility 

benefit that was estimated by Texas to 

assess the benefit of additional controls 

for reasonable progress was based on a 

‘‘dirty’’ or degraded background and 

average benefits over the 20% worst 

days observed by the monitor at the 

Class I area which may or may not be 

inclusive of the highest impact days 

from the specific source modeled with 

CALPUFF for BART. As we discuss in 

detail in the FIP TSD, because the 

deciview metric is a logarithmic 

function of extinction, visibility impacts 

and improvement calculated based on 

‘‘dirty’’ conditions are substantially 

lower than those calculated based on 

natural ‘‘clean’’ conditions.132 These 

differences were not considered in 

Texas’ visibility analysis and selection 

of threshold. We note that Texas did 

calculate visibility impacts compared to 

natural visibility conditions and focused 

on the maximum impact from the 

modeled sources in their BART 

visibility analysis, which also relied on 

CAMx photochemical modeling, to 

determine the significance of visibility 

impacts from BART sources for BART 

screening purposes. However, in 

assessing the benefit of additional 

controls for reasonable progress, Texas 

only considered visibility benefits 

averaged over the 20% worst days based 

on a ‘‘dirty’’ or degraded background. 

The difference between comparing 

visibility improvement on a ‘‘clean’’ and 

‘‘dirty’’ background is analogous to 

comparing the change in sound volume 

that would occur if one person stopped 

singing loudly in an empty room (clean 

background) to the change that would 

occur if one person stops singing loudly 

in a room crowded with a 100 people 

singing loudly (dirty background). In 

both cases, to return the room to natural 

background sound level, the individual 

singers must be addressed, but there 

will be little or no perceptible difference 

in volume when one singer in the 

crowded room stops singing. To carry 

the analogy further, our analysis was 

designed to identify the Texas sources 

with the greatest visibility impact (the 

loudest singers) and address them in 

this first planning period. 

Second, the 0.5 dv threshold in the 

context of BART is used to assess the 

maximum total visibility impact from 

all BART units at a facility. If the impact 

from all the BART sources at a facility 

is above the threshold, then each BART 

unit must be evaluated for controls, and 

therefore the visibility improvement 

anticipated from controls would be less 

than 0.5 dv on a facility basis, and much 

less than 0.5 dv on a unit specific basis 

for BART sources with multiple BART 

units. For these reasons, the BART 

threshold of 0.5 dv has no relation to the 

analysis Texas performed and is 

inappropriate. We also note that we 

discuss in the preamble to the final 

Regional Haze Rule and Guidelines for 

BART Determinations that a threshold 

less than 0.5 dv may be appropriate.133

Even setting aside Texas’ approach of 

aggregating sources with varying 

impacts on visibility, the use of a 0.5 dv 

threshold as applied by Texas for 

determining the significance of visibility 

benefits of all controls combined would 

have ensured that little visibility 

improvement would occur during this 

planning period. Texas and Oklahoma 

acknowledged in their SIP submittals 

that sources in Texas have a large 

impact on visibility at the Wichita 

Mountains; indeed, the visibility 

impacts at this Class I area from Texas 

point sources are several times greater 

than the impacts from Oklahoma’s own 

point sources. Based on CENRAP 2018 

modeling, all point sources in Texas 

combined have a visibility impact in 

terms of light extinction of 10.58 Mm¥1

at the Wichita Mountains, which based 

on ‘‘dirty’’ 2018 CENRAP projected 

background conditions equals a 1.34 dv 

impact for the 20% worst days. 

Therefore, adopting the 0.5 dv 

threshold, using Texas’ approach to 

assessing reasonable progress measures, 

would require the identification of a 

control set large enough (and with a 

correspondingly large total cost) to 

address over one-third of the total 

impacts from all Texas point sources, 

before the visibility benefit would be 

considered significant. To put this into 

context, achieving the national goal at 

the Texas Class I areas will require just 

over ten deciviews of improvement 

(approximately a reduction in light 

extinction of 35 Mm¥1), a task that EPA 

has estimated could reasonably take 

until 2064. Given that the Regional Haze 

Rule recognizes that improving 

visibility is an iterative process that will 

take many years, declining to establish 

any additional measures to ensure 

reasonable progress until Texas could 

identify a combined set of cost-effective 

and affordable controls that could 

achieve 0.5 dv or more improvement is 

unreasonable, especially when there are 

cost-effective and affordable controls 

that result in meaningful visibility 

improvements towards the goal of 

natural conditions. We also note that 

delaying even incremental action during 

this first planning period pushes out the 

likely date of achieving natural 

conditions well past 2064. 

Comment: Earthjustice stated that 

based on its analysis,134 our proposed 

FIP would result in billions of dollars in 

public health benefits. According to 

Earthjustice, the same pollutants that 

cause visibility impairment also cause 

significant public health impacts. 

Nitrogen oxides are precursors to 

ground level ozone, which is associated 

with respiratory diseases, asthma 

attacks, and decreased lung function. 

Similarly, sulfur dioxide increases 

asthma symptoms, leads to increased 

hospital visits, and can form 

particulates that aggravate respiratory 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 325 

135 Guidance for estimating natural visibility 

conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA, 

September 2003, p 1–11. 

136Appendix 2–2 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP. 

137The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the Federal Land Managers) and regional 

planning organizations. See our proposal for 

additional information on the IMPROVE program 

and the new IMPROVE equation. 

138 79 FR 74832 

139Note that although natural conditions are 

ultimately expressed in deciviews (dv), the 

IMPROVE equation first calculates aerosol 

extinctions by contributions to extinction by all 

relevant species, of which coarse mass and fine soil 

are two. Total extinction is then converted to 

deciviews. 

and heart diseases and cause premature 

death. We received many additional 

comments from groups, private citizens, 

and a member of Congress that 

expressed similar public health, welfare, 

and economic benefits, including 

ecosystem and tourism benefits. 

Response: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

potential health benefits of air pollution 

controls to improve air quality In Class 

I areas. We generally agree that the same 

emissions that cause visibility 

impairment can also cause health 

related problems, such as respiratory 

ones. We agree that although our action 

addresses visibility impairment, our FIP 

requires emissions reductions that will 

result in co-benefits for public health, 

welfare, and economic benefits. 

However, for purposes of this action, we 

are not authorized to specifically 

consider these types of benefits under 

the regional haze program. 

M. Natural Conditions 

Comment: We received comments 

from the TCEQ and a number of 

facilities and trade organizations that we 

should have approved Texas’ natural 

conditions calculations for Big Bend 

and the Guadalupe Mountains. These 

commenters state that Texas rightly 

discarded our default values in favor of 

its refined estimates in accordance with 

our guidance. In doing so, these 

commenters state Texas rightly assumed 

all the visibility impairment due to 

coarse mass and fine soil was due to 

natural causes. Earthjustice stated that 

Texas did not properly support its 

calculations. Earthjustice stated that 

because Carlsbad Caverns in New 

Mexico (approximately 40 miles from 

the Guadalupe Mountains) uses the 

same monitor and we previously 

approved New Mexico’s use of our 

default natural conditions estimate, 

allowing Texas to use a different value 

is inconsistent. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that the Regional Haze Rule 

and our guidance 135 do allow states to 

develop an alternate approach to 

estimate natural visibility conditions. 

However, in adopting an alternate 

approach, that approach must be fully 

supported and documented. The 

TCEQ’s analysis and our own 

observations do support a conclusion 

that much of the contribution of coarse 

mass and fine soil to the visibility 

impairment at the Guadalupe 

Mountains and Big Bend is due to 

natural sources. They do not 

demonstrate that 100% of this 

contribution is due to natural sources. 

Like us, the FLMs did not agree with the 

assumption that 100% of the coarse 

mass and soil was natural, and pointed 

to human activity in the region. The 

FLMs ‘‘suggested that the commission 

could judiciously use 80 percent as the 

natural source of coarse and fine dust 

and 20 percent of coarse and fine dust 

due to human activity.’’ 136 Although 

the TCEQ presented the FLM’s 

suggestion in its SIP, it ultimately 

adopted its own estimate, based on its 

unproven 100% coarse mass and soil 

assumption. Another option that we 

noted in our proposal that was open to 

the states, and the one we used in 

proposing the natural conditions for the 

Texas Class I areas in our FIP, was the 

‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that was 

adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 

2005.137 This refined version of the 

IMPROVE equation provided more 

accurate estimates of some of the factors 

that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. The TCEQ started with this 

refined version of the IMPROVE 

equation, but further altered some of its 

parameters concerning the contributions 

of coarse mass and fine soil, without 

adequate documentation. We found that 

the TCEQ’s documentation was flawed, 

but we are under no obligation to follow 

in the TCEQ’s footsteps and make whole 

its methodology, when we had already 

provided guidance with default natural 

visibility conditions, which were further 

refined by the 2005 IMPROVE Steering 

Committee. We agree with Earthjustice 

that it is reasonable to expect that both 

Carlsbad Caverns and the Guadalupe 

Mountains should have the same or 

nearly the same natural conditions. We 

urge Texas and New Mexico to work 

together to resolve this issue in the next 

planning period. Even as we are 

disapproving Texas’ natural conditions 

estimates, we conclude that our 

determinations for emissions limitations 

for EGUs in the FIP for the first planning 

period would be justified on the basis of 

natural conditions estimates at either 

levels in the SIP or the levels in the FIP, 

given the level of visibility impairment 

at each Class I area above the different 

estimates for natural conditions and the 

availability of cost-effective controls at 

those sources with the largest visibility 

impacts that result in meaningful 

progress towards the natural visibility 

goal. Furthermore, as we noted in our 

proposal, based on both our recalculated 

natural conditions and the Texas natural 

condition estimates that we are 

disapproving, Texas’ Class I areas are 

not projected to meet the uniform rate 

of progress in 2018 according to the 

CENRAP modeling and are not 

projected to meet the goal of natural 

visibility conditions by 2064.138

Comment: Luminant’s contractor 

AECOM noted that in developing its 

SIP, Texas found that some of the 

haziest days at its two Class I areas are 

the result of uncontrollable natural 

conditions such as windblown dust and 

wildfire emissions. AECOM developed a 

daily threshold percentage of total 

aerosol extinction 139 caused by CM, 

OMC, and soil species for each Texas 

Class I area. This threshold was 

developed by constructing histograms of 

the 20% worst days for a ‘‘noticeable 

step-up in frequency’’ of higher 

contributions of CM, OMC, and soil. 

AECOM then added this additional 

extinction to our default natural 

conditions extinctions, resulting in 

alternate natural conditions estimates 

that it suggests we adopt. AECOM states 

that with these new natural conditions, 

the uniform rates of progress will be met 

for Big Bend and the Guadalupe 

Mountains. 

Response: Although AECOM restricts 

its assumption to specific days, it 

nevertheless assumes that all coarse 

mass, organic mass carbon and soil 

visibility impacts at Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains are 100% due to 

natural causes. AECOM provides no 

documentation to support this 

conclusion. Although we agree that 

much of those species contributions are 

due to natural sources, we do not 

believe that all of these contributions 

are due to natural sources. Fires, 

windblown CM and soil do have both 

anthropogenic and natural origins. As 

an initial matter, we believe that 

AECOM erred in assembling its 

histograms. We reconstructed these 

histograms and note they differ 

significantly from those AECOM 

presented. In fact, we believe the 

‘‘noticeable step-up in frequency of 

higher contributions of CM, OMC, and 

soil (i.e., from right to left)’’ that 

AECOM points to is more muted for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
326 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

140 80 FR 50258. 

141 40 CFR 56.5(a)(2). 

142National Environmental Development 

Association’s Clean Air Project v. EPA (NEDA 

CAP), No. 13–1035 (D.C. Cir., May 30, 2014). 

143See for example: (1) Our response to 

Luminant’s comment concerning the ‘‘contribution 

of coal combustion sources’’ in the Alaska SIP, (2) 

Our response to CCP’s comment concerning the 

consideration of visibility in the North Dakota SIP, 

or (3) Our response to CCP’s comment concerning 

Texas’ use of a $2,700/ton cost threshold. 

144See for example: (1) The TCEQ’s comment 

letter at page 14 concerning the Arkansas-Missouri 

consultations, (2) the AECT’s comment letter at 

page 9 that we did not allow Texas to consider 

emissions from natural sources, such as wildfires 

and dust storms, in establishing natural visibility 

conditions, (3) The CCP’s comment letter at page 8 

concerning Texas’ use of a $2,700/ton cost 

threshold. 

145See our FIP TSD, beginning on page A–35, in 

which we explain why key differences in CALPUFF 

and CAMx preclude the comparison of their 

respective results and why CAMx results for RP are 

generally much less than CALPUFF results for 

BART for the same facility/emissions due to the 

model inputs and metrics used. 

both Class I Areas when the histograms 

are assembled correctly, to the point it 

is essentially absent for the Guadalupe 

Mountains. We noted other problems 

that cause us to conclude that AECOM’s 

methodology should not be used. 

Moreover, under the Regional Haze 

Rule, even if it were concluded that the 

uniform rate of progress will be met for 

Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, 

this does not change the requirement 

that the reasonable progress goals be 

selected based on proper consideration 

of the four factors. As discussed in the 

proposal and the RTC document, the 

uniform rate of progress is not a ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ under the Regional Haze Rule. 

N. Consistency With Our Other Regional 

Haze Actions 

We received a number of comments 

alleging specific instances of 

inconsistency with our previous SIPs 

and FIPs, as well as with our regional 

consistency rules at 40 CFR 56.5(a)(1) 

and (2). We have extracted all of these 

alleged instances of inconsistency, and 

we address them in detail in a separate 

consistency section within our RTC 

document. We recognize that we have a 

duty to ensure our regional haze actions 

are carried out in accordance with the 

CAA, Federal regulations, and our 

policies, and are as consistent as 

reasonably possible with other regional 

haze actions as required under our 

regional consistency rules (40 CFR 

56.5(a)(2)), recognizing the fact-specific 

nature of individual regional haze plans 

and determinations. As we discuss 

below, we believe that in this action, 

which is one of the last remaining 

regional haze SIP reviews of the first 

planning period, we have been as 

consistent with our previous actions as 

is reasonably possible. We disagree that 

our action is inconsistent with the 

reasonable progress requirements or our 

prior SIP actions. While our regional 

consistency regulations and policies 

require us to carry out our actions 

pursuant to the CAA in a consistent 

manner across EPA regions as 

reasonably as possible, they do not 

require uniformity between those 

actions in all circumstances and instead, 

‘‘allow for some variation’’ in actions 

taken in different regions.140 As 

explained in detail in the separate 

consistency section of our RTC 

document, we believe that we have 

acted consistently with the CAA and 

our regional haze regulations in taking 

these specific actions for Texas, and in 

accordance with 40 CFR 56.5, our final 

action is ‘‘as consistent as reasonably 

possible’’ 141 with other actions given 

the specific facts presented in Texas and 

Oklahoma. We thus disagree with these 

comments. We note that staff from 

Region 6 have worked closely with EPA 

headquarters throughout the proposed 

and final actions regarding the Texas 

and Oklahoma regional haze 

requirements, including in the analysis 

and conclusions contained in the SIP 

and FIP determinations included in this 

final rule. As explained fully in our RTC 

document, we note that commenters’ 

citation to the National Environmental 

Development Association’s Clean Air 

Project v. EPA (NEDA CAP) case is 

distinguishable from our action here.142

Developing solutions to the complex 

problem of regional haze requires 

effective consultation among states. 

During the first planning period, the 

states worked together through RPOs to 

help develop their regional haze SIPs. 

To assist in this effort, we provided tens 

of millions of dollars to the RPOs 

following the issuance of the 1999 

Regional Haze Rule to fund the 

development of the technical tools and 

analyses necessary to address regional 

haze and to facilitate consultation 

among the states. The states set up five 

RPOs to address visibility impairment 

from a regional perspective. The 

technical analyses done by the RPOs for 

the first round of regional haze SIPs 

greatly increased the understanding of 

the problem of visibility impairment at 

the Federal Class I areas, including that 

of the specific contribution of different 

species of pollutants. 

Given the regional differences in the 

degree of visibility impairment, the 

pollutants of concern, and the impacts 

of fire and international emissions, we 

did not prescribe a one size fits all 

approach to reasonable progress. The 

RPOs accordingly adopted somewhat 

different approaches to recommending 

potential measures to ensure reasonable 

progress. However, the RPOs and the 

states all agreed that large stationary 

sources of SO2 are the typically the 

primary cause or one of the primary 

causes of anthropogenic visibility 

impairment at this time. In addition, in 

some regions of the country, the RPOs 

and the states also recognized NOX as a 

similarly important cause of visibility 

impairment. 

In our review of the regional haze 

SIPs, we have attempted to take into 

account the differences among states in 

assessing the reasonableness of each 

state’s SIP submittal. By its nature, each 

regional haze decision is a very fact 

specific determination requiring the 

consideration of multiple factors. After 

examining all instances of perceived 

inconsistency with other actions, we 

believe that when all of the factors are 

considered in their full context, the 

situation for Texas and Oklahoma 

differs sufficiently from these other 

actions cited as being inconsistent with 

this action to warrant the approach that 

we have taken. Furthermore, we found 

that in many instances some 

commenters reproduced incomplete 

quotes from our previous actions, or 

otherwise took those quotes out of their 

proper context, leading to an inaccurate 

characterization of the facts in some 

cases.143 Often a sentence immediately 

preceding or following the reproduced 

quote in fact provided that context. In 

other cases, commenters called out a 

particular difference between some 

aspect of our technical analysis in 

comparison to what was used in a 

previous SIP or FIP, without providing 

the reasoning for those differences. In 

many other cases, the commenters 

simply misunderstood or otherwise 

misinterpreted the facts.144

Many commenters compared our 

CAMx modeled visibility impairments 

or improvements with those in other 

actions modeled using CALPUFF and 

concluded that our proposed visibility 

improvements were not enough to merit 

controls when compared to those other 

actions. These commenters universally 

failed to account for the differences 

between these two modeling platforms, 

the model inputs, and the metrics 

used.145 Many of these differences result 

in CAMx modeled visibility impacts 

and benefits that are much lower than 

the CALPUFF modeled visibility 

impacts and benefits relied on in other 

actions. As we have noted and 

discussed in separate responses to 

comments and the FIP TSD, the results 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 327 

146 70 FR 39104, 39143. 

of the CAMx modeling we have utilized 

in our analysis cannot be directly 

compared to the results of CALPUFF 

modeling, which has been utilized in 

the vast majority of BART and other 

reasonable progress/long-term strategy 

actions. 

Some commenters criticized us for 

disapproving the reasonable progress 

and long-term strategy consultations 

between Oklahoma and Texas, when 

other state-to-state consultations 

similarly failed to result in additional 

controls. Often these comparisons were 

made without regard to the specific 

facts, such as the magnitude of the 

visibility impacts that Texas sources 

have on the Wichita Mountains in 

Oklahoma in relation to the relative 

impact of the sources in those other 

actions, or the overlooked cost-effective 

controls that were available to Texas 

sources to address those impacts. Other 

commenters’ comparisons simply 

focused on the result without regard to 

the substance: They noted instances 

where two other states consulted and 

neither required additional controls, 

and concluded that Texas was being 

treated unfairly. 

Commenters also argued that our 

proposed disapproval of Texas’ 

reasonable progress analysis was based 

on Texas’ decision not to undertake a 

source-by-source analysis of emission 

controls. The commenters pointed to a 

number of other regional haze SIPs 

approved by EPA where states had 

relied on analyses of the reasonableness 

of controls for various source categories. 

The commenters claimed that these 

examples demonstrate that we accepted 

analyses of source categories in other 

states and that we should not, therefore, 

disapprove Texas’ reasonable progress 

analysis on the grounds that it failed to 

look at controls on a source-by-source 

basis. These commenters ignore the fact 

that Texas’ reasonable progress analysis 

was, in part, based on a source-bysource analysis. However, Texas set that 

analysis aside in favor of comparing the 

combined costs of all controls— not 

those for specific source categories— 

against its calculation of the total 

visibility benefit. More importantly, 

however, as we have explained 

elsewhere in this action, our objection 

to Texas’ approach to evaluating 

potential reasonable progress controls 

was not grounded in whether it used a 

category or source-by-source analysis. 

Rather, our disapproval of Texas’ 

reasonable progress analysis is based on 

the fact that its flawed methodology 

ignored cost-effective controls that, as 

we demonstrated in our proposal, 

would result in significant visibility 

benefits. 

Commenters also raise questions 

concerning our approval of regional 

haze SIPs where states relied on 

implementation of CAIR or CSAPR to 

satisfy BART. The commenters argue we 

repeatedly found that participation in 

these trading programs also satisfied 

reasonable progress obligations for these 

states. One commenter claimed it would 

be illogical to find that CAIR or CSAPR 

was an appropriate substitute for BART 

but to then require controls for 

reasonable progress. We noted in 2005 

that the determination that CAIR 

provided for greater reasonable progress 

than BART did not answer the question 

of whether more than CAIR would be 

required in a regional haze SIP.146 As 

we have explained, we are not finalizing 

our proposal to rely on CSAPR to satisfy 

the BART requirements for EGUs in 

Texas, and at this point it is not certain 

what Texas’ CSAPR budgets will be in 

the future. However, the remand of the 

CSAPR budgets for Texas aside, we do 

not agree that we have been inconsistent 

in our treatment of Texas. These 

commenters ignore the meaningful 

differences between Texas and the states 

cited. These include the significant 

impacts that point sources in Texas 

have on the visibility at the Wichita 

Mountains in Oklahoma, even after the 

projected reductions from CAIR/CSAPR, 

the availability of cost-effective controls 

that would address the largest visibilityimpacting sources, the flaws in Texas’ 

technical evaluation of the reasonable 

progress and long-term strategy 

provisions, and the flawed consultations 

between Texas and Oklahoma. We also 

note that Texas itself did not rely on its 

participation in CAIR to satisfy the 

reasonable progress requirements 

without further consideration of 

controls on its EGUs. Rather, Texas 

considered controls on a combination of 

EGUs and non-EGUs, but ultimately 

rejected them based on a flawed 

analysis of the reasonableness of such 

controls. 

O. Modeling 

Comment: We received comments 

that we should have prepared a 

modeling protocol and made it available 

for public/stakeholder review and 

comment. The commenters state that a 

modeling protocol is required by EPA 

modeling guidance. 

Response: EPA is not required to 

develop a modeling protocol and take 

public comment on it. Our guidance and 

40 CFR part 51 Appendix W do not 

require us to develop a modeling 

protocol for our technical work 

conducted to support review or 

rulemaking. We developed a workplan 

and consulted with national experts at 

EPA HQ as needed to develop the 

proposal that included modeling files, 

documentation of how the modeling 

was conducted and results. We included 

all this information in the materials for 

the proposal and took comment on all 

aspects of our analyses and techniques. 

Comment: We received comments 

that our selection of the CAMx model 

rather than CALPUFF is inappropriate 

and unjustified. The commenters stated 

that we did not justify the use of CAMx 

to model visibility impacts from 

individual sources and at large 

distances, and our use of CAMx here is 

outside of the model’s capabilities. 

Furthermore, these commenters assert 

that our concerns regarding using 

CALPUFF are not clear, and they have 

concerns that overprediction of impacts 

are also present in CAMx and therefore 

do not justify the use of CAMx. These 

commenters also state that we failed to 

consider and discuss bias and 

uncertainty in the modeling results and 

instead relied on the model predictions 

as definitive results. 

Response: We did include a number 

of reasons in our proposal and Modeling 

TSD for our selection of the 

photochemical grid model CAMx over 

CALPUFF. One of the primary reasons 

is we evaluated the Texas SIP for 

reasonable progress and not BART, and 

the differences in the purposes of these 

analyses supports the use of different 

models when the resources are available 

to utilize a photochemical model. 

Reasonable progress requires the 

evaluation of changes in emissions from 

one or more facilities on visibility 

impairment at downwind Class I areas, 

in order to properly account for 

chemical transformations of those 

emissions, the model used must also 

include the other pollutants in the 

airshed, for which CALPUFF is not as 

well suited. Reasonable progress 

analyses typically look at the changes in 

visibility on the 20% worst days, and 

this evaluation was done by most states, 

including Texas and Oklahoma, by 

utilizing a photochemical grid model 

(PGM) such as CAMx or CMAQ and not 

CALPUFF. Therefore, our use of CAMx 

for evaluation of additional potential 

controls is consistent with the state’s 

SIP submission. 

We also discussed our selection of 

CAMx vs. CALPUFF and included in 

the Modeling TSD a number of 

references to performance analysis 

comparisons between the two models. 

There are also many comparisons 

available in journal articles and online 

that support using a photochemical grid 

model (most of these comparison 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
328 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

147Additional information is also included in the 

Environ Memorandums for the 2002 and 2018 

modeling, (TX166–010–08 Memo_TXHAZE_

2002CAMx_ENV_29July2013, TX166–010–09 

Memo_TXHAZE_2018CAMx 16Sept13), the FIP 

TSD, and in the modeling section of our RTC 

document. 

148Texas comments on Draft IPM modeling 

conducted by EPA for potential national rule 

making platform provided on June 26, 2014. In this 

docket’s materials as ‘‘TCEQ comment letter to EPA 

on draft modeling platform dated June 24, 2014 

2018 EMP signed.pdf’’ 

149Some preliminary analyses of meteorology and 

pollution levels in 2014 indicated a higher 

frequency of cold fronts during the summer of 2014 

that led to cleaner air from the arctic mixing with 

the air in the region and resulted in lower pollution 

build-up and transport of pollution to Class I areas 

in Oklahoma and Texas. 

studies are found in the Modeling TSD 

and the rest are in the docket). Some of 

the references we provided in the 

proposal raised concern that the use of 

CALPUFF could result in model overprediction and other model performance 

issues at the distances at which we were 

evaluating most of the sources in our 

proposal. CALPUFF model results are 

used directly, whereas photochemical 

grid model results such as those 

achieved through use of CAMx are 

evaluated with Relative Response 

Factors (RRFs) to help remove potential 

bias concerns. While no model is free 

from bias issues, previous evaluations of 

the CENRAP databases we used for our 

analyses have been evaluated and the 

CENRAP CAMx model performance was 

considered adequate because the 

modeled outputs compared well to past 

measured conditions. As discussed in 

the following response, the only 

changes to the CENRAP basecase CAMx 

modeling we made were to update both 

the CAMx model version used and the 

chemical mechanism in order to use the 

best science and while ensuring model 

performance was still acceptable.147

In sum, there are many reasons for the 

selection of CAMx over CALPUFF for 

the purposes of this rule making. CAMx 

is better suited for evaluating the 

reasonable progress metric of 

improvement on the 20% worst days. It 

is also better suited for evaluating 

multiple sources in a complex airshed. 

In addition many references point to 

CALPUFF’s potential overprediction at 

the distances at issue here. Any bias 

issues in CAMx are ameliorated by 

tethering the model to real monitoring 

data, through the use of relative 

response factors generated by modeling 

of base and future cases to predict future 

monitored values. 

Comments: We received comments 

that we failed to perform a full model 

performance evaluation and instead 

compared model results to the CENRAP 

modeling results despite deviations 

from CENRAP’s modeling protocol. 

These commenters also assert that we 

failed to update the modeled emission 

inventories or consider more recent 

emissions data, such as the 2011 NEI 

and EPA’s recent projected 2018 

emission inventory showing large 

reductions from the Mercury Air Toxics 

Standards Rule (MATS). They state that 

recent monitor data are representative 

and indicate that our modeling is not 

representative of anticipated future 

conditions and was not considered 

during model performance evaluation. 

Response: We did not do a detailed 

model performance of the 2002 basecase 

because that had already been done by 

CENRAP. The only changes we made in 

the 2002 basecase was to use a newer 

version of the CAMx model and an 

updated chemical mechanism to utilize 

improvements in the science for our 

analysis and decisions. As we discussed 

in our proposal materials, these changes 

were not large and did not warrant a full 

model performance evaluation. We did 

compare model results with previous 

results and determined that model 

results were very similar and deemed 

acceptable. It is not uncommon in the 

modeling community to do some small 

updates such as we did and not perform 

a full updated model performance 

analysis. 

With regard to comments that we 

should have performed a more complete 

update of the inventory, a full emission 

inventory update for all emission 

categories such as biogenic, mobile, 

non-road, area, and point sources for 

2002 and 2018 was well beyond the 

scope of our review of the SIP submittal. 

Such an update was not necessary to 

evaluate whether the modeling and 

analyses submitted with the original SIP 

could have led to a conclusion that 

additional reasonable progress controls 

are appropriate. Once our evaluation 

concluded that it could be appropriate 

for some sources to be better controlled 

for reasonable progress, we did do 

minor updates to evaluate the most 

recent emission levels of EGUs in Texas 

for the ones being further evaluated for 

potential controls in our 2018 

emissions. Because of the additional 

focus on these particular sources it was 

appropriate to use more up to date 

emissions. We also used the most recent 

CAMx model version and updated 

chemical mechanism that included 

improvements to the source 

apportionment of single point sources 

and plume in grid algorithms to use the 

most recent science for our evaluations. 

We evaluated the existing CENRAP 

2002 and 2018 emission inventories and 

whether to update parts of these 

emission inventories in 2018. After our 

initial modeling analyses, we did 

update emissions for the EGUs 

evaluated for potential controls to use 

recent actuals in the 2018 modeling, 

which were thought to better represent 

emissions from EGUs in Texas based on 

comments from Texas and EGU 

owners.148 We also updated the 2018 

emissions for two other sources based 

on permitting and additional controls. 

We considered updating the EGU 

inventory with the emissions inventory 

from the modeling performed for the 

MATS rulemaking. At the time of 

proposal, the best information available 

was that no other major controls were 

planned to be installed on EGUs in 

Texas for SO2 emissions in response to 

MATS, therefore using the recent 

actuals that we used for 2018 emission 

rates (prior to any potential reasonable 

progress controls) was the most 

reasonable emission inventory to use in 

our further modeling. 

Lastly, we disagree with the 

commenter that the SIP modeling and 

our further evaluation of 2018 expected 

levels are not representative. In fact, the 

recent ambient monitoring data at the 

IMPROVE sites in the three Class I areas 

(2011–2013) are influenced by 

meteorology that has lower than normal 

transport of pollution from sources in 

Texas when compared to the base 

period on which projections are based 

(2000–2004) and to the 30-year 

meteorology analysis of transport to the 

three Class I areas (1984–2013). Thus, 

examining the 2011–2013 time period 

overstates the progress that can be 

expected over long term. In response to 

comments and information provided we 

conducted further analysis to 

appropriately evaluate whether the base 

period was suited for projections to 

2018 and also an analysis of how the 

meteorology accompanying the more 

recent monitoring data for 2011–2013 

compared to normal meteorology 

conditions. We further note that 2014 

also was not quite a normal year 149 and 

likely similarly biased low for visibility 

impacts at the Class I areas, but even so 

monitoring data in 2014 did increase 

compared to the 2011–13 data. Overall, 

we conclude that our evaluation of 2002 

and 2018 levels and the controls needed 

for reasonable progress are based on 

representative periods and that recent 

monitoring trends are not as 

representative and not expected to 

continue if meteorology is more in line 

with 30-year climatological and 

transport norms. 

Comment: We received comments 

that CAMx is not the approved model in 

40 CFR part 51, appendix W for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 329 

150 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, Section 6.2.1 

(e&f). 

151EPA, TCEQ, and FLM representatives verbally 

approved the approach in 2006 and in email 

exchange with TCEQ representatives in February 

2007 (see email from Erik Snyder (EPA) to Greg 

Nudd of TCEQ Feb. 13, 2007 and response email 

from Greg Nudd to Erik Snyder Feb. 15, 2007). 

152App. W, Section 7.2.9(a) ‘‘. . . Therefore, 

model calibration is unacceptable.’’ 

153HYSPLIT is a model developed by NOAA to 

utilize national meteorological modeling files to 

assess potential air transport. 

154The HYSPLIT model is designed to utilize 

archived meteorological fields to generate back 

trajectories. The model user will pick a certain 

receptor (in this case one of the Class I Areas) and 

a specific time (in this case an hour on the day 

when monitoring indicated there was high visibility 

impairment) and then the model will assess the 

meteorological fields and use the wind speed and 

direction for previous hours to indicate a centerline 

trajectory of where the air that was monitored was 

in the hours before the day and time selected. In 

essence the product is usually a jagged curved line 

with hourly wind vectors that traces back a 

centerline for a number of hours (example 72 

hours). The back trajectory is a centerline of the 

wind and the model user has to keep in mind that 

dispersion and mixing occur so there are areas on 

either side that can contribute as well and the 

further back in time the back trajectory is processed 

the wider the areas on either side of the centerline 

that could have contributed becomes. 

155NOAA is National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. NOAA is the developer of 

HYSPLIT and has previously provided draft 

guidance on the use of the HYSPLIT model. 

modeling long-range transport for 

visibility. 

Response: Neither the regional haze 

regulations nor appendix W requires the 

use of a specific preferred model for 

photochemical grid modeling for 

visibility (regional haze), but we have 

approved the use of regional scale 

photochemical grid models such as 

REMSAD and CMAQ.150 CAMx is 

another regional scale photochemical 

grid model that was utilized by the 

RPOs and states and approved by EPA. 

CENRAP conducted its final CAMx 

source apportionment modeling for the 

regional haze analysis to be utilized in 

consultations of its nine state members 

in development of their SIPs. We 

approved most of these SIPs that 

included modeling analyses using 

CAMx and CAMx is clearly acceptable 

for evaluating long range transport for 

visibility. Texas also used CAMx in its 

reasonable progress analysis. 

Furthermore, Texas used CAMx to 

screen small groups of sources and 

individual sources as part of its BART 

screening and we approved that 

approach in 2006/7,151 based on 

modeling enhancements that Texas 

contracted to be developed to assist in 

assessing single point source visibility 

impacts on visibility at Class I areas. 

The visibility impact analysis we 

performed with CAMx is commensurate 

with the work originally done by Texas 

in 2006/7 for its BART screening. 

Overall, Appendix W gives us 

discretionary authority in the selection 

of what models to use for visibility 

assessments with modeling systems, 

and models such as CALPUFF, CMAQ, 

REMSAD, and CAMx that have all been 

used for that purpose. In this specific 

situation we determined that CAMx had 

the best scientific modeling approaches 

and tolls and was best suited for the 

complex analysis that we needed to 

perform. 

Comment: We received comments 

that our CAMx modeling significantly 

overstates visibility impacts and 

improvements on which we based our 

proposal. Commenters describe the 

ETEX and CAPTEX tracer studies and 

conclude that the results of these 

studies prove that CAMx overestimates 

visibility impacts by a factor of 3. These 

commenters also claim that these results 

also show an overestimate in CALPUFF 

results by a factor of 6 (ETEX) or a factor 

of 3 to 4 (CAPTEX). When this factor of 

3 over-prediction is taken into 

consideration, commenters state, using 

the over-prediction amount to scale 

down modeled visibility improvement 

from controls results in small 

improvements and controls should not 

be required. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters’ conclusion about the ETEX 

and CAPTEX tracer studies and the 

relevance of these tracer study analyses. 

The analysis provided allegedly 

indicating that CAMx overestimates 

visibility impacts by a factor of 3 is an 

incorrect interpretation and has flaws in 

the evaluation and conclusions. Details 

on our technical evaluation and 

conclusions on why the commenters’ 

analysis is flawed is in the RTC 

document. We do not condone the 

calibration of model results to try to 

adjust for potential biases.152

Furthermore, the bias amount indicated 

by the commenter is flawed and is based 

on limited sampling of model 

performance evaluations that exist. As 

stated in a response above, our CAMx 

modeling analysis utilized a technique 

called RRF that limits the potential 

impacts of modeling performance issues 

since the modeling results are used in 

a relative sense and absolute modeling 

values are not directly used. Due to this 

and other reasons, we do not think that 

the CAMx modeling overstates the 

impacts. In fact, several pieces of 

information indicate the impacts may be 

underestimated (see modeling section of 

the RTC document for full discussion 

and references). Some information 

indicates that using Plume-In Grid may 

result in underestimation of a source’s 

impacts. As discussed previously, in 

particular in the Cost versus Visibility 

Benefit and Modeling sections, we also 

disagree that the impacts are small, and 

we do think the impacts are large 

enough and the benefits of lowering 

emissions to meet the FIP emission 

limits are great enough to require these 

reductions. As discussed in a separate 

response to comment in this section, the 

CALPUFF modeling submitted by the 

commenter had flaws and is not 

appropriate even before they did their 

inappropriate scaling of results. 

Comment: Commenters provided back 

trajectory data (72 hours, 500m) using 

HYSPLIT 153 and monitored data for 

2002 and 2011–2013 for the 20% worst 

days for Big Bend, the Guadalupe 

Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains. 

They conclude that these data show that 

only a small number of back 

trajectories 154 come from regions with 

sources being analyzed and considered 

for controls. For Big Bend, the backtrajectories submitted by the 

commenters show the majority of backtrajectories coming from Mexico. For the 

Guadalupe Mountains, back-trajectories 

also primarily came from Mexico and 

visibility impairment is mostly due to 

natural sources. Back-trajectories for the 

Wichita Mountains rarely come from 

sources that we are proposing to control. 

Response: The commenters’ back 

trajectory analysis for the base period 

and 2011–2013 is flawed and did not 

follow the NOAA draft guidance they 

cited and appropriate HYSPLIT 

modeling techniques.155 In addition, our 

evaluation, discussed in the modeling 

section of the RTC document, shows 

that the 2011–13 time period is not 

representative of climatological norms 

regarding the transport wind flows to 

the three Class I areas. We also find that 

the base time period 2000–2004 was 

more representative of climatological 

norms. 

We reached these conclusions by 

performing our own HYSPLIT modeling 

of a 30-year period (1984–2013) and 

concluded that in years with wind flow 

patterns consistent with the 

climatological norms over that period a 

significant number of days have back 

trajectories that did include areas where 

the sources proposed for additional 

controls are located. Furthermore our 

analysis of the 2011–13 period which 

was less representative of normal 

pollution transport patterns also showed 

a number of back trajectories went 

through or near the areas with the 

sources being considered for controls. 

Therefore these back trajectories do 

indicate the sources being considered 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
330 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

156This is the definition in the Regional Haze 

Rule, but it contains an obvious typographical error. 

It should be interpreted to mean that visibility on 

the most impaired days is defined as stated. 

for control would be expected to reduce 

visibility impacts at the three Class I 

areas. 

Our analysis of 30-years of back 

trajectories to assess whether the 2011– 

13 and 2000–2004 periods were within 

the climatological norm also indicated 

that the base period (2000–2004) was 

more similar to the climatological norm 

than the 2011–2013 period, so we 

conclude that using the base period is 

more representative for projecting 2018 

levels. 

In sum, the number of trajectories that 

go near the sources in Texas is large 

enough to not rule them out from 

consideration for potential control. In 

general, we have treated back 

trajectories as a tool to potentially 

screen an area out if no trajectories go 

through an area but if some trajectories 

go through an area then the area may be 

evaluated further or, as in this case, the 

full analysis may rely on more 

sophisticated tools such as CAMx. 

The commenter indicated that a 

number of back trajectories went 

through Mexico but failed to mention 

that many of these also went through 

Texas. Therefore, sources in Mexico and 

Texas could contribute emissions to the 

visibility impairment at the Class I 

Areas. We have concluded that the back 

trajectory data provided by the 

commenter do not support their 

assertions that transport from the 

regions with those sources we are 

controlling is rare. The data they have 

provided are inconsistent with the 

guidance and general practices and are 

for years that are not representative of 

normal climatological patterns with 

respect to transport wind flow to the 

Class I areas. Furthermore, the back 

trajectories submitted by the commenter 

do in fact show transport from regions 

of Texas for some days. Our additional 

analysis identified the normal wind 

patterns over a 30-year period and 

determined that based on normal 

conditions, transport does occur from 

the regions in Texas with those sources 

we are controlling. 

HYSPLIT is a meteorological transport 

model but does not assess the 

dispersion of and impacts from 

pollutants from differing sources and 

does not have chemistry to correctly 

assess the potential impacts of 

secondary particulate matter. We used 

the CAMx model, which does account 

for pollutants and utilizes atmospheric 

chemistry mechanisms to calculate 

changes in visibility impacts from the 

proposed emission reductions at 

specific sources. As discussed in a 

response to comment above in this 

section, photochemical grid models 

such as CAMx are best suited for this 

analysis and determination of the 

benefit of potential emission reductions. 

Comment: Commenters submitted 

CALPUFF modeling for Coleto Creek 

Unit 1 for 2004–2006. Results indicate 

that visibility impacts from the facility 

are below the 0.5 dv subject to BART 

threshold. The commenter states that 

tracer studies suggest CALPUFF 

overestimates visibility impacts by a 

factor of 4.5 (on average) and adjusts the 

CALPUFF model results down by this 

factor. The commenter concludes that 

Coleto Creek’s calibrated impacts are 

very small and any visibility benefit 

from controls would be even smaller. 

Response: We have reviewed the 

CALPUFF modeling provided for Coleto 

Creek Unit 1 and do not concur with the 

conclusions that Coleto Creek’s impacts 

are small. We have a number of 

concerns with the CALPUFF modeling 

provided: (1) It utilizes the wrong years 

for modeling; (2) the modeling does not 

comply with the original BART 

CALPUFF modeling protocol that Texas 

and EPA approved; and (3) it uses some 

inappropriate assumptions, including 

the calibrating of modeling results based 

on limited analyses using other 

databases and locations that are not 

directly comparable to assessing 

impacts from Coleto Creek’s units. The 

0.5 dv threshold was utilized as a BART 

threshold, but our action is for 

reasonable progress and the 0.5 dv 

threshold was not set as an applicable 

threshold in the Regional Haze Rules for 

reasonable progress (see response in the 

Cost versus Visibility Benefit section of 

this document). We used a 

photochemical grid model which is 

more scientifically robust than the 

CALPUFF modeling system and is more 

appropriate for longer transport 

distances, such as the distances between 

Coleto Creek and the Class I areas in 

Texas and Oklahoma. We performed a 

multi-tiered analysis in order to identify 

the Texas facilities with the largest 

impacts on visibility at Class I areas (in 

Texas and Oklahoma) and Coleto 

Creek’s facility did rank as one of the 

largest impacting sources of the more 

than 1,600 sources considered in Texas. 

As discussed in another response in this 

section, we do not condone calibrating 

CALPUFF model output values. We 

discuss the commenters’ use of the 

tracer studies in the RTC document but 

their analysis and conclusions are 

flawed and not representative of the 

larger collection of information 

available that also is discussed in more 

detail in the RTC document. In 

conclusion, based on our analysis with 

CAMx, we think both the visibility 

impacts of the sources and the benefits 

from the proposed emission reductions 

are large enough to be beneficial for 

reasonable progress. 

Comment: Focusing on visibility 

impacts on the 20% worst days ignores 

larger impacts from these sources and 

other sources on other days. This 

approach is also inconsistent with 

CALPUFF modeling for BART of the 

maximum impact from a source for 

comparison with a 0.5 dv threshold. 

Consideration of impacts on other days 

will identify sources for control analysis 

that will result in visibility 

improvement on other days and make 

progress towards the goal of natural 

visibility conditions. 

Response: Under the reasonable 

progress and long-term strategy 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, 

the state or EPA in promulgating a FIP 

must establish reasonable progress goals 

that provide for improvement on the 

most impaired days, demonstrate that 

the established goals are reasonable and 

develop coordinated emission 

management strategies to achieve those 

goals. The most impaired days are 

defined as the average visibility 

impairment for the 20% of monitored 

days in a calendar year with the highest 

amount of visibility impairment.156

Because the rule focuses on improving 

visibility on the most impacted days, we 

believe it is reasonable and appropriate 

to focus our analysis on sources that 

significantly impact visibility on those 

20% worst days. While we generally 

agree with the commenter that this may 

ignore visibility impacts from sources 

that impact visibility on days other than 

the most impaired days, visibility 

impairment on the current 20% worst 

days will be reduced as a result of 

controls implemented to address 

visibility impairment for this first 

planning period, and we believe that in 

the future the most impaired days may 

shift and be impacted by different 

sources. Analysis and development of 

future regional haze SIPs for future 

planning periods can aim to address 

those sources that impact any new set 

of most impaired days. Furthermore, 

targeted reductions at those sources that 

significantly impact the most impaired 

days will also result in improved 

visibility on days outside of the most 

impaired days. 

CALPUFF modeling is used to 

provide estimates of the maximum 

visibility impacts from a source based 

on maximum emissions and simplified 

chemistry, irrespective of the 

relationship to the 20% worst days. It is 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 331 

157See TX-116-007-_33_Vis_modeling_

summary.xlsx in the docket to this action for 

visibility benefits of controls. 

possible that CALPUFF modeling of 

some of the subset of the 38 sources 

identified based on Q/d that were not 

analyzed for additional controls could 

show significant impacts on the 

maximum or 98th percentile day, but 

our CAMx photochemical modeling 

(which includes all emissions sources 

and has a realistic representation of 

formation, transport, and removal 

processes of particulate matter that 

causes visibility degradation) provides 

additional information that allows for 

the identification of the sources with the 

greatest impacts on the 20% worst days. 

Comment: EPA should have required 

additional controls on sources beyond 

what we proposed in our FIP to assure 

even greater reasonable progress. 

Certain controls are reasonable and 

consistent with the proposed controls 

when impacts at Class I areas other than 

the Texas Class I areas and the Wichita 

Mountains are considered. Some 

specific facilities, such as Oklaunion 

and H.W. Pirkey, fall above the 0.3% 

impact threshold for impacts at the 

Class I areas of interest and should have 

been evaluated for controls. EPA 

evaluated controls for Parish and Welsh 

but did not require controls despite 

significant visibility benefit and 

reasonable costs. 

Response: We focused our control 

analysis on the Texas Class I areas and 

the Wichita Mountains. As discussed in 

more detail elsewhere in this action, we 

are disapproving portions of the Texas 

and Oklahoma regional haze SIPs, 

including the Texas long-term strategy 

consultation, the Oklahoma reasonable 

progress consultation, the Oklahoma 

established reasonable progress goal for 

Wichita Mountains and the Texas 

reasonable progress/long-term strategy 

analysis and consideration of reasonable 

controls at Texas sources necessary to 

establish the Texas and Oklahoma 

reasonable progress goals. In developing 

a FIP to address the deficiencies in the 

Oklahoma and Texas SIPs, we had to 

analyze the visibility impacts and the 

availability of reasonable progress 

controls at Texas sources that impact 

visibility at the two Texas Class I areas 

and the Wichita Mountains and 

establish reasonable progress goals 

including consideration of an 

appropriate reasonable progress control 

analysis for these areas. We expect New 

Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, and 

Missouri to consider remaining impacts 

from Texas sources on their Class I areas 

including the information on visibility 

impacts from specific sources provided 

by our analysis, as well as incorporate 

corrections and updates to emission 

reductions in consultations and 

development of their regional haze SIPs 

for the next planning period. 

We disagree with commenters and we 

note, as further detailed in our RTC 

document, that when recent actual 

emissions and unit-level visibility 

impacts are considered, the units at the 

facilities identified by the commenters, 

such as Oklaunion and Pirkey, fall 

below the percent of visibility 

impairment threshold we established to 

identify units for additional control 

analysis. This threshold was established 

to identify a reasonable set of units that 

had the greatest visibility impacts for 

additional control analysis for this 

planning period. We note that any 

increases in actual emissions at these 

facilities in the future should be 

considered during development of the 

regional haze SIP for future planning 

periods. In future planning periods, as 

the facilities with the greatest impacts 

are controlled, the percent of total 

visibility impairment due to these lower 

impact facilities will increase and they 

in turn should be considered for 

additional control. 

Considering the visibility benefits and 

costs, we disagree that we should have 

required controls on units at Parish and 

Welsh. In evaluating the cost of 

controls, we also weighed how effective 

the reductions were in achieving 

visibility benefits. We considered the 

anticipated visibility benefit in 

deciviews (for both a ‘‘dirty 

background’’ and a ‘‘clean background’’) 

as well as the reduction in extinction 

and the percentage of visibility 

impairment addressed by the controls. 

Based on our evaluation of these 

visibility metrics within the cost factor 

of the four-factor reasonable progress 

analysis, we determined that additional 

controls on Parish and Welsh were not 

required for reasonable progress for the 

first planning period. In the FIP TSD 

and the proposed FIP, we note lesser 

visibility improvement benefits at the 

three Class I areas for the W. A. Parish 

and Welsh units compared to the 

benefits at other facilities that mainly 

impact the Wichita Mountains. We also 

note that when considering the costs of 

controls and the relative visibility 

benefit, the Parish scrubber retrofits 

would be slightly more expensive with 

respect to $/ton but would be much less 

effective in improving visibility at the 

Wichita Mountains, when compared to 

the required controls at the Monticello 

or Coleto Creek units. For the Welsh 

scrubber retrofits, the costs ($/ton) 

would be approximately 50% greater 

than the cost of scrubber retrofits at 

Monticello or Coleto Creek and would 

result in approximately 50% less 

visibility improvement at the Wichita 

Mountains. We also considered 

comments on cumulative visibility 

benefits of these controls and 

determined that the cumulative 

visibility benefits of each new scrubber 

at the Parish and Welsh units would be 

less than those at each of the units 

where we proposed scrubber retrofits 

and less than that at each of the units 

with proposed scrubber upgrades with 

the exception of Limestone, at a cost 

significantly higher than the estimated 

cost of scrubber upgrades. Similarly, the 

total cumulative visibility benefit of 

controlling the three units at Welsh and 

the four units at Parish would be less 

than half the benefit from all the 

required scrubber retrofits or all the 

required scrubber upgrades, and at a 

greater average $/ton cost.157 While 

controlling the Welsh and Parish units 

would result in some additional 

cumulative visibility improvement, 

based on our evaluation and weighing of 

the cost and consideration of the 

visibility benefits of these controls at the 

Wichita Mountains, we determined 

their individual projected visibility 

improvements do not merit the 

installation of scrubbers at this time. We 

encourage the State of Texas to reevaluate this determination as part of its 

next regional haze SIP submittal and we 

note that as the required controls are 

implemented the significance of impacts 

and potential benefits from the Parish 

and Welsh units will increase in terms 

of percentage of extinction. As 

discussed in the modeling section of the 

RTC document, we disagree with 

comments that this determination is 

inconsistent with the determination to 

require controls at Tolk Station or with 

the determination of required controls 

in other states for the purpose of 

reasonable progress. 

We agree with the commenter that on 

a $/ton basis, scrubber upgrades on 

Parish unit 8 are very cost-effective. 

However, the visibility benefit and 

reduction in emissions from this control 

would be very low when compared to 

all the other evaluated scrubber 

upgrades. The estimated visibility 

benefit from upgrading the scrubber 

would be an order of magnitude less 

than all the other evaluated scrubber 

upgrades and not large enough to 

require as reasonable progress for this 

planning period. 

Comment: EPA should have analyzed 

oil and gas sources and NOX controls for 

certain point sources in Texas. 

Response: With regards to comments 

on additional controls for NOX, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
332 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

158 79 FR 74838. 

159 ‘‘Other 29’’ refers to the facilities identified as 

having the greatest potential to impact visibility 

based on the Q/d analysis but were then eliminated 

from further analysis based on photochemical 

modeling results. ‘‘1,600 +’’ refers to all point 

sources in Texas from the TCEQ’s 2009 point source 

inventory. 

160 79 FR 74838. 

161As discussed elsewhere, San Miguel has 

already upgraded its scrubber and therefore it was 

not included in our modeling analysis of additional 

controls and not included among the nine facilities 

discussed here. In our FIP, we are finalizing our 

determination that San Miguel maintains an 

emission rate consistent with recent monitoring 

data. 

discussed in the proposed FIP, we agree 

with Texas that the predominant 

anthropogenic emissions impacting 

visibility are nitrate and sulfate 

emissions, primarily from point 

sources.158 As described in more detail 

in the FIP TSD, in our initial analysis 

we focused on point sources and we 

identified facilities with the greatest 

potential to impact visibility based on a 

Q/d analysis considering both SO2 and 

NOX emissions. We then used 

photochemical modeling to estimate the 

visibility impacts due to the emissions 

from these facilities, considering SO2, 

NOX, and all other emitted pollutants. 

Based on the results of that visibility 

modeling, we identified a subset of 

facilities for additional control analysis 

and determined that the visibility 

impacts due to these facilities was 

almost entirely due to their sulfate 

emissions. Therefore, we determined 

that to address the visibility impacts on 

the 20% worst days from these sources, 

it was only necessary to evaluate sulfate 

controls for this planning period. Our 

analysis identified those sources that 

had the greatest visibility impacts, 

which we then further analyzed for 

controls. This analysis did not identify 

any individual point sources (with the 

exception of the PPG Glass Works 

facility) with significant visibility 

impacts due to NOX emissions among 

the group of sources with the greatest 

visibility impacts. We address our 

evaluation of NOX controls for the PPG 

Glass Works in our RTC document. 

Oil and gas emissions are the largest 

component of area source emissions but 

are only part of the total NOX area 

source emissions. Oil and gas sources 

that fall within the point source 

category were considered in our initial 

Q/d analysis and photochemical 

modeling used to identify sources for 

additional control analysis. Similarly 

with regard to comments on controlling 

oil and gas sources, visibility impacts 

from NOX emissions from area sources 

are relatively small compared to impacts 

from point sources of SO2 and NOX at 

the Class I areas impacted by Texas 

emissions. Focusing on point source 

emissions of NOX and SO2 captured 

those sources with the greatest impacts 

on visibility and was a reasonable 

approach for this planning period. 

Comment: Visibility impairment from 

the ‘‘Other 29’’ sources not analyzed for 

controls are still significant and 

additional controls should be required. 

Furthermore, some of the ‘‘1,600 +’’ 

sources not further analyzed collectively 

contribute to total visibility 

impairment.159

Response: Our Reasonable Progress 

Guidance discusses the steps to follow 

in identifying reasonable controls and 

establishing reasonable progress goals. 

The key pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment at each Class I 

area should be determined. ‘‘Once the 

key pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment at each Class I area have 

been identified, the sources or source 

categories responsible for emitting these 

pollutants or pollutant precursors can 

also be determined. There are several 

tools and techniques being employed by 

the RPOs to do so, including analysis of 

emission inventories, source 

apportionment, trajectory analysis, and 

atmospheric modeling’’ (page 3–1). As 

discussed in more detail in our proposal 

and in a separate response to comment 

in the modeling section of the RTC 

document, we determined that it was 

reasonable to focus our analysis on 

point sources of SO2 and NOX.160 This 

was based on review of emissions and 

source apportionment results indicating 

that these sources were most 

responsible for anthropogenic 

contributions to visibility impairment. 

We then used a Q/d analysis to identify 

those sources with the greatest potential 

to impact visibility based on emissions 

and distance. Additional analysis using 

photochemical grid modeling was then 

completed to estimate the visibility 

impact from those sources. Based on 

consideration of facility level and 

estimated contributions to visibility 

from units at the modeled facilities, we 

identified those sources that had the 

greatest visibility impacts to analyze for 

additional controls. We agree with the 

commenter that collectively the ‘‘Other 

29’’ sources and ‘‘1,600+’’ sources 

contribute a sizeable percentage of the 

total visibility impairment. However, on 

an individual basis, these point sources 

have lower contributions and smaller 

potential for visibility improvements 

relative to the nine facilities evaluated 

for additional controls. For example, the 

proposed controls on only 7 facilities 

address 5.8% of the total visibility 

impairment at the Wichita Mountains, 

while controls on all of the ‘‘Other 29’’ 

sources would address 4.4% of the total 

visibility impairment. Consistent with 

our guidance, we identified those key 

pollutants and sources with the greatest 

impact on visibility impairment for this 

first planning period. We also note that 

the ‘‘Other 29’’ includes impacts from 

San Miguel and the PPG Glass Works 

facility that were considered for 

additional controls, and the JT Deely 

units that are scheduled to shutdown in 

2018. 

The Regional Haze Rule requires the 

identification of reasonable progress 

controls and the development of 

coordinated emission control strategies 

in order to make reasonable progress 

towards the goal of natural visibility 

conditions. Faced with a very large and 

unwieldy universe of sources, we 

followed our guidance and chose an 

approach that focused on the portion of 

the universe of Texas sources that 

contributed the greatest impact to 

visibility impairment, by establishing a 

threshold of 0.3% contribution to total 

visibility impairment on a unit basis for 

this planning period, thereby 

identifying a reasonable set of units at 

nine facilities to analyze for additional 

controls.161 Our four-factor analysis 

concluded that controls on units at 

seven of the nine facilities analyzed for 

additional controls were required. As 

these controls are implemented, the 

percentage impact from those facilities 

not controlled will become larger (on a 

percentage basis) and will be analyzed 

in future planning periods. In other 

words, some of the ‘‘Other 29’’ will be 

identified as the greatest impacting 

sources and should in turn be analyzed 

for additional reasonable progress 

controls in a future planning period. 

This methodology can be used as a 

consistent procedure to identify 

facilities for additional control analysis 

in this and future planning periods and 

would ensure continuing progress 

towards the goal of natural visibility 

conditions. The USDA Forest Service 

commented that ‘‘the methodology and 

metrics that EPA used are the most 

comprehensive seen to date for any SIP/ 

FIP in the country that we have 

reviewed, and should serve as a model 

for future efforts to consider the 

contribution and/or potential benefits of 

individual sources to visibility.’’ 

Comment: We received comments on 

the methodology used to identify 

sources for analysis. Commenters stated 

that our analysis, beginning with a Q/d 

analysis and the use of a 0.3% of total 

impairment threshold for identifying 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 333 

162See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III 

(How to Identify Sources ‘‘Subject to BART’’) 

163Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related 

Values Work Group (FLAG), Phase I Report— 

Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/

NRPC/NRR—2010/232, October 2010. Available at 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/

FLAG_2010.pdf. 

164TX RH SIP Appendix 10–1. ‘‘The group of 

sources was further reduced to eliminate sources 

that are so distant from any of the ten Class I areas 

that any reduction in emissions would be unlikely 

to have a perceptible impact on visibility. The list 

was restricted to those sources with a ratio of 

estimated projected 2018 base annual emissions 

(tons) to distance (kilometers) greater than five to 

any Class I area.’’ 

165The Texas point sources are defined as 

industrial, commercial, or institutional sites that 

meet the reporting requirements of 30 Texas 

Administrative Code (TAC) § 101.10. Permitted 

point sources in Texas are required to submit 

annual emissions inventories. The data are drawn 

from TCEQ’s computer-based State of Texas Air 

Retrieval System (STARS). Annual emission data 

from 2009 were utilized to calculate the Q/D value 

for all point sources with reported emissions in 

Texas. 2009 emissions data available in the docket 

as ‘‘2009statesum.xlsx’’ 

166To select the specific point sources that would 

be considered for each Class I area, VISTAS first 

identified the geographic area that was most likely 

to influence visibility in each Class I area and then 

identified the major SO2 point sources in that 

geographic area. The distance-weighted point 

source SO2 emissions (Q/d) were combined with 

the gridded extinction-weighted back-trajectory 

residence times. The distance weighted (Q/d) 

gridded point source SO2 emissions are multiplied 

by the total extinction-weighted back-trajectory 

residence times (Q/d * Bext-weighted RT) on a grid 

cell by grid cell basis and then normalized. See 

VISTAS Area of Influence Analyses, 2007 available 

in the docket for this action. 

sources for additional analysis was 

arbitrary, capricious, or improper. In 

addition, commenters contend that the 

Q/d analysis selects the wrong sources 

because it does not consider stack 

parameters or meteorology. Other 

commenters suggested that all 38 

facilities identified as having the 

greatest potential to impact visibility by 

the Q/d analysis should have undergone 

a four-factor analysis. We also received 

comments that a lower threshold should 

have been used, that the threshold was 

applied inconsistently, and that the 

0.3% threshold screened out sources 

that have a significant visibility impact 

and should have been evaluated for 

controls. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters’ assertion that our analysis, 

beginning with a Q/d analysis, was 

arbitrary, capricious, or improper. As 

explained below and elsewhere in this 

document, our complete analysis 

identified those sources with the 

greatest visibility impacts at the Wichita 

Mountains and the Texas Class I areas 

based on consideration of a source’s 

emissions, location, and modeled 

visibility impairment. Once identified, 

we performed additional control 

analysis on these sources to determine 

through the four-factor analysis if 

controls were available and costeffective. 

As we discuss at length in the FIP 

TSD and in our RTC document, we, 

states (including Texas) and RPOs 

(including CENRAP) have used a Q/d 

analysis to identify those facilities that 

have the most potential to impact 

visibility at a Class I area based on their 

emissions and distance to the Class I 

area. These identified facilities could 

then be considered for further 

evaluation to estimate visibility impacts, 

and then undergo the reasonable 

progress analysis for determination of 

reasonable progress controls. The BART 

guidelines 162 discuss identifying 

sources with the potential to impact 

visibility based on a Q/d approach 

consistent with the method followed in 

this action. Furthermore, this approach 

has also been recommended by the 

FLMs’ Air Quality Related Values Work 

Group (FLAG) 163 as an initial screening 

test to determine if an analysis is 

required to evaluate the potential 

impact of a new or modified source on 

air quality related values (AQRV) at a 

Class I area. In the Texas regional haze 

SIP, the TCEQ relied on a Q/d approach 

as one of the initial steps to identify 

sources for additional analysis.164 We 

used a similar Q/d approach to identify 

38 sources, from the more than 1,600 

point sources in Texas that had the most 

potential to impact visibility due to 

their location and size. In other words, 

we started by looking at every point 

source in Texas 165 and narrowed the 

field to a much smaller subset of sources 

with the most potential to impact 

visibility based on their emissions and 

location. This approach is a widely used 

method as an initial step to evaluate a 

facility’s potential to impact air quality 

and identify those sources with large 

enough emissions close enough to a 

receptor to need additional analysis. 

Using this methodology, we considered 

every point source in Texas and 

narrowed the list to a much smaller list 

of facilities with the greatest potential 

visibility impacts based on just 

emissions and distance. 

Following the Q/d analysis, we took 

the additional step of using 

photochemical modeling, utilizing 

CAMx with Plume-In-Grid (PiG) and 

Particulate Source Apportionment 

Tagging (PSAT). As the commenter 

states, the Q/d analysis does not take 

into account stack parameters, 

meteorological conditions, or chemistry. 

Given the large geographic distribution 

of sources and distances to the Class I 

areas, we recognized that it was highly 

likely that only a subset of these 38 

facilities would have the greatest 

visibility impacts on downwind Class I 

areas once meteorology and transport 

conditions, atmospheric dispersion, 

chemistry, and stack parameters were 

taken into consideration, as CAMx with 

PiG and PSAT can do. We determined 

it was appropriate to use photochemical 

modeling to assess the visibility impact 

from those sources identified by our Q/ 

d analysis. In the same way that Q/d is 

used as an estimate of the potential 

visibility impact due to emissions and 

distance, the photochemical modeling 

aims to estimate the visibility impacts 

albeit in a much more refined manner 

that accounts for chemistry and 

meteorological conditions. We also note 

that some RPOs and states used a 

combination of back trajectory analysis, 

source apportionment modeling results, 

and Q/d as a more refined approach to 

identify sources for additional control 

analysis for reasonable progress.166 Our 

modeling results indicated that a subset 

of the 38 facilities were the primary 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

each Class I area. The results of this 

modeling were used to verify our initial 

identification of sources and further 

eliminate sources from a full four-factor 

analysis based on facility-level impacts 

and consideration of estimated unit 

level impacts, as described in detail in 

the FIP TSD. 

There are a number of different 

approaches used by states in 

identification of sources for reasonable 

progress evaluation but these 

approaches usually centered around the 

general premise of evaluating the biggest 

sources and the biggest impacts on 

visibility. As we explain in the FIP TSD, 

we considered the visibility modeling 

results in a number of ways to 

determine a reasonable approach to 

identify those sources with the largest 

impacts for additional analysis for 

controls for this planning period. We 

examined the model results for 

extinction and percent extinction of the 

modeled facilities as well as estimated 

impacts based on more recent actual 

emissions. We considered both facility 

level and unit level impacts. We 

concluded that any unit with an 

estimated impact greater than 0.3% 

would be further evaluated. We believe 

that using a percent impacts approach is 

appropriate because of its linkage to the 

reasonable progress concept. For 

example, a source that has a smaller 

absolute impact on a relatively cleaner 

area but a higher percentage impact 

might be considered for control so that 

the cleaner area can potentially make 

progress. We used the 0.3% threshold 

only as a way to identify a reasonable 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
334 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

167 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress 

Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, U.S. EPA, 

OAQPS, June 1, 2007, page 3–1 

168 VISTAS Area of Influence Analyses, 2007, 

available in the docket for this action. 

169See Texas Regional Haze SIP Appendix 4–1: 

Summary of Consultation Calls 

set of sources to evaluate further. At this 

point, the resulting reasonably broad set 

of sources served as a starting place 

from which to further analyze 

individual source impacts in the second 

round of modeling, and balance them 

against any cost-effective controls that 

could be identified. 

In summary, our analysis properly 

identified the sources in Texas with the 

greatest individual visibility impacts for 

additional control analysis. Commenters 

are incorrect in their assertion that the 

visibility impacts from the identified 

sources are miniscule, or that we started 

our analysis with the wrong sources. 

Starting from the entire universe of 

Texas point sources, we systematically 

eliminated those facilities that had less 

potential to impact visibility based on 

careful consideration of emissions, 

location, and finally modeled visibility 

impacts. After identifying those 

facilities with the greatest visibility 

impacts, we performed the four-factor 

analysis to evaluate whether reasonable 

progress controls were available and 

cost-effective. 

Comment: We received comments 

that EPA established the deciview as the 

required metric for establishing and 

tracking progress towards the reasonable 

progress goal. EPA’s use of extinction or 

percent extinction and establishment of 

thresholds is arbitrary, capricious, 

illegal and without precedent. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters that our use of metrics 

other than deciviews for certain 

purposes is contrary to regulations. The 

commenters fail to distinguish between 

the metrics used to describe overall 

visibility conditions at a Class I area and 

the metrics that can be used to describe 

the visibility impairment due to an 

individual source, group of sources, a 

state’s sources, or some other portion of 

the visibility impairment at a Class I 

area. In describing the overall visibility 

conditions at a Class I area, we 

established the deciview as the 

principle metric. This applies to the 

calculation of current, baseline, and 

natural visibility conditions at a Class I 

area, as well as the reasonable progress 

goals established as the visibility 

condition goal for the Class I area at the 

end of the current planning period. We 

agree with the commenters that the use 

of the deciview metric is required in a 

number of places within the rule that 

discuss overall visibility conditions and 

assessing progress towards meeting the 

desired visibility conditions. 

Specifically, the state must (1) establish 

reasonable progress goals expressed in 

deciviews (40 CFR 51. 308(d)(1)); (2) 

determine the uniform rate of progress 

in deciviews (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)); 

and (3) determine the baseline and 

natural visibility conditions expressed 

in deciviews and the number of 

deciviews by which baseline conditions 

exceed the natural conditions (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)). Consistent with these 

requirements, we calculated the 

baseline and natural visibility 

conditions, the uniform rate of progress, 

and the number of deciviews by which 

baseline conditions exceed the natural 

conditions in deciviews for Big Bend 

and the Guadalupe Mountains, as well 

as established reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains and the 

Texas Class I areas in deciviews. 

The deciview metric provides a scale 

that relates to visibility perception and 

therefore is useful in assessing the 

overall visibility conditions that are 

being or will be perceived at the Class 

I area. The commenters cite to several 

actions and the Regional Haze Rule 

where the benefits of using the deciview 

metric are discussed, however this is 

only discussed in the context of overall 

visibility conditions, such as 

determining current or natural visibility 

conditions. This is very different from 

the fraction of visibility impairment 

attributable to a source or group of 

sources. We note that in the final 

Regional Haze Rule, we do in fact 

mention the use of light extinction as 

another metric that states may choose to 

use. 

There is no requirement to use the 

deciview metric in describing the 

visibility impairment due to a source or 

group of sources as part of the analysis 

required for identifying reasonable 

controls under reasonable progress. In 

describing how to identify sources or 

source categories responsible for 

visibility impairment, our guidance 167

provides states with considerable 

flexibility to utilize various tools and 

techniques that would necessarily 

involve the use of various metrics other 

than deciviews. Many states and RPOs, 

including Texas and CENRAP, relied on 

a Q/d analysis, described and discussed 

in depth in separate responses to 

comments and in our proposed FIP, to 

identify sources for additional control 

analysis. The Q/d analysis relies on an 

annual emissions divided by distance 

metric, not deciviews. The VISTAS RPO 

relied on a metric derived from Q/d and 

residence-time, not deciviews.168 Some 

states relied on a simple analysis of 

emissions to determine which sources 

should be analyzed. 

When assessing the various 

contributions to visibility impairment 

due to either source categories or 

pollutant species from other states and 

international sources, Texas routinely 

relied on light extinction and percent of 

total visibility impairment metrics. For 

example, Chapter 11 of the Texas 

regional haze SIP describes the 

contributions due to sulfate, nitrate, and 

other pollutants on the 20% worst and 

20% best days at the Guadalupe 

Mountains and Big Bend in terms of 

light extinction (inverse megameters, 

Mm¥1). Similarly, the extinction metric 

is used by Texas (see section 11.2.3 of 

the Texas regional haze SIP) to assess 

the level of impact on other Class I areas 

from Texas sources. Texas also used the 

extinction metric to determine which 

states significantly impact the Texas 

Class I areas, applying an impact 

extinction level threshold of 0.5 Mm¥1

from all sources in a state as a threshold 

for inviting a state to consult.169 Source 

apportionment modeling performed by 

the RPOs was utilized by every state to 

assess the various contributions to 

visibility impairment at their Class I 

areas in terms of light extinction and 

percent contribution to total light 

extinction. The CENRAP PM source 

apportionment tool (CENRAP PSAT 

tool) utilized by all CENRAP states, 

including Texas and Oklahoma, to 

review the results of the source 

apportionment modeling provides 

results in two ways: Light extinction 

(inverse megameters) and percentage of 

total extinction. In our action, we also 

utilized the methodology and metrics 

used by the RPOs to evaluate the source 

apportionment results, the only 

difference being that our source 

apportionment modeling provided 

information on visibility impacts from 

individual sources instead of source 

categories, or regions/states. In the FIP 

TSD, we provide information on 

visibility impacts from the individual 

sources in terms of extinction, 

percentage of total extinction, and in 

deciviews. 

We evaluated the information in 

terms of light extinction and percentage 

of total impact to identify a reasonable 

subset of sources with the largest 

visibility impacts to analyze for 

additional controls. Because the overall 

visibility conditions at different Class I 

areas can vary greatly, particularly Class 

I areas in the Eastern U.S. compared to 

Class I areas in the Western U.S., we 

determined that it is not enough to 

consider just the magnitude of 

extinction from a facility; we must also 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 335 

170See FIP TSD at A–54 for a more detailed 

description 171See the file, ‘‘Vis modeling summary.xlsx’’ in 

the docket for this action for our calculations and 

estimates of visibility benefits from the examined 

levels of controls. 

consider the percentage of total 

impairment metric at each Class I area. 

As we state in the FIP TSD, ‘‘We believe 

that using a percent impacts approach is 

appropriate because of its linkage to the 

RP concept. For example, a source that 

has a smaller absolute impact [in terms 

of extinction] on a relatively cleaner 

area but a higher percentage impact 

might be considered for control so that 

the cleaner area can potentially make 

progress.’’ Using the percentage of total 

visibility impairment metric allows us 

to somewhat normalize the extinction 

differences between Class I areas so that 

we can utilize the same approach at 

each Class I area and identify a 

reasonable set of sources to analyze that 

if controlled would result in meaningful 

visibility benefits towards meeting the 

goal of natural visibility at every Class 

I area. For every Class I area to have the 

opportunity to reach the natural 

visibility goals, it is necessary to 

identify the sources or source categories 

that significantly impact visibility, 

identify available controls and analyze 

whether those controls are reasonable. 

Had we established a strict threshold 

based on extinction, we would have had 

to establish a different threshold for 

each Class I area. Using a percentage 

approach, such as the 0.3% of total 

visibility impairment on a unit basis we 

used in this action, results in 

identification of a subset of sources that 

includes those sources with the greatest 

visibility impacts at each Class I area. 

As stated by the USDA Forest Service in 

its supportive comments, the use of this 

methodology and metrics, including the 

use of a small percentage threshold on 

the 20% worst days is linked to the 

concept of reasonable progress. We 

believe it could serve as the model for 

future efforts to consider the 

contribution and potential benefits of 

individual sources to visibility. After 

identifying which sources to analyze for 

additional controls based on the 

percentage impact on a unit basis, we 

determined which controls were 

reasonable based on consideration of the 

four factors, including comparison of 

cost to the anticipated visibility benefit 

(deciview improvement, extinction, 

percentage of total extinction, and the 

percentage of the total impact from 

Texas point sources addressed by the 

control). 

Comment: We received comments on 

the method we used to adjust CAMx 

results. Commenters stated that we 

developed a linear relationship between 

emissions and extinction and then 

adjusted CAMx modeled extinction 

linearly with emissions to match 

proposed controlled emission levels. 

The commenters stated that the 

relationship between emissions and 

light extinction is not linear and that 

interactions between nitrate and sulfate 

create a complicated relationship. The 

commenters cited to the CAMx user 

guide which they claim supports that 

the relationship is non-linear. In 

contrast, Earthjustice said that our 

approach was reasonable. 

Response: We disagree with the 

comments that the methodology used to 

estimate visibility benefits from control 

level emissions was unjustified or 

unreasonable, and agree with 

Earthjustice that our approach was 

reasonable. The linear relationship we 

developed to extrapolate extinction due 

to controlled emission rates was a 

reasonable approach in our technical 

analysis. 

We agree with the commenters that, 

in general, the relationship between 

downwind concentrations and 

emissions can be complicated and nonlinear due to complex chemistry, 

including the fact that reductions in 

sulfur emissions can result in an 

increase in ammonium nitrate. Each 

modeled emission scenario took this 

complex chemistry into account in 

estimating the visibility impacts for that 

scenario. We estimated control 

efficiencies for a high and low control 

case scenario that would span the range 

and give a reasonable approximation of 

emission reductions of potential 

controls and maximize the number of 

data points available to estimate the 

visibility benefit due to a reduction in 

emissions.170 Using the unit level High 

and Low modeled visibility impacts and 

the 2018 facility level modeling 

described in the FIP TSD, we examined 

the relationship between the various 

levels of emissions from a modeled site 

and the modeled visibility impact at 

each Class I area. For each facility and 

Class I area, the available modeled data 

were linear with high correlation and 

the modeled emission levels were 

relatively close to the estimated control 

levels examined. Therefore we used the 

linear fit to extrapolate the anticipated 

visibility impact/benefit from a given 

level of emission/control.171 We agree 

that small perturbations relative to the 

model inputs can be approximated as 

linear. However, as discussed in more 

detail in our response to this comment 

in the RTC document, we disagree with 

the commenters that we extended the 

linear treatment to large variations, and 

we note errors in the commenters’ 

assessment of the differences between 

modeled and required control levels. 

The variations between the modeled 

High control levels and the control 

levels required in the FIP are relatively 

small. This is a small perturbation from 

the modeled levels, a small difference in 

estimated extinction benefit from the 

modeled and required control level, and 

does not impact our overall decisions on 

the significance of visibility benefits 

from the required controls. We agree 

with Earthjustice that the small level of 

uncertainty in the visibility benefit from 

these controls introduced by the linear 

extrapolation does not impact the 

overall conclusions. In every case, the 

required control level emissions are the 

same or less than the high control level 

modeled, and the visibility benefits 

from controls at the required control 

level will be the same or more than 

those modeled at the high control level. 

Therefore, the high level modeled 

visibility benefits can be seen as a lower 

bound and even these support our 

decision. 

Comment: We also received 

comments on the calculation of a 

deciview impact or improvement based 

on natural ‘‘clean’’ background 

conditions and the estimated visibility 

impacts/improvement based on recent 

actual emissions rather than projected 

2018 emissions. The commenters 

contend that the use of natural 

background overstates the estimated 

visibility benefit from the proposed 

controls and that these adjustments 

based on recent actual emissions and 

natural background artificially increase 

projected visibility improvement from 

the proposed controls. The commenter 

states that the use of ‘‘natural 

conditions’’ is contrary to the 

regulations, inconsistent with agency 

precedent, and arbitrary and capricious 

and that the analysis does not address 

the relevant legal issue and is not 

rationally connected to the final 

decision (i.e. what is a reasonable 

progress goal for 2018). 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that the use of ‘‘natural 

conditions’’ is contrary to the 

regulations, inconsistent with agency 

precedent, and arbitrary and capricious. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

the analysis does not address the 

relevant legal issue and is not rationally 

connected to the final decision (i.e., as 

defined by the commenter as what is a 

reasonable progress goal for 2018). The 

Regional Haze Rule requires that we 

identify reasonable controls based on 

consideration of the four statutory 

factors and establish a reasonable 

progress goal that reflects the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
336 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

172See our FIP TSD, page A–39. 

173Using existing conditions as the baseline for 

single source visibility impact determinations 

would create the following paradox: The dirtier the 

existing air, the less likely it would be that any 

control is required. This is true because of the 

nonlinear nature of visibility impairment. In other 

words, as a Class I area becomes more polluted, any 

individual source’s contribution to changes in 

impairment becomes geometrically less. Therefore 

the more polluted the Class I area would become, 

the less control would seem to be needed from an 

individual source. We agree that this kind of 

calculation would essentially raise the ‘‘cause or 

contribute’’ applicability threshold to a level that 

would never allow enough emission control to 

significantly improve visibility. Such a reading 

would render the visibility provisions meaningless, 

as EPA and the States would be prevented from 

assuring ‘‘reasonable progress’’ and fulfilling the 

statutorily-defined goals of the visibility program. 

Conversely, measuring improvement against clean 

conditions would ensure reasonable progress 

toward those clean conditions. 70 FR 39124. 

174Texas Regional Haze SIP, Appendix 9–5, 

‘‘Screening Analysis of Potential BART-Eligible 

Sources in Texas’’ at 2–11, emphasis added. 

175 76 FR 58627. 

176North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 766 (8th 

Cir. 2013). 

anticipated amount of visibility 

improvement from implementation of 

those controls in additional to all other 

‘‘on the books’’ controls. Specifically, 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) requires 

consideration of the four factors and a 

demonstration of how these factors were 

taken into consideration in selecting the 

visibility goal. We analyzed the time 

necessary for compliance, energy and 

non-air environmental impacts, the 

remaining useful life, and the costs of 

compliance including consideration of 

the anticipated visibility benefits of 

specific controls on individual units. As 

discussed in depth below, in 

considering the anticipated visibility 

benefits from individual controls, it was 

appropriate to consider estimated 

benefits on a ‘‘clean’’ or ‘‘natural’’ 

background. 

In the FIP TSD, we discuss the need 

to estimate visibility benefits using both 

a ‘‘clean’’ and ‘‘dirty’’ background: 172

The deciview improvement based on the 

2018 background conditions provides an 

estimate of the amount of benefit that can be 

anticipated in 2018 and the impact a control/ 

emission reduction may have on the 

established RPG [reasonable progress goal] 

for 2018. However, this estimate based on 

degraded or ‘‘dirty’’ background conditions 

underestimates the visibility improvement 

that would be realized for the control options 

under consideration. Because of the nonlinear nature of the deciview metric, as a 

Class I area becomes more polluted the 

visibility impairment from an individual 

source in terms of deciviews becomes 

geometrically less. Results based solely on a 

degraded background will rarely if ever 

demonstrate an appreciable effect on 

incremental visibility improvement in a 

given area. Rather than providing for 

incremental improvements towards the goal 

of natural visibility, degraded background 

results will serve to instead maintain those 

current degraded conditions. Therefore, the 

visibility benefit estimated based on natural 

or ‘‘clean’’ conditions is needed to assess the 

full benefit from potential controls. 

In considering the visibility benefits 

of potential controls, we considered 

deciview improvements as well as the 

reduction in extinction and percent 

extinction. By definition, the ‘‘clean’’ 

background analysis using natural 

conditions eliminates the impact from 

all other anthropogenic sources, 

domestic and international. This 

approach is aimed at assessing the full 

potential visibility benefit of controls. It 

is not reasonable to only assess the 

visibility benefit of controls, the value of 

installing a control in the immediate 

future that will permanently reduce 

visibility impacts from a source, in such 

a manner that is dependent on the 

current level of emissions or impact 

from other sources or other countries. 

For example, in considering only the 

estimated visibility benefit from 

controlling Big Brown using a ‘‘dirty’’ 

background, an increase in visibility 

impacts from Mexico emissions or 

emissions from another Texas point 

source would result in a decrease in the 

visibility benefit in deciviews from 

installing controls on Big Brown, 

making controls appear less beneficial. 

By using a metric that is independent of 

all other emission sources (‘‘clean’’), we 

avoid this paradox that the dirtier the 

existing air, the less likely it would be 

that any control is required. This was 

also explained in the preamble to the 

final Regional Haze Rule and Guidelines 

for BART Determinations.173 The use of 

‘‘clean’’ background is necessary to 

assess the full potential benefit from 

controls and does not overstate the 

visibility benefit. 

Our use of ‘‘clean’’ background is also 

consistent with the methodology used 

by Texas for BART visibility analysis, 

which also relied on CAMx 

photochemical modeling with source 

apportionment. The TCEQ utilized this 

approach in assessing the visibility 

impacts from individual sources and 

groups of sources to determine their 

significance for BART screening. As 

detailed in the screening analysis 

protocol developed by TCEQ and 

reviewed by us, ‘‘The source’s HI [haze 

index] is compared to natural 

conditions to assess the significance of 

the source’s visibility impact. EPA 

guidance lists natural conditions 

(bnatural) by Class I area in terms of 

Mm¥1 (EPA, 2003b) and assumes clean 

conditions with no anthropogenic or 

weather interference. The visibility 

significance metric for evaluating BART 

sources is the change in deciview (deldv) from the source’s and natural 

conditions haze indices.’’ 174

We disagree with the commenter that 

our use of the ‘‘natural background’’ 

metric is contrary to regulations. As we 

discuss in a separate response to 

comment concerning the legality of the 

extinction and percent extinction 

metrics, the commenter fails to 

distinguish between the required metric 

used to describe overall visibility 

conditions at a Class I area at a given 

point in time and the range of metrics 

that can be used to describe the 

visibility impairment due to an 

individual source, group of sources, a 

state’s sources, or some other portion of 

the visibility impairment at a Class I 

area. As explained above, it is necessary 

to consider the visibility benefit of 

controls on a ‘‘clean’’ background basis 

to assess the full benefit from potential 

controls. 

The use of natural background is also 

supported by our previous action on 

North Dakota’s regional haze SIP and 

the associated Eighth Circuit Court 

decision. The full text of our 

determination in North Dakota is: 175

In addition to evaluating the four statutory 

factors, North Dakota also considered the 

visibility impacts associated with the control 

options for each RP source. However, in 

modeling visibility impacts, North Dakota 

used a hybrid cumulative modeling approach 

that is inappropriate for determining the 

visibility impact for individual sources. As 

with the modeling North Dakota conducted 

for its NOX BART analysis for MRYS [Milton 

R. Young Station] Units 1 and 2 and LOS 

[Leland Olds Station] Unit 2, the approach 

fails to compare single- source impacts to 

natural background. While there is no 

requirement that States, when performing RP 

analyses, follow the modeling procedures set 

out in the BART guidelines, or that they 

consider visibility impacts at all, we find that 

North Dakota’s visibility modeling 

significantly understates the visibility 

improvement that would be realized for the 

control options under consideration. 

Accordingly, we are disregarding the 

modeling analysis that North Dakota has 

used to support its RP determinations for 

individual sources. 

The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision 

affirmed our position that the use of 

degraded, or dirty background, was not 

consistent with the CAA. The relevant 

section of the 8th Circuit Court’s 

decision on this point reads: 176

Although the State was free to employ its 

own visibility model and to consider 

visibility improvement in its RP 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 337 

177See Table A.4–2 of the FIP TSD for a 

comparison of recent actual emissions to CENRAP 

2018 projected emission levels. 

178TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft 

modeling platform dated June 24, 2014. ‘2018 EMP 

signed.pdf’. 

179 80 FR 18944, 18997. 

180 79 FR 52420, 52468. 

181 77 FR 31692, 31708. 

determinations, it was not free to do so in a 

manner that was inconsistent with the CAA. 

Because the goal of section 169A is to attain 

natural visibility conditions in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas, see 42 U.S.C. 

7491(a)(1), and EPA has demonstrated that 

the visibility model used by the State would 

serve instead to maintain current degraded 

conditions, we cannot say that EPA acted in 

a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or an 

abuse of discretion by disapproving the 

State’s RP determination based upon its 

cumulative source visibility modeling. 

The use of natural background 

conditions to assess visibility benefits of 

individual controls, as we have done 

here in this action, is consistent with 

the goals of the CAA. As to the comment 

that we adjusted the modeled results by 

updating the baseline uncontrolled 

emissions for each unit based on SO2

emissions data for 2009–2013, this was 

a necessary step to assess the visibility 

benefit of controls relative to the 

visibility impairment due to future 

anticipated emission levels at these 

units without the required controls. 

Comparison of 2018 CENRAP projected 

emissions to recent actual emissions 

showed that a number of facilities have 

actual emissions that are much higher 

than CENRAP 2018 modeled 

emissions.177 For instance, Big Brown, 

Sandow, and Martin Lake actual 

emissions were all significantly higher 

than 2018 CENRAP modeled rates, with 

Martin Lake having over 90% more SO2

emissions than projected by CENRAP 

for 2018. Both Pirkey and Oklaunion 

had much smaller actual SO2 emissions 

than projected. As we discuss in the FIP 

TSD, we believe that recent actual 

emissions are more representative of 

anticipated future emissions at the 

sources evaluated than the CAIR 

projections developed in 2006 and 

adopted by CENRAP. The CENRAP 

modeling was based on an IPM 

(Integrated Planning Model) that 

estimated EGU future emissions in 2018 

including reductions for CAIR across 

the eastern half of the United States. 

This analysis was conducted in 2006 

and projected that Texas would be a 

purchaser of SO2 credits, and that not 

much high level control would be 

placed on Texas EGU sources. Given the 

length of time between 2006 when the 

IPM analysis was conducted, and 2013 

when we were conducting this analysis, 

we had some concern that these 

projections could be off for the EGUs in 

Texas. Information available also 

indicates that SO2 credits are much 

cheaper than originally projected, 

therefore more credits may have been 

used in lieu of emission reductions. We 

also weighed the technique that Texas 

has used in estimating emissions from 

EGUs for future years (including 2018) 

in ozone attainment demonstration SIPs 

in DFW and HGB. For these 

photochemical modeling analyses with 

CAMx, Texas has relied upon the recent 

CEM data that is also included in 

CAMD’s databases in conjunction with 

information on recently permitted EGUs 

for estimating the emissions to model 

for EGUs in Texas in 2018 as these 

overall EGU emission levels are already 

near levels projected under CAIR Phase 

II control such that further emission 

reductions are doubtful in the absence 

of some new requirements. 

The actual SO2 allowances for Texas 

under CSAPR are not much different 

than the CAIR Cap for Texas, so large 

additional reductions over current 

emission levels were not expected. 

However, because we had earlier 

projected with IPM that controls for 

MATS may generate the installation of 

additional scrubbers in Texas that could 

potentially result in further SO2

reductions, we again investigated this 

possibility. Texas recently submitted 

comments to us on a more recent IPM 

projection that was at the time intended 

by EPA to be part of a new modeling 

platform for national rule making.178 In 

these comments and comments from 

several EGU owners in Texas, the 

assertion was that no significant amount 

of additional SO2 controls are expected 

due to compliance with MATS. The 

comments also pointed out that, as some 

of our cursory research had also 

indicated, no large SO2 control projects 

were planned at most of the sources we 

were evaluating. Therefore, based on 

Texas’ recent comments and other 

information, we concluded considerable 

uncertainty exists as to whether any 

further reductions of SO2 will occur 

beyond current emission levels as a 

result of compliance with MATS or 

CSAPR. Overall this information 

supports looking at recent actual 

emissions to represent future emission 

levels in 2018. 

In summary, this adjustment from 

CENRAP 2018 to the baseline calculated 

from recent actual emissions was not an 

‘‘artificial adjustment’’ and was 

necessary to account for the large 

difference between specific unit-level 

emissions in the 2018 CENRAP 

emissions and a baseline more 

representative of anticipated future 

emission levels in 2018. We estimated 

and presented the estimated visibility 

benefit of controls based on both the 

CENRAP 2018 projected emission levels 

and emission levels consistent with 

recent actual emissions data. The results 

considering the 2018 CENRAP 

emissions baseline were also needed to 

provide a comparison with the Texas 

regional haze SIP and an estimate of the 

change from the 2018 CENRAP modeled 

reasonable progress goal to a new 

reasonable progress goal including the 

controls required in the FIP. The 

visibility benefit of individual controls 

calculated based on the CENRAP 2018 

emissions baseline represents the 

additional level of visibility benefit from 

controlling individual units, consistent 

with the assumptions/emission 

projections in the Texas regional haze 

SIP. 

Comment: EPA’s methodology to 

estimate revised reasonable progress 

goals for Big Bend, the Guadalupe 

Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains 

is without precedent and is not 

supported by the record. The 

commenters also state that the revised 

reasonable progress goals are incorrect 

because they do not account for 

reductions in Oklahoma emissions. 

Response: We disagree with the 

comment and believe we took a 

reasonable approach to estimate the 

change in overall visibility impairment 

anticipated due to the required controls 

and provided all calculations for review. 

We also disagree with the commenter’s 

description of how the states estimated 

the reasonable progress goals. While our 

guidance suggests that reasonable 

progress goals should be established by 

modeling all existing and reasonable 

controls, in practice all RPOs including 

CENRAP completed the modeling early 

in the process. The 2018 CENRAP 

modeling was completed before any 

states had completed their BART and 

reasonable progress determinations. In 

many cases, the 2018 projection 

included an assumption of BART level 

controls and ‘‘on the book’’ controls. 

Once final BART determinations and 

reasonable progress determinations 

were completed, the RPO did not go 

back and remodel to reassess the 

reasonable progress goals. In our 

proposed action in Arkansas,179 as well 

as our actions in Arizona 180 and 

Hawaii,181 the modeled reasonable 

progress goals were adjusted based on a 

methodology of scaling of visibility 

extinction components in proportion to 

emission changes. We noted that 

although we recognize that this method 

is not refined, it allows us to translate 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
338 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

182As discussed elsewhere in this document, 

while the required scrubber retrofits will provide 

for additional visibility improvement at the Class I 

areas that we consider necessary for reasonable 

progress towards natural visibility conditions, we 

do not anticipate these controls to be implemented 

until after 2018. 

183 79 FR 74843. 

184 ‘‘No degradation,’’ as distinctly needed for the 

20% best days, is ensured because added controls 

do not significantly impact the 20% best days and 

would serve only to improve visibility on these 

days. Even so, what we provide as the 20% best day 

reasonable progress goals for 2018 (i.e., the ‘‘least 

impaired days’’) for Big Bend, Guadalupe 

Mountains and Wichita Mountains numerically 

differ from the numbers that Texas had submitted 

by very small amounts. By the design of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1), improvements for the most impaired 

days provide a more vital benchmark for progress 

that may be made. 

185See September 13, 2013 EPA guidance memo 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’, http://www3.epa.gov/

airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_

Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_

FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf. 

the emission reductions achieved 

through the FIP into quantitative 

reasonable progress goals, based on 

modeling previously performed by the 

RPOs. However, in this case, our 

analysis using CAMx modeling and 

source apportionment, provided a 

somewhat more refined means to 

estimate the visibility benefit from 

specific individual controls on the 20% 

worst days in 2018. While there is 

limited precedent for adjusting the RPO 

calculated reasonable progress goals to 

account for emission reductions 

achieved in a FIP or revised SIP, we 

took a reasonable approach based on the 

information available. We adjusted each 

reasonable progress goal established by 

Texas or Oklahoma for 2018 by the 

amount of visibility benefit anticipated 

from all scrubber upgrades estimated by 

our modeling analysis based on CAMx 

source apportionment modeling.182 In 

estimating the deciview visibility 

benefit in 2018 compared to the 

CENRAP modeled 2018 reasonable 

progress goals, we considered 

reductions from 2018 CENRAP 

emissions levels and 2018 ‘‘dirty’’ 

background conditions. We believe that 

this is a reliable estimate of the amount 

of visibility benefit anticipated from 

controls (e.g., 0.14 dv for the Wichita 

Mountains) beyond the projected 2018 

CENRAP reasonable progress goals. We 

then simply adjusted the reasonable 

progress goals established by the state 

by the amount of visibility benefit 

anticipated from the additional controls. 

As discussed above, we adjusted the 

CENRAP modeled reasonable progress 

goals to translate the emission 

reductions required in this FIP for Texas 

sources into quantitative reasonable 

progress goals. We note that the 

CENRAP modeling included an 

assumption for anticipated BART 

reductions for Oklahoma sources. We 

considered the comment concerning 

consideration of the reductions required 

by the BART FIP in Oklahoma in setting 

the 2018 reasonable progress goals and 

we believe these assumptions are a 

reasonable approximation of the 

anticipated BART reductions in 

Oklahoma at this time, considering the 

uncertainty of the timing of the 

reductions for some of the sources and 

the uncertainty in the final control 

scenario chosen by the operator to meet 

the requirements. The required 

enforceable emission limits in the 

Oklahoma and Texas FIPs remedy the 

deficiencies in the SIPs and our 

finalized reasonable progress goals 

properly consider the visibility benefits 

anticipated by those required emission 

reductions. 

Unlike the emission limits that apply 

to specific reasonable progress sources, 

the reasonable progress goals are not 

directly enforceable. Rather, the 

reasonable progress goals are an 

analytical tool used by EPA and the 

states to estimate future visibility 

conditions and track progress towards 

the goal of natural visibility conditions. 

Comment: EPA’s proposal provides 

no basis for disapproving Texas’ and 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

for the 20% best days and fails to 

provides analysis of the part of the 

reasonable progress goals addressing the 

‘‘best’’ days. 

Response: We disagree with the 

comment. Our basis for disapproving 

the relevant reasonable progress goals 

for the 20% best days arises, as was 

noted in our proposal, from our 

determination that the analysis 

developed by Texas to evaluate 

reasonable progress controls was flawed 

and additional controls are necessary for 

the first planning period. Finalizing 

requirements for additional controls, as 

we now accomplish with our final rule, 

makes ‘‘visibility on these days better 

than Texas projects,’’ as we noted in our 

proposal.183 184 The submitted 

reasonable progress goals for the 20% 

best days did not consider reductions 

from the reasonable controls, so they 

cannot be approved. We understand the 

comment to request a quantitative 

assessment of the projected visibility 

conditions for the 20% best days. These 

calculations have been completed and 

add to our position that visibility will be 

better than Texas projects. These 

numbers, following the same 

methodology that we employed with the 

20% worst days, are summarized in the 

table provided in the introduction 

section of the document. 

P. Interstate Visibility Transport 

We received comments opposing our 

proposed disapproval of the visibility 

protection portion of the interstate 

transport requirements in Texas 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

ozone, PM2.5, NO2, and SO2 NAAQS 

(CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). Among the 

adverse comments were the following: 

The requirements for infrastructure SIPs 

in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) only 

contain structural, rather than 

substantive, requirements. Disapproving 

Texas’ infrastructure SIPs conflicts with 

the differing deadlines for NAAQS SIP 

submittals and regional haze SIP 

submittals. Texas submitted separate 

SIPs to address the visibility prong of 

interstate transport for the 1997 ozone, 

the 2006 PM2.5, the 2008 ozone, the 

2010 SO2, and the 2010 NO2 standards 

and EPA failed to evaluate these 

submittals in its proposed disapproval. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is 

pollutant specific, and, because EPA 

finds that Texas’ SIP is inadequate to 

protect visibility only because it does 

not contain certain limitations on SO2

emissions, EPA should not disapprove 

for the other NAAQS at issue. The 

CAA’s visibility protection requirement 

is narrower than the requirement for 

reasonable progress and requires only 

provisions necessary to prevent 

interference with control measures 

included in another state’s plan to 

achieve a visibility standard. The CAA 

limits EPA’s authority to require one 

state to adopt binding emission limits 

for the benefit of another state, citing 

EME Homer City. 

We disagree with the comments for 

several reasons. Section 110(a)(2) 

specifies the substantive elements that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address, as appropriate, for EPA 

approval.185 EPA has disapproved 

portions of such SIPs for failure to 

comply with the interstate visibility 

transport requirements section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for various other 

states. See 78 FR 46142, July 30, 2013 

(Arizona); 77 FR 14604, March 12, 2012 

(Arkansas); 76 FR 52388, August 22, 

2011 (New Mexico); 76 FR 81728, 

December 28, 2011 (Oklahoma). By 

contrast, in many other SIP actions 

across the country, we have allowed 

states to rely on their approved regional 

haze plan to meet the substantive 

requirements of the visibility 

component of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

because the regional haze plan achieved 

at least as much emissions reductions as 

projected by the RPO modeling. See 76 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 339 

186CAA Section 169A(g)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1). 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

FR 34608, June 14, 2011 (California); 79 

FR 60985, October 9, 2014 (New 

Mexico); 76 FR 36329, June 22, 2011 

(Idaho); and 76 FR 38997, July 5, 2011 

(Oregon). We gave limited disapproval 

to the Texas regional haze SIP based on 

its reliance on CAIR. CAIR provided 

limits on emissions of SO2 and NOX.

SO2 is a precursor for PM2.5. NOX is a 

precursor for ozone and for PM2.5. NO2

is a component of NOX. With CAIR no 

longer in effect, Texas may not rely on 

its regional haze SIP to ensure that 

emissions from Texas do not interfere 

with measures to protect visibility in 

nearby states. We recognize that CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is pollutant 

specific; nevertheless, ozone, PM2.5, 

NO2, and SO2 or their precursors could 

interfere with visibility protection. 

Because Texas has not demonstrated 

that its SIP submittals ensure that Texas 

emissions would not interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

SIP for any other state to protect 

visibility, we are disapproving these SIP 

submittals. 

As discussed in this action, the D.C. 

Circuit Court in EME Homer City 

recently issued a decision upholding 

CSAPR but remanding without vacating 

a number of the Rule’s state emissions 

budgets, including those for Texas. The 

CSAPR remand did not affect our 

reasons for proposing to disapprove 

portions of Texas’ SIP submittals that 

address CAA provisions for prohibiting 

air pollutant emissions from interfering 

with measures required to protect 

visibility in any other state for the 1997 

PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. However, the remand did 

affect our proposal to rely on CSAPR to 

help address our FIP obligation for 

interstate transport of air pollution and 

visibility protection. Therefore, today’s 

action does not finalize the portion of 

our proposed FIP that would have relied 

on CSAPR to satisfy Texas’ visibility 

transport obligations with respect to the 

aforementioned NAAQS. We will 

address the visibility transport 

requirements for Texas in a future 

rulemaking once the issues surrounding 

the partial remand are resolved. 

Q. Disapproval of the Oklahoma and 

Texas Reasonable Progress Goals 

We received numerous comments on 

our proposed disapproval of the 

reasonable progress goals selected by 

Texas and Oklahoma for their respective 

Class I areas and the recalculated 

reasonable progress goals we proposed. 

Some comments were in support of our 

proposed disapproval of the state’s 

reasonable progress goals and our 

proposed recalculated reasonable 

progress goals. However, a majority of 

the comments raised objections to our 

proposed action on the reasonable 

progress goals. These commenters raised 

numerous issues in support of their 

objections to our proposal, including 

that recent monitoring data from 

IMPROVE monitors indicates the Class 

I areas are already meeting the new 

reasonable progress goals we proposed 

without the need for the additional 

controls we proposed, that there have 

been significant SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions in Texas since the baseline 

period, that our proposed disapproval of 

the state’s reasonable progress goals had 

no technical or legal basis, and that we 

inappropriately recalculated the new 

reasonable progress goals we proposed. 

Below we present a summary of our 

responses to the more significant 

comments we received that relate to our 

proposed action on the reasonable 

progress goals for Texas and Oklahoma 

Class I areas. See our RTC document for 

a more in-depth presentation of the 

comments we received and our 

responses to them. 

Comment: Our proposed disapproval 

of Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains is proper and 

required by the CAA, as the record is 

clear that control measures satisfying 

the four reasonable progress factors are 

available for some of the largest sources 

of visibility impairment at the Wichita 

Mountains. Our proposed finding that 

Oklahoma and Texas did not adequately 

consult with each other regarding the 

impact of Texas sources on Oklahoma’s 

Class I area is also proper because in 

order to engage in meaningful 

consultation, an upwind state such as 

Texas must provide impacted states 

with sufficient technical information 

detailing the visibility impacts of 

individual sources and the feasibility 

and cost-effectiveness of control 

measures on those sources. A 

downwind state such as Oklahoma 

should request the adequate information 

when it is not provided by the upwind 

state and must take a hard look at this 

information and request that upwind 

states require the control measures that 

satisfy the four factors laid out in the 

statute for making reasonable progress. 

We support the EPA’s conclusions as to 

what constitutes a proper and 

meaningful consultation under the 

regional haze program and support the 

EPA’s proposed disapproval of 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

and finding that the consultations 

between Oklahoma and Texas were 

inadequate. 

Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support of our 

interpretation of what constitutes an 

adequate consultation that satisfies the 

Regional Haze Rule requirements. We 

also appreciate the commenter’s support 

of our proposed disapproval of 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains and our 

finding that the consultations between 

Oklahoma and Texas to address the 

impacts of Texas sources on the Wichita 

Mountains were not adequate and did 

not meet the regional haze 

requirements. We are finalizing as 

proposed our disapproval of several of 

the requirements with regard to 

Oklahoma’s establishing of reasonable 

progress goals for the Wichita 

Mountains, including our finding that 

the consultations between Texas and 

Oklahoma to address Texas’ impacts on 

the Wichita Mountains were not 

adequate and did not meet the Regional 

Haze Rule requirements. 

Comment: EPA should withdraw its 

proposed FIP and instead fully approve 

the regional haze SIPs submitted by 

Texas and Oklahoma because the SIP 

submitted by Texas fully complies with 

the statute and all regulatory standards 

and therefore there is no legal or 

technical basis for EPA’s proposed FIP. 

On every level, EPA’s proposal exceeds 

the agency’s authority under the CAA 

and EPA’s regional haze regulations. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that there is no legal or 

technical basis for our proposed FIP, 

that the proposed FIP exceeds our 

authority under the CAA and the 

regional haze regulations, and that the 

SIP submitted by Texas fully complies 

with the statute and regulatory 

requirements. The CAA and 

§ 51.308(d)(1) provide how to determine 

what constitutes reasonable progress for 

each planning period and specify the 

requirements related to establishment of 

the reasonable progress goals for each 

Class I area. In particular, both the CAA 

and the Regional Haze Rule require 

states to consider four factors when 

setting reasonable progress goals: The 

costs of compliance, time necessary for 

compliance, energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts, and the 

remaining useful life of potentially 

affected sources.186 The Regional Haze 

Rule also requires that in establishing 

the reasonable progress goals, states 

must consider the uniform rate of 

progress and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve it for the 

period covered by the implementation 

plan. In addition, because the 

reasonable progress goals selected by 

Texas and Oklahoma provide for a rate 

of improvement slower than the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
340 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

187 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 

188 79 FR 74871, 74872. 

189 76 FR 81728. 

190 79 FR 74872. 

uniform rate of progress, the Regional 

Haze Rule requires the states to 

demonstrate why their reasonable 

progress goals are reasonable and why a 

rate of progress leading to natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 is not 

reasonable.187 As discussed in more 

detail in our proposal and in the RTC 

document associated with this final 

action, Texas did not satisfy several of 

the requirements at § 51.308(d)(1) with 

regard to setting reasonable progress 

goals for its own Class I areas, most 

notably the requirement to reasonably 

consider the four statutory reasonable 

progress factors and the requirement to 

adequately consider the emission 

reduction measures needed to meet the 

uniform rate of progress. Texas also did 

not satisfy the consultation 

requirements at § 51.308(d)(3)(i) to 

address its impacts on the Wichita 

Mountains. Oklahoma also did not 

satisfy certain requirements under 

§ 51.308(d)(1) with regard to setting 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains, including the 

requirement to adequately consult with 

other states that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at the Wichita 

Mountains and the requirement to 

adequately consider the emission 

reduction measures needed to meet the 

uniform rate of progress. Therefore, we 

disagree that the Texas and Oklahoma 

SIPs fully comply with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements and that our 

FIP exceeds our authority under the 

CAA. We are finalizing our proposed 

disapproval of Texas’ and Oklahoma’s 

reasonable progress goals and the 

controls we proposed under reasonable 

progress for sources in Texas. 

Comment: EPA does not take issue 

with Oklahoma’s four-factor analysis, 

but nevertheless proposes to reset 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

based on its reasonable progress 

analysis for Texas sources. EPA also 

finds it necessary to disapprove 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals 

because they did not include the 

emission reductions from the Oklahoma 

SO2 BART FIP and the revised BART 

SIP for the AEP units that were 

subsequently promulgated. However, 

EPA’s proposed SIP does not correct 

this error either. 

Response: The comment that we 

disapproved the reasonable progress 

goals for the Wichita Mountains because 

they do not include the emission 

reductions from the SO2 BART FIP and 

the revised BART SIP for the AEP units 

that have subsequently been 

promulgated is taken out of context and 

does not fully capture the rationale for 

our disapproval. We are disapproving 

the reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains because they do not 

account for emission reductions from 

reasonable measures at Texas sources. 

We stated in the proposal that the 

reasonable progress goals selected by 

Oklahoma for the Wichita Mountains do 

not include the level of reductions 

necessary to meet the requirements 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e) for BART. We 

further explain that ‘‘BART is a 

component of developing the reasonable 

progress goals, and the reasonable 

progress goals are inadequate because 

BART controls were not adequately 

considered. We note this deficiency is 

addressed by our Oklahoma BART FIP 

and the revised Oklahoma BART 

SIP.’’ 188 The visibility modeling 

developed for CENRAP and used by 

Oklahoma in support of its SIP revision 

submittal assumed SO2 reductions from 

the six BART sources that Oklahoma 

subsequently did not secure when 

making its BART determinations for 

these sources. We believe that the BART 

limits in our Oklahoma BART FIP 189

have adequately addressed the 

deficiency. We also provide in our 

proposal additional reasons for 

disapproving the reasonable progress 

goals, stating ‘‘Oklahoma’s consultations 

with Texas were flawed, which 

prevented Oklahoma from adequately 

developing its reasonable progress goals 

for the Wichita Mountains,’’ and, 

because Oklahoma’s consultations with 

Texas were flawed, Oklahoma did not 

adequately demonstrate that the 

reasonable progress goals it established 

were reasonable based on the four 

statutory factors under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(ii).190 Comments 

regarding how we calculated the 

reasonable progress goals for the 

Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or the 

Guadalupe Mountains, and our 

consideration of emission reductions 

from BART requirements in Oklahoma 

are addressed in a separate response to 

comment. 

Comment: EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of Texas’ reasonable 

progress goals and its substitution with 

new reasonable progress goals in the 

proposed FIP is based on EPA’s flawed 

interpretation of what the CAA requires 

for ‘‘reasonable progress goals.’’ This 

action is based on the EPA’s conclusion 

that ‘‘reasonable progress’’ must be 

determined based on source-specific 

cost of controls even though such a 

requirement did not exist in the statute, 

the Regional Haze Rule, or the guidance 

available in 2009. The Texas 2009 

regional haze SIP established reasonable 

progress goals for both Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains that provide for 

visibility improvement for the most 

impaired days over the period of the SIP 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the least impaired days over the 

same period. The EPA agrees the SIP 

meets these requirements and also 

agrees that the TCEQ considered the 

four statutory factors in establishing the 

reasonable progress goals for its Class I 

areas in accordance with the Regional 

Haze Rule. Furthermore, the four 

statutory factors in and of themselves do 

not determine the reasonableness of the 

goals for the planning period. The 

Regional Haze Rule, in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iii), requires the EPA to 

evaluate whether the state’s goal for 

visibility improvement provides for 

reasonable progress based on a 

demonstration of which the four 

statutory factors are only one element. 

Therefore, EPA’s proposed disapproval 

of Texas’ reasonable progress goals and 

its proposed new reasonable progress 

goals is flawed. 

Response: We disagree that our 

proposed disapproval of Texas’ 

reasonable progress goals is based on a 

flawed interpretation of what the CAA 

requires for reasonable progress goals. 

As we discuss in our responses to other 

similar comments, we believe that our 

evaluation of cost, including visibility 

benefits, on a source-specific basis was 

an appropriate and reasonable 

interpretation of the analysis required in 

this instance, in order to determine 

what, if any, level of control for Texas 

sources constituted reasonable progress 

for this planning period. 

We agree that § 51.308(d)(1) requires 

more than just the consideration of the 

four factors in the establishment of the 

reasonable progress goals. Also, 

although we agree Texas conducted an 

evaluation of the four reasonable 

progress factors, we determined that 

that evaluation was flawed. Texas did 

not fully satisfy the requirements under 

§ 51.308(d)(1) related to the evaluation 

of the four reasonable progress factors 

and establishment of the reasonable 

progress goals for the two Texas Class I 

areas. We note that § 51.308(d)(1)(iii) 

provides that in determining whether 

the State’s goal for visibility 

improvement provides for reasonable 

progress towards natural visibility 

conditions, the Administrator will 

evaluate the demonstrations developed 

by the State pursuant to paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) and (ii). Thus, we are 

specifically directed to judge the quality 

of a state’s submission of these key parts 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 341 

191 79 FR 74838. 

192 79 FR 74843. 

193 79 FR 74864. 194 64 FR 35732. 195 79 FR 74838. 

of its reasonable progress goals 

development, which we found to be 

flawed. In particular, as we discussed in 

detail in our proposal, we disagree with 

the set of potential controls identified 

by Texas and how it analyzed and 

weighed the four reasonable progress 

factors under § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) 191 and 

we further proposed to disapprove 

Texas’ reasonable progress goals under 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(ii).192 For the reasons 

given in the proposal and affirmed in 

this final action, we cannot approve 

Texas’ reasonable progress goals. In this 

action, we are finalizing our disapproval 

of Texas’ reasonable progress goals for 

Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains 

and we are establishing new reasonable 

progress goals for these Class I areas, as 

discussed in our proposal. 

Comment: EPA fails to take into 

consideration the TCEQ’s 2014 FiveYear Regional Haze SIP Revision or the 

effects of early action or emission 

reduction accomplished or to be 

accomplished by other EPA programs 

before imposing additional 

requirements beyond the state 

submitted SIPs. Considering that the 

visibility improvements of these 

programs have not yet been quantified, 

and the gradual progress anticipated in 

establishing such a long-term goal, EPA 

should be patient and not take such 

aggressive action in overriding 

reasonable state SIPs and imposing 

additional controls. 

Response: We stated in our proposal 

that the TCEQ submitted the first fiveyear report in March 2014, but we are 

not including our analysis of that SIP 

revision within this action.193 The fiveyear progress report is a requirement 

that is separate from the regional haze 

SIP required for the first planning 

period, and it has separate content and 

criteria for us to review. We therefore 

believe we are not obligated to consider 

or take action on the five-year progress 

report at the same time we take action 

on the regional haze SIP for the first 

planning period. Even so, we 

acknowledge that recent monitoring 

data from IMPROVE monitors indicate 

that the more recent five-year average 

measurements of visibility extinction at 

Texas and Oklahoma Class I areas on 

the 20% worst days contained in the 

progress report are lower (i.e., indicate 

better visibility conditions) than the 

numerical reasonable progress goals we 

are establishing for these Class I areas. 

This issue is addressed in detail 

elsewhere in this final action and in the 

RTC document. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

contention that we should not impose 

additional controls on Texas sources 

and instead approve the Texas regional 

haze SIP and the remaining portion of 

the Oklahoma regional haze SIP because 

there may be potential visibility 

improvements that have not yet been 

quantified, resulting from early actions 

and emission reductions accomplished 

or expected to be accomplished through 

other EPA programs. If it is determined 

based on the demonstrations developed 

pursuant to § 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (ii) that 

there are reasonable and cost-effective 

controls available that would provide 

for reasonable progress, the statute and 

regional haze regulations do not allow 

for a delay in requiring these controls to 

allow time for the quantification and 

consideration of possible future 

visibility improvements. Therefore, we 

are finalizing our proposed disapproval 

of Texas’ and Oklahoma’s reasonable 

progress goals and are finalizing the 

control requirements we proposed for 

Texas sources under the reasonable 

progress and long-term strategy 

reasonable progress requirements. 

Comment: The regional haze program 

tasks states with determining what is 

reasonable progress toward elimination 

of man-made visibility impairment, 

along with specific progress milestones 

(10-year planning and SIP revisions, 

with program reviews in the middle of 

the 10-year planning periods). The 

regional haze program contemplates 

gradual visibility improvements along a 

‘‘glide path’’ that considers the 2064 

goal, and does not require immediate 

reductions that exceed ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ as determined by the state 

based on the four statutory factors. 

Thus, it neither requires nor authorizes 

the frontloading of extensive control 

requirements. 

Response: The commenter’s 

contention concerning reasonable 

progress is premised on the assumption 

that the emissions reductions that are 

part of the state’s long-term strategy and 

upon which its reasonable progress 

goals are based do in fact constitute 

reasonable progress. The determination 

of what constitutes reasonable progress 

must be made pursuant to 

§ 51.308(d)(1). Based on its analyses 

under § 51.308(d)(1), a state (or EPA in 

the context of a FIP) may determine that 

a greater or lesser amount of visibility 

improvement than what is needed to get 

on the glide path is what constitutes 

reasonable progress.194 As discussed in 

our proposal and within this action, we 

disagree with the set of potential 

controls identified by the TCEQ as 

having the greatest impact on visibility 

on the three Class I areas and how it 

analyzed and weighed the four 

reasonable progress factors in a number 

of key areas.195 Therefore, we proposed 

to disapprove Texas’ reasonable 

progress goals for its Class I areas and 

conducted our own analysis of the four 

reasonable progress factors to fill in the 

regulatory gap that would be created by 

our disapproval action. We are replacing 

Texas’ flawed reasonable progress 

analysis with our own and are finalizing 

the cost-effective reasonable progress 

controls we proposed on the small 

number of Texas point sources that have 

the greatest visibility impacts on the 

Class I areas of interest. 

Comment: Texas’ four-factor analysis 

and its reasonable progress goals were 

reasonable and within the state’s broad 

discretion, and are supported by recent 

monitoring data showing the reasonable 

progress goals will be met for Oklahoma 

and Texas Class I areas without the 

additional controls EPA proposed for 

Texas sources. The most recent five-year 

(2009–2013) averages of visibility 

monitoring data from IMPROVE 

monitors indicates that visibility 

impairment at the Guadalupe 

Mountains, Big Bend, and the Wichita 

Mountains, are lower than both the 2018 

reasonable progress goals proposed by 

the states and the more stringent 2018 

reasonable progress goals proposed by 

EPA. The Texas five-year regional haze 

progress report issued in 2014 includes 

a projection of further reductions of 

haze-forming SO2 and NOX emissions 

from point sources through 2018. 

Therefore, the commenter concludes 

that it is expected that visibility 

improvements observed through 2013 

for Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, 

and the Wichita Mountains will 

continue and that the 2018 reasonable 

progress goals that EPA proposes will be 

met without the further emission 

controls EPA proposes. These current 

data also show that Wichita Mountains 

is projected to meet the EPA approved 

uniform rate of progress for Oklahoma, 

and the Guadalupe Mountains is 

projected to meet the EPA-proposed 

uniform rate of progress by 2018, 

without the emission controls that EPA 

is proposing. Yet EPA ignores these 

actual conditions in developing its 

reasonable progress goals and in 

concluding that its reasonable progress 

goals are more reasonable. EPA has no 

authority to require further controls 

from Texas sources and should 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
342 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

196 2014 Texas Five-Year Reasonable Progress 

Report, p 4–10, figure 4–2. 

197TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft 

modeling platform dated June 24, 2014. 

198See Luminant CAMD emissions.xlsx in the 

docket for this action. 

199See TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft 

modeling platform dated June 24, 2014 available in 

the docket for this action. 

withdraw its FIP and approve the Texas 

SIP. 

Response: These comments are 

predicated on two false tests: (1) If a 

Class I area meets its uniform rate of 

progress, or (2) if subsequent monitoring 

shows a Class I area meets its reasonable 

progress goals, it is automatically 

relieved of any obligation to address the 

reasonable progress and long-term 

strategy requirements in § 51.308(d)(1) 

and (3). 

We discuss elsewhere in this final 

action that, while we agree that the 

Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

consider the uniform rate of 

improvement in visibility when 

formulating reasonable progress goals, 

we disagree that a state’s consideration 

of the uniform rate of progress and 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals that provide for a slightly greater 

rate of improvement in visibility than 

would be needed to attain the uniform 

rate of progress is all that is needed to 

satisfy the reasonable progress goal 

requirements in the Regional Haze Rule. 

We also disagree that the Regional Haze 

Rule requires additional analysis only 

when a state establishes reasonable 

progress goals that provide for a slower 

rate of improvement than the uniform 

rate of progress. Even when recent data 

from IMPROVE monitors indicate that 

visibility conditions in the Class I area 

are better than the established 

reasonable progress goals and/or that 

the area may be projected to meet the 

uniform rate of progress by 2018, the 

state must still address the requirements 

under § 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3)(i) in 

evaluating controls for additional 

sources and in establishing reasonable 

progress goals for its Class I areas. 

With regard to the assertion that 

Texas’ five-year regional haze progress 

report projects SO2 and NOX emissions 

from point sources to continue to 

decline through 2018 (with 

corresponding visibility improvement 

trends at the three Class I areas), Texas’ 

five-year regional haze progress report is 

pending evaluation as a SIP revision, 

and we intend to take action on it in a 

future rulemaking. We note that the 

portion of the Texas’ five-year regional 

haze progress report referred to by the 

commenters 196 compares actual annual 

emissions from 2002 through 2011 

against a linear change between 2002 

actual emissions and the 2018 CENRAP 

modeled emissions and concludes that 

emissions from 2002 to 2011 have 

trended downward better than or as 

predicted in the CENRAP modeling 

projections. However, we noted in our 

proposal that the CENRAP projected 

visibility impacts in 2018 from Texas 

point sources, and EGUs in particular, 

are significant. As noted in our 

proposed rulemaking, based on 

information provided by the TCEQ in 

materials other than the progress report, 

we do not expect large additional 

emission reductions of SO2 in Texas 

between 2013 and 2018 under Federal 

programs and the SIP as submitted.197

We have not seen evidence in support 

of something different. Furthermore, 

emissions from some of the Texas EGUs 

that we are requiring controls for and 

that impact visibility at the three Class 

I areas the most, are still above the 

emission level projected in the 2018 

CENRAP modeling. We are not aware of 

any upcoming controls or changes in 

operation to suggest that future actual 

emissions at these specific sources will 

decrease to those predicted levels. 

We also remind the commenters that 

even with the controls we are requiring 

for Texas EGUs under our FIP, 

additional reductions would be needed 

for visibility conditions to meet or 

exceed every uniform rate of progress 

goal in 2018 as calculated by us in our 

proposal. For example, current 

conditions at the Wichita Mountains 

(based on 2009–2013) is 21.2 dv. 

Additional reductions would be needed 

for the area to meet the uniform rate of 

progress goal of 20.01 dv in 2018. 

Comment: The SO2 emissions from 

Luminant’s units, for which EPA 

proposed controls, have steadily 

trended downward over the first 

planning period, further underscoring 

the effectiveness of the measures relied 

on in Texas’ SIP and the 

unreasonableness of EPA’s proposed 

FIP. From 2009 to 2014, SO2 emissions 

from Luminant’s Big Brown, Martin 

Lake, Monticello, and Sandow Unit 4 

were reduced by 27%. The SO2

emissions for the first quarter of 2015 

are sharply lower—approximately 57% 

lower than the first quarter of 2009 and 

about 44% lower than the first quarter 

of 2014. The data unequivocally show 

that SO2 emissions at Luminant’s units 

are trending down, and thus there is no 

basis for EPA’s proposal. 

Response: The annual and quarterly 

SO2 emissions data for Luminant’s 

facilities for 2009–2015 demonstrate 

that, although there has been an overall 

downward trend in annual SO2

emissions during this time period, there 

has not been a downward trend in SO2

emissions during Quarter 3 for the sixyear period for which full data are 

available. Except for the years 2011 and 

2012, when total SO2 emissions for 

Quarter 3 were either sizably higher or 

lower compared to the other years 

during the 2009–2014 time period, 

emissions for Quarter 3 remained 

relatively unchanged during this six 

year period. This is significant because 

Quarter 3 corresponds to the summer 

months and many of the 20% worst 

days, which is what the reasonable 

progress goals are based on, typically 

occur during the summer months. 

Emissions reductions during the fall 

and/or winter months reduce annual 

emissions, but will not lead to improved 

visibility during the 20% worst days. 

The majority of the decline in total 

annual SO2 emissions from the 

Luminant sources is driven by seasonal 

operation of Monticello units 1 and 2.198

Furthermore, as we discuss in more 

detail elsewhere, we do not anticipate 

any significant reductions at these 

sources in the near future, and 

information provided by Texas indicates 

it agrees.199 We also note, as discussed 

above, NOX emissions for many of these 

units were updated in our modeling to 

better reflect the recent actual 

emissions. Therefore, we disagree that 

the observed trend in SO2 emissions at 

Luminant’s units in recent years 

demonstrates that there is no basis for 

EPA’s proposal. 

Comment: To the extent Texas and 

industry are arguing that the current 

visibility conditions meet the reasonable 

progress goals EPA is proposing, that is 

largely a result of the fact that EPA has 

not updated the majority of the 2018 

projections that CENRAP and Texas 

relied on. Goals based on the controls 

EPA has proposed and also on more 

updated projections would likely be 

lower than the reasonable progress goals 

EPA is proposing. The recent 

improvement is due to a variety of 

factors, which EPA discusses in the 

proposed rule, 79 FR 74843, most of 

which are not enforceable limitations or 

are beyond the state’s control and, 

therefore, may be temporary. The 

argument made by Texas and industry 

does not show that the proposed 

controls themselves are unnecessary or 

unreasonable. Further, the argument by 

Texas and industry reflects a 

misunderstanding of how reasonable 

progress goals are set. Reasonable 

progress goals are set to reflect controls 

that are reasonable; controls are not 

required in order to meet pre-set 

reasonable progress goals. Congress 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 343 

200 79 FR 74871. 

defined reasonable progress as the 

amount of progress that could be made 

after consideration of four factors. 42 

U.S.C. 7491(g)(1). After the four-factor 

analysis defines reasonable progress, 

each haze SIP must include the 

enforceable measures necessary to make 

reasonable progress. Id. section 

7491(b)(2). The reasonable progress goal 

for 2018 is calculated as the baseline 

visibility condition minus the amount of 

reasonable progress (which is 

established based on consideration of 

the four statutory factors). 

Response: We generally agree with the 

commenter and agree that these 

comments provide support of our FIP. 

Comment: EPA fails to even consider 

the four statutory factors with respect to 

non-BART sources in Oklahoma that are 

impacting visibility at the Wichita 

Mountains and to determine whether all 

existing and reasonable controls on 

Oklahoma sources, including BART, are 

sufficient to attain a reasonable rate of 

progress for the Wichita Mountains for 

the first planning period. EPA does not 

explain why it failed to conduct the 

modeling and perform the statutory 

analysis that it would expect a state to 

conduct in determining a reasonable 

progress goal. 

EPA failed to consider the visibility 

benefit from imposing the same levels of 

control on these sources as it is 

proposing to impose on the targeted 

Texas sources. EPA is applying a 

different standard to Texas sources than 

it is to sources in other states. EPA’s 

‘‘reset’’ reasonable progress goal is 

unlawful; and EPA has no basis for 

disapproving Oklahoma’s reasonable 

progress goal, no basis for issuing a FIP 

with a substitute reasonable progress 

goal for the Wichita Mountains, no basis 

for disapproving Texas’ long-term 

strategy, and no basis for imposing 

additional SO2 limits on Texas sources. 

Response: We disapproved Texas’ 

long-term strategy because it was 

technically flawed and we were under 

a statutory obligation to evaluate Texas 

sources and propose a FIP for those 

facilities where we determined that 

reasonable emission controls could be 

installed for improved visibility benefit. 

Oklahoma’s lack of adequate 

information from Texas prevented it 

from properly developing its reasonable 

progress goals for the Wichita 

Mountains, and we disagree that we are 

applying a different standard to Texas 

sources than we are sources in other 

states. We note that we were not 

required to do a four-factor analysis for 

Oklahoma’s non-BART sources because, 

as discussed in our proposal 200 and OK 

TSD, we reviewed Oklahoma’s fourfactor analysis for Oklahoma’s nonBART sources, and agree with 

Oklahoma that it has demonstrated that 

it is not reasonable to require additional 

emission reductions for those sources 

for this planning period. We agree with 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress 

analysis for sources within Oklahoma 

and its assessment that the Wichita 

Mountains would not meet the uniform 

rate of progress without significant 

reductions from Texas sources. Because 

the reasonable progress goals Oklahoma 

established for the Wichita Mountains 

does not include appropriate 

consideration of reductions at Texas 

sources, we were required by the 

Regional Haze Rule to disapprove 

Oklahoma’s reasonable progress goals. 

We recalculate new reasonable progress 

goals for 2018 for the Wichita 

Mountains based on the results of our 

technical analysis that additional 

controls at Texas sources were 

reasonable to meet the reasonable 

progress/long-term strategy requirement 

for reasonable progress and accounting 

for the visibility benefit of the required 

controls anticipated to be in place by 

2018. 

R. International Emissions 

Comment: EPA acknowledged it 

failed to account for international 

sources of emissions, which Texas 

cannot control. This renders its proposal 

ineffective in improving visibility to 

meet the uniform rate of progress and 

2064 goal. EPA’s action would require 

over-control of Texas sources to 

compensate for international emissions. 

If the TCEQ cannot meet the glide path 

without ‘‘large emission reductions from 

international sources,’’ it is 

unreasonable for EPA to require 

additional controls from Texas without 

making any effort to seek emissions 

reductions from international sources. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that international 

emissions significantly impact visibility 

conditions at Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains. However, as we 

discussed in the preamble to the 

Regional Haze Rule, ‘‘the States should 

not consider the presence of emissions 

from foreign sources as a reason not to 

strive to ensure reasonable progress in 

reducing any visibility impairment 

caused by sources located within their 

jurisdiction.’’ While the goal of the 

regional haze program is to restore 

natural visibility conditions at Class I 

areas by 2064, the rule requires only 

that reasonable progress be made 

towards the goal during each planning 

period, and in cases where it is not 

reasonable to meet the rate of progress 

needed to attain the goal in 2064, that 

the state demonstrate that it is not 

reasonable and that the selected rate of 

progress is reasonable for that planning 

period. We recognize that it may not be 

possible to attain the goal by 2064, or at 

all, because of impacts from new or 

persistent international emissions 

sources or impacts from sources where 

reasonable controls are not available. 

However, states are still required to 

demonstrate that they are establishing a 

reasonable rate of progress that includes 

implementation of reasonable measures 

within the state to address visibility 

impairment in an effort to make 

progress towards the natural visibility 

goal during each planning period. 

Nothing in the Regional Haze Rule or 

our FIP is calculated to hold Texas 

accountable for emissions from Mexico. 

We agree those international emissions 

should be addressed to achieve natural 

visibility, but our agreement on this 

point does not in any way relieve Texas 

of the obligation to make reasonable 

progress, including through controls on 

its own sources, and particularly 

through the emissions addressed with 

controls through our FIP. 

Comment: EPA is not doing enough to 

seek emission reductions from 

international sources. Commenters 

noted that we committed to address 

international emissions in our 1999 

Regional Haze Rule when we stated, 

‘‘EPA will work with the governments 

of Canada and Mexico to seek 

cooperative solutions on transboundary 

pollution problems (64 FR 35714, 

35736),’’ but have thus far done little. 

Response: We acknowledge that Texas 

requested in its SIP that we initiate and 

pursue Federal efforts to reduce impacts 

from international transport. There are 

efforts underway to address public 

health problems related to air emissions 

along the United States-Mexico border. 

Given that emissions contributing to 

health effects and those contributing to 

visibility impairment are generally the 

same, the border studies and continuing 

emissions inventory development will 

aid in identifying solutions that we 

would expect to also address visibility 

impairment. The Border 2020 program 

aims to, among other things, reduce air 

pollution to help meet the NAAQS and 

reduce emission through the use of 

energy efficiency and/or alternative/

renewable energy projects. We expect 

that recent commitments from Mexico 

to reduce its carbon dioxide and black 

carbon emissions will have ancillary 

benefits to improve visibility at Class I 

areas in the future. 

Comment: It is not possible for Texas 

to achieve the uniform rate of progress 

because of the contribution from 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
344 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

201 79 FR 74843. 

202See FIP TSD pages A–30–32 and A–65–66 and 

Conclusions of BRAVO study source apportionment 

techniques (TX166.017 

BravoFactSheet20040915.pdf and 

BRAVOFinalReportCIRA.pdf). 

Mexico. An analysis shows that if every 

point source in Texas were shut down, 

it would have only a marginal impact on 

visibility in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Further, the exclusion of all of Texas 

and other United States elevated point 

sources resulted in a modeled haze 

index value of 14.88 dv, meaning that 

Mexican sources and natural 

contributions are projected to account 

for 92%, or all but 1.48 deciviews, of 

visibility impairment in the Guadalupe 

Mountains. 

Response: The commenter 

erroneously overstates the size of the 

visibility impacts from Mexico relative 

to Texas. As we stated in our proposal, 

efforts to meet the goal of natural 

visibility by 2064 ‘‘would require 

further emissions reductions not only 

within Texas, but also large emission 

reductions from international sources’’ 

(emphasis added).201 The commenter’s 

analysis fails to account for impacts 

from mobile and area sources within 

Texas and other states, and fails to 

differentiate Mexican sources from other 

international sources. The analysis also 

fails to consider that deciviews are a 

logarithmic function of extinction, 

resulting in the underestimation of the 

percent contribution from Texas and 

U.S. point sources. Overall impacts from 

all sources in Texas are larger than all 

sources in Mexico and the boundary 

conditions (which represent external 

sources) combined. As we discuss in 

our proposal and elsewhere in our 

response to comments, Texas and we 

agreed that it was reasonable to focus on 

impacts from point sources for this 

planning period. The visibility 

impairment from Texas point sources is 

significant, and as our analysis shows, 

a significant portion of this impairment 

can be addressed by controlling a small 

number of sources. Controls on just four 

units at Tolk and Big Brown are 

estimated to reduce visibility 

impairment due to all Texas point 

sources at the Guadalupe Mountains by 

approximately 13%. All required 

controls combined are estimated to 

reduce visibility impairment at the 

Guadalupe Mountains from all Texas 

point sources by approximately 22%. 

Comment: CCP (through its 

contractor, AECOM) stated that back 

trajectories for 2011–2013 indicate that 

approximately 77% of the 20% worst 

day trajectories at the Guadalupe 

Mountains passed through Mexico. For 

Big Bend, this percentage increases to 

about 96%. Mexican point sources, 

particularly Carbon I and Carbon II, are 

only about 230 km away from Big Bend, 

while the nearest Texas facility with a 

proposed new emission limit is about 

500 km away. Emissions from these 

large power plants are noteworthy— 

Carbon II emitted 162,329 tons of SO2 in 

2008, according to the draft EPA 2011 

modeling platform, which is an increase 

from 1997 (129,341 tons at Carbon II). In 

addition to international point sources, 

smoke plumes from agricultural fires in 

Central America travel northward into 

the U.S. and contribute to haze. 

Modeling shows that the sources that 

cause haze in Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains are rarely in the 

area where most of the emission sources 

targeted by EPA are located. The effect 

of controlling emissions at a plant like 

Big Brown would be dwarfed by the 

massive impact of the international 

emissions. CCP reasons that since the 

emissions from its facility, Coleto Creek, 

are even lower than Big Brown’s 

emissions, it would have a smaller 

impact. This component of haze must be 

accounted for in regional haze SIPs in 

the development of reasonable progress 

goals and/or natural conditions because 

these emissions from agricultural burns, 

power plants, or wildfires from 

international sources are beyond the 

jurisdiction of state agencies. 

Response: We have reviewed the back 

trajectories provided and have noted 

several flaws in the analysis and 

conclusions. In general, back trajectories 

are tools that may be used for analyzing 

potential upwind contribution areas to a 

monitored value of concern. In this case 

we generally agree that many back 

trajectories do pass through upwind 

areas in Mexico for the 20% worst 

monitored days at Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains. What the 

commenter fails to point out or 

conclude is that a very large percentage 

of the trajectories that the commenter 

attributes to Mexico also cross over or 

near areas of Texas, thus indicating that 

Texas is also a potential contributor to 

the high monitored values at Big Bend 

and the Guadalupe Mountains. We do 

agree that impacts from Mexico are 

significant and must be addressed to 

achieve natural visibility, but our 

agreement on this point does not in any 

way relieve Texas of the obligation to 

make reasonable progress, including 

through controls on its own sources, 

and particularly through the emissions 

addressed with controls through our 

FIP. Past analyses have indicated that 

impacts from Texas on Big Bend and the 

Guadalupe Mountains are as large as 

impacts from Mexico and that reducing 

impacts from sources in Texas is also 

necessary to achieve natural 

visibility.202 We disagree that impacts 

from Coleto Creek would be smaller 

than impacts from Big Brown because it 

has fewer emissions. The comment 

failed to consider the location of the 

source and the meteorology/transport 

conditions. Coleto Creek is closer to Big 

Bend and our source apportionment 

modeling shows that the one unit at 

Coleto Creek has a larger impact on the 

20% worst days at Big Bend than the 

impact from the two units at Big Brown. 

The comment presents a comparison 

between the visibility impact from one 

facility to the visibility impact from all 

sources around the world that lie 

outside of the modeling domain, 

including long range transport from 

fires, windblown dust, and significant 

anthropogenic emissions. The 

commenter states that annual average 

visibility impairment from Big Brown is 

approximately 10% of the annual 

average contribution from those sources 

captured by the boundary conditions. 

This is a significant fraction of the total 

visibility impairment that can be 

addressed through the installation of 

controls on merely two emission units. 

We also note that visibility impairment 

on the 20% worst days at each Class I 

area from Big Brown is larger; and as 

can be seen by the data submitted by the 

commenter, on some days, the visibility 

impairment due to Big Brown’s 

emissions approaches or exceeds that 

from all emissions sources captured by 

the boundary conditions. For the 

Wichita Mountains, controls on just Big 

Brown address almost 12% of the total 

visibility impairment due to Texas point 

sources and 1.63% of the total visibility 

impairment from all sources. In 

summary, the visibility impairment 

from the individual sources analyzed is 

significant, and controls on these 

sources provide for meaningful progress 

towards the goal of natural visibility 

conditions at one or more Class I areas. 

This is not inconsistent with the 

understanding that significant impacts 

from international emissions and other 

sources exist and should also be 

addressed. 

Lastly, we agree with CCP that the 

sources it cites, Carbon I and Carbon II, 

are responsible for significant levels of 

pollution. Carbon I is a 1,200 MW 

power plant and Carbon II is a 1,400 

MW coal-fired power plant. These two 

power plants, less than 1.5 miles apart, 

are less than 20 miles from the U.S.- 

Mexico border. Together, these power 

plants comprise one of the largest 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 345 

203Commission for Environmental Cooperation of 

North America, ‘‘North American Power Plant Air 

Emissions,’’ http://www.cec.org/storage/56/4876_

powerplant_airemission_en.pdf. TCEQ may keep 

this in consideration in future studies on the 

impacts of sources from Mexico on Class I areas or 

otherwise. 

204Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility 

Observational Study (BRAVO), Final Report, 

September 2004. 

205http://www.epbusinessjournal.com/2015/11/

dos-republicas-coal-partnership-coal-mineexpanded-water-discharge-permit-application-tobe-heard-november-16th/. 

206Authorization to Discharge Under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Permit No. 

TX0109011. 

207Final Environmental Impact Statement on Dos 

Republicas Resource Company, Inc.’s Proposed 

Eagle Pass Mine in Maverick County, Texas, 

December 30, 1994. Page C–51. 

208Synapse’s report, ‘‘ERCOT_Report_Review_

Memo_20150908.pdf’’ is in our docket to this 

rulemaking action. 

uncontrolled sources of SO2 and NOX in 

North America.203 It has been 

demonstrated for some time that they 

are significant contributors to visibility 

impairment at Big Bend.204 However, 

addressing international emissions can 

be complex. For instance, Texas has 

recently issued water discharge and 

mining permits to a coal mine in 

Maverick County, near the Texas border 

town of Eagle Pass, to allow the 

Mexican company Dos Republicas to 

begin mining coal that will reportedly 

be sent to these facilities.205 Prior to our 

delegation of the National Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permitting 

authority to Texas, we issued a NPDES 

permit for the operation of this mine, 

and in the process issued an 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS).206 In our EIS, we stated that ‘‘. . . 

EPA does not have the authority to 

prohibit export of U.S. resources which 

will cause the country environmental 

harm . . . EPA believes that the U.S. 

policy should be to take actions which 

will generate the investment capital 

needed to directly solve the Carbon I/II 

problem’’ 207 Subsequent to that, we 

attempted to work with the government 

of Mexico specifically on the problem of 

installing controls on these sources 

through a technical work group 

composed of EPA and SEMARNAP 

(now SEMARNAT, the Mexican 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Secretariat) staff. Unfortunately, these 

discussions did not result in any control 

of Carbon I and II. However, EPA is 

committed to explore opportunities for 

further discussions with Mexico 

concerning this subject. 

S. Grid Reliability 

Comment: The TCEQ recommended 

that we withdraw the proposed FIP; 

however, if we do finalize the FIP, it 

believed we should include an electric 

reliability safety valve provision in the 

final rule. The TCEQ stated that we have 

not evaluated any potential impacts of 

our proposed FIP to reliability and 

prices of electricity in Texas. It included 

a 2014 ERCOT study of the impacts that 

environmental regulations have in the 

ERCOT Region. While the ERCOT report 

included a number of other 

environmental regulations, such as the 

MATS rule, Clean Power Plan, and 

CSAPR, ERCOT also included our 

proposed regional haze FIP for Texas in 

its analysis. The TCEQ incorporated the 

ERCOT report into its comments and 

encouraged us to consider its findings. 

Response: First, we note that controls 

achieving the level of control that we 

are requiring are highly cost-effective, 

are in wide use in the industry, and thus 

should not require a source to shut 

down to comply. In response to the 

TCEQ’s comments, however, we 

contracted with Synapse Energy 

Economics, Inc., a nationally recognized 

firm with particular expertise in the 

subject area. (Synapse).208 Synapse 

assessed the information in the ERCOT 

report and we reproduce its findings 

below: 

1. ERCOT’s perspective of market 

operations is short-sighted. ERCOT raises 

concerns that reliability could be impacted if 

numerous coal units choose to retire 

simultaneously with little notice to either 

ERCOT or other market participants. Unlike 

other competitive market regions, ERCOT’s 

rules do not require meaningful notice. 

ERCOT’s charge as a reliability coordinator 

may obligate it to implement rules requiring 

reasonable notice for economic retirements. 

2. ERCOT’s assumptions about new gas 

turbine capacity are not realistic. While the 

FIP, along with other environmental 

regulations ERCOT included in its study, will 

strain the economic viability of coal plants 

and likely lead to less coal capacity, ERCOT 

has not considered new resources that will be 

available to help address potential reliability 

challenges. Specifically, ERCOT does not 

include approximately 4,500 MW of 

additional gas-fired capacity coming online 

in Texas in the upcoming years. This 

represents 7.5 percent of current gas capacity, 

and would double the modeled baseline gas 

capacity additions through 2029. 

3. The set of regulatory scenarios modeled 

is both incomplete and (now) outdated. 

Despite an overall thorough analysis ERCOT 

excluded a critical scenario that would have 

modeled the impact of the Regional Haze 

Program FIP by itself. This limits inferences 

we can make about impacts. Additionally, 

since ERCOT finalized its study, EPA 

finalized the Clean Power Plan. The final rule 

includes substantive changes that are likely 

to affect all of the CO2 limit and priceinclusive scenario modeling results. 

4. Electric Generating Unit owners’ 

compliance ‘‘burdens’’ with the regional haze 

FIP may be over-stated. Of the 15 coal-fired 

units subject to regional haze compliance 

requirements, eight require upgrades to their 

existing scrubbers rather than new scrubbers. 

ERCOT assumed that all of the scrubbers 

would be priced at the cost of a new retrofit, 

thereby substantially increasing the cost of 

the regulation. 

We reviewed and accept our 

contractor’s finding and adopt its 

conclusion that ERCOT’s report 

contained significant flaws. In sum, 

ERCOT’s report cannot support a 

determination that there is likely to be 

any significant, adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

During our comment period, we 

received no non-speculative information 

to validate claims that sources would 

retire rather than install demonstrably 

cost-effective controls. Commenters who 

have alleged grid reliability concerns in 

response to our proposed controls have 

not provided adequate documentation 

for their assertions. 

T. Determination of Nationwide Scope 

and Effect 

Several commenters disagreed with 

our proposed determination of 

‘‘nationwide scope and effect,’’ which 

would require all petitions for judicial 

review to be filed in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit Court. These commenters argued 

that our proposed action did not have 

nationwide scope and effect because it 

applied only to two states. They further 

argued that the control requirements in 

the FIP applied only to sources in 

Texas. The commenters acknowledged 

that the proposed action involved our 

interpretation of our regulations, but 

asserted that the same is true for many 

SIP actions. The commenters went on to 

cite several regional haze SIP actions 

where we did not make a finding of 

nationwide scope and effect as evidence 

that our proposal to do so in this 

instance was unlawful. Ultimately, 

these commenters concluded that our 

proposed action was ‘‘locally or 

regionally applicable’’ and that any 

future petitions for review must be filed 

in the appropriate regional circuit. Some 

commenters suggested that judicial 

review would only be appropriate in the 

Fifth Circuit. 

We disagree with these comments. 

The commenters are conflating two 

distinct portions of the CAA’s judicial 

review provision. Under CAA section 

307(b)(1), ‘‘[a] petition for review of . . . 

nationally applicable regulations 

promulgated, or final agency action 

taken, by the Administrator . . . may be 

filed only in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia.’’ 

Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, 

we did not assert at proposal, nor do we 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
346 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

209See 79 FR 29362. 

assert now, that our FIP for Texas and 

Oklahoma is a ‘‘nationally applicable’’ 

regulation. CAA section 307(b)(1) next 

provides that ‘‘[a] petition for review of 

the Administrator’s action in approving 

or promulgating any implementation 

plan under section 7410 . . . or any 

other final action of the Administrator 

. . . which is locally or regionally 

applicable may be filed only in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit.’’ The commenters 

cite this sentence, but ignore the 

following sentence, which states 

‘‘[n]otwithstanding the preceding 

sentence a petition for review of any 

action referred to in such sentence may 

be filed only in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

if such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such 

determination.’’ 

In other words, a final agency action 

that is locally or regionally applicable, 

such as a FIP, is appealable only in the 

D.C. Circuit Court if two conditions are 

met: (1) The action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect, and (2) we find and publish our 

determination. Both conditions are met 

here. First, we proposed to find and 

have confirmed our finding in this final 

rule that our action on the Texas and 

Oklahoma regional haze SIPs, which 

includes the promulgation of a partial 

FIP for each state, is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope and 

effect. Second, we have published that 

finding in the Federal Register. 

While the CAA does not provide any 

guidance regarding the phrase 

‘‘nationwide scope and effect,’’ the 

legislative history indicates that a 

determination of nationwide scope and 

effect is appropriate if a local or regional 

action encompasses two or more 

judicial circuits. The commenters made 

no effort to explain why this legislative 

history should not be taken into 

account. Instead, the commenters cited 

to other EPA actions on regional haze 

SIPs where we did not make a 

determination of nationwide scope and 

effect. However, the commenters failed 

to mention that all of these actions 

involved a single state and thus did not 

implicate multiple judicial circuits. We 

have routinely made determinations of 

nationwide scope and effect when more 

than one circuit is involved. Last year, 

for instance, we made a determination 

of nationwide scope and effect in a SIP 

approval action that involved the States 

of Florida and North Carolina, which 

reside in separate judicial circuits.209

We have made many other such 

determinations over the years. 

We also determined that this action 

has nationwide scope and effect because 

at the core of this rulemaking is our 

interpretation of the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

169A(b)(2) of the CAA and multiple 

complex provisions of the Regional 

Haze Rule. Many commenters disagreed 

with our interpretation of these 

provisions, with some providing 

alternative interpretations that would 

substantially eviscerate the Regional 

Haze Rule. Congress intended for such 

issues of national importance to be 

decided by the D.C. Circuit. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons discussed more fully 

in section II, above and detailed in our 

proposal and its accompanying TSDs, in 

this action, we are partially approving 

and partially disapproving a revision to 

the Texas SIP received from the State of 

Texas on March 31, 2009, that intended 

to address regional haze for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018. We also are disapproving the 

interstate visibility transport portions of 

the Texas SIP that address CAA 

provisions for prohibiting air pollutant 

emissions from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other state. We also are partially 

disapproving a revision to the 

Oklahoma SIP submitted in February 

19, 2010, that addresses regional haze 

for the first planning period. We are 

finalizing a FIP to remedy certain of the 

deficiencies and not acting on others. 

Below is a list of the specific actions we 

are finalizing in this rulemaking. 

A. Texas Regional Haze 

We are approving the portions of the 

Texas regional haze SIP submitted on 

March 31, 2009, except for the following 

Regional Haze Rule requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 51: 

• Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding 

Texas’ reasonable progress four-factor 

analysis for the Guadalupe Mountains 

and Big Bend. 

• Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding 

Texas’ calculation of the emission 

reductions needed to achieve the 

uniform rates of progress for the 

Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. 

• Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding 

Texas’ reasonable progress goals for the 

Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. 

• Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii), regarding 

Texas’ calculation of natural visibility 

conditions. 

• Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), 

regarding Texas’ calculation of the 

number of deciviews by which baseline 

conditions exceed natural visibility 

conditions. 

• Section 51.308(d)(3)(i), regarding 

Texas’ long-term strategy consultations 

with Oklahoma. 

• Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii), regarding 

Texas securing its share of reductions 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals at Big Bend, the 

Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita 

Mountains. 

• Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), regarding 

Texas’ technical basis for its long-term 

strategy for Big Bend, the Guadalupe 

Mountains the Wichita Mountains. 

• Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), 

regarding Texas’ emission limitations 

and schedules for compliance to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals for Big 

Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and 

Wichita Mountains. 

We are also approving the Texas’ 

BART Rules, 30 TAC 116.1500– 

116.1540, except for the 30 TAC 

116.1510(d) which relies on CAIR and is 

disapproved. 

We are not taking action on 40 CFR 

51.308(e) concerning Texas EGU BART. 

B. Oklahoma Regional Haze 

We are disapproving the portion of 

the Oklahoma regional haze SIP that 

addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1) with respect to reasonable 

progress goals, with the exception of 

§ 51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we are 

approving. 

C. Interstate Visibility Transport 

We are disapproving portions of 

Texas SIP submittals that address CAA 

provisions for prohibiting air pollutant 

emissions from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other state for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Our 

final FIP does not cure these defects as 

that portion of the FIP would have 

partially relied on CSAPR. We will 

address the visibility transport 

requirements for Texas in a future 

rulemaking, once the issues surrounding 

the CSAPR partial remand are resolved. 

D. Federal Implementation Plan 

Our final FIP requires the following 

SO2 emission limits for specific 

emission units in Texas: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 347 

TABLE 7—FINAL 30-BOILEROPERATING-DAY SO2 EMISSION LIMITS

Unit 

SO2 Emission 

limit 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

Sandow 4 .............................. 0.20 

Martin Lake 1 ........................ 0.12 

Martin Lake 2 ........................ 0.12 

Martin Lake 3 ........................ 0.11 

Monticello 3 .......................... 0.06 

Limestone 2 .......................... 0.08 

Limestone 1 .......................... 0.08 

Big Brown 1 .......................... 0.04 

Big Brown 2 .......................... 0.04 

Monticello 1 .......................... 0.04 

Monticello 2 .......................... 0.04 

Coleto Creek 1 ..................... 0.04 

Tolk 172B ............................. 0.06 

Tolk 171B ............................. 0.06 

TABLE 7—FINAL 30-BOILER-OPERATING-DAY SO2 EMISSION LIMITS— 

Continued 

Unit 

SO2 Emission 

limit 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

San Miguel ............................ 0.60 

Compliance with these emission 

limits is based on a 30 BOD period. We 

are finalizing requirements providing 

that compliance with these limits be 

achieved within: 

• Five years of the effective date of 

our final rule for Big Brown Units 1 and 

2, Monticello Units 1 and 2, Coleto 

Creek Unit 1, and Tolk Units 171B and 

172B. 

• Three years of the effective date of 

our final rule for Sandow 4; Martin Lake 

Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 3; and 

Limestone Units 1 and 2. 

• One year of the effective date of our 

final rule for San Miguel. San Miguel 

may elect an alternative compliance 

method by doing the following: 

• Install a CEMS at the inlet of the 

scrubber system. The 30 BOD SO2

average from the existing outlet CEMS 

must read at or below 6.0% (94% 

control) of a 30 BOD SO2 average from 

the inlet CEMS. San Miguel must inform 

us in writing of its decision to select this 

option for compliance by no later than 

their compliance date. 

Based on our technical analysis, we 

have calculated the following in Tables 

8 and 9 for Texas and Oklahoma: 

TABLE 8—NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS, NUMBER OF DECIVIEWS BY WHICH BASELINE CONDITIONS EXCEED NATURAL

VISIBILITY CONDITIONS, AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS FOR TEXAS

Class I area 

Natural visibility conditions Number of deciviews by 

which baseline conditions 

exceed natural visibility 

conditions 

Uniform rates 

of progress 

20% Worst 20% Best at 2018 

20% Worst 20% Best 

Guadalupe Mountains ...................................................................... 6.65 dv ........ 0.99 dv ........ 10.54 dv ...... 4.96 dv ........ 14.73 dv. 

Big Bend .......................................................................................... 7.16 dv ........ 1.62 dv ........ 10.14 dv ...... 4.16 dv ........ 14.93 dv. 

TABLE 9—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS FOR TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA

Class I area 

Reasonable progress goals 

20% Worst 20% Best 

Guadalupe Mountains .................................................................................................................................................. 16.26 dv ...... 5.70 dv. 

Big Bend ....................................................................................................................................................................... 16.57 dv ...... 5.59 dv. 

Wichita Mountains ........................................................................................................................................................ 21.33 dv ...... 9.22 dv. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, we are finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

revisions to the Texas regulations as 

described in the Final Action section 

above and the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. We have made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the EPA Region 6 office. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) because it is not a rule of general 

applicability. This action finalizes a 

source-specific FIP for that applies to 

eight coal-fired power plants in Texas 

(Big Brown; Monticello; Coleto Creek; 

Tolk; Sandow; Martin Lake; Limestone; 

and San Miguel). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. Under the PRA, a ‘‘collection of 

information’’ is defined as a 

requirement for ‘‘answers to . . . 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons . . . ’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the FIP applies to only eight 

facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This FIP will apply to eight 

facilities, none of which are small 

entities. The final partial approval of the 

SIP merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
348 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to state, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of the UMRA 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective, 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that Title II of 

the UMRA does not apply to this rule. 

In 2 U.S.C. 1502(1) all terms in Title II 

of UMRA have the meanings set forth in 

2 U.S.C. 658, which further provides 

that the terms ‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ 

have the meanings set forth in 5 U.S.C. 

601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. 601(2), ‘‘the term 

‘rule’ does not include a rule of 

particular applicability relating to . . . 

facilities.’’ Because this rule is a rule of 

particular applicability relating to eight 

named facilities, EPA has determined 

that it is not a ‘‘rule’’ for the purposes 

of Title II of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The final rule 

does not impose significant economic 

costs on state or local governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to the final rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action applies to 

eight facilities in Texas and to Federal 

Class I areas in Oklahoma and Texas. 

This action does not apply on any 

Indian reservation land, any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of 

Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks applies to any 

rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under Executive Order 12866; and (2) 

concerns an environmental health or 

safety risk that we have reason to 

believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because the EPA does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

Moreover, ‘‘regulation’’ or ‘‘rule,’’ is 

defined in Executive Order 12866 as ‘‘an 

agency statement of general 

applicability and future effect.’’ E.O. 

12866 does not define ‘‘statement of 

general applicability,’’ but this term 

commonly refers to statements that 

apply to groups or classes, as opposed 

to statements, which apply only to 

named entities. The FIP therefore is not 

a rule of general applicability because 

its requirements apply and are tailored 

to only eight individually identified 

facilities. Thus, it is not a ‘‘rule’’ or 

‘‘regulation’’ within the meaning of E.O. 

12866. However, as this action will limit 

emissions of SO2, it will have a 

beneficial effect on children’s health by 

reducing air pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This action involves technical 

standards. Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This rule would 

require the eight affected facilities to 

meet the applicable monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 

already incorporates a number of 

voluntary consensus standards. 

Consistent with the Agency’s 

Performance Based Measurement 

System (PBMS), part 75 sets forth 

performance criteria that allow the use 

of alternative methods to the ones set 

forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is 

intended to be more flexible and costeffective for the regulated community; it 

is also intended to encourage innovation 

in analytical technology and improved 

data quality. At this time, EPA is not 

recommending any revisions to part 75; 

however, EPA periodically revises the 

test procedures set forth in part 75. 

When EPA revises the test procedures 

set forth in part 75 in the future, EPA 

will address the use of any new 

voluntary consensus standards that are 

equivalent. Currently, even if a test 

procedure is not set forth in part 75, 

EPA is not precluding the use of any 

method, whether it constitutes a 

voluntary consensus standard or not, as 

long as it meets the performance criteria 

specified; however, any alternative 

methods must be approved through the 

petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 

before they are used. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 349 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This FIP limits emissions of SO2 from 

eight facilities in Texas. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective on February 4, 2016. 

VI. Judicial Review 

The scope and effect of this 

rulemaking extend to Texas and 

Oklahoma, which are located in two 

judicial circuits. In addition, EPA’s 

clarified interpretation of its regulations 

as set forth in this final action, 

including the accompanying RTC and 

TSD documents, is applicable to 

regional haze actions in all states, not 

just the specific actions we are taking 

here with regard to the regional haze 

obligations for Texas and Oklahoma. 

Accordingly, the Administrator 

determines that this is a rulemaking of 

nationwide scope or effect and any 

petitions for review must be filed in the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in accordance with 

CAA section 307(b)(1). Petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be 

filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit by March 7, 

2016. 

In addition, pursuant to CAA section 

307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the 

requirements of CAA section 307(d) 

because it promulgates a FIP under CAA 

section 110(c). Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review, extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

or postpone the effectiveness of the rule. 

Per CAA section 307(b)(2), this action 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxides, 

Visibility, Interstate transport of 

pollution, Regional haze, Best available 

control technology. 

Dated: December 9, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart LL—Oklahoma 

■ 2. Section 52.1920(e) is amended by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Regional haze 

SIP’’ in the table titled ‘‘EPA-Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the Oklahoma 

SIP’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE OKLAHOMA SIP 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

non-attainment 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Regional haze SIP: ........................................

(a) Determination of baseline and natural 

visibility conditions.

(b) Coordinating regional haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment.

(c) Monitoring strategy and other implementation requirements.

(d) Coordination with States and Federal 

Land Managers 

(e) BART determinations except for the following SO2 BART determinations: Units 4 

and 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

(OG&E) Muskogee plant; and Units 1 and 

2 of the OG&E Sooner plant 

Statewide .................. 2/17/2010 3/7/2014, 79 FR 

12953.

Core requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308. Initial approval 12/28/

2011, 76 FR 81728. Approval 

for § 51.308(d)(1)(vi) 1/5/2016 

[Insert Federal Register citation]. 

*******

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.1928 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) and 

adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1928 Visibility protection. 

(a) * * * 

(3) ‘‘Greater RP Alternative 

Determination’’ (Section VI.E); 

(4) Separate executed agreements 

between ODEQ and OG&E, and ODEQ 

and AEP/PSO entitled ‘‘OG&E RH 

Agreement, Case No. 10–024, and ‘‘PSO 

RH Agreement, Case No. 10–025,’’ 

housed within Appendix 6–5 of the RH 

SIP; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
350 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(5) The reasonable progress goals for 

the first planning period and the 

reasonable progress consultation with 

Texas for the Wichita Mountains Class 

I area. 

* * * * * 

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 4. Section 52.2270 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), adding center 

heading ‘‘Subchapter M: Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART)’’ and the 

sections 116.1500, 116.1510, 116.1520, 

116.1530 and 116.1540 under ‘‘Chapter 

116 (Reg 6)—Control of Air Pollution by 

Permits for New Construction or 

Modification’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (e), adding an entry for 

‘‘Texas Regional Haze SIP’’ at the end of 

the table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the Texas SIP’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification 

*******

Subchapter M: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Section 116.1500 ........... Definitions ..................... 2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 116.1510 ........... Applicability and Exemption Requirements.2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

116.1510(d) is NOT part of the approved SIP. 

Section 116.1520 ........... Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) 

Analysis.

2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 116.1530 ........... Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) 

Control Implementation.

2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 116.1540 ........... Exemption from Best 

Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) 

Control Implementation.

2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 351 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or non-attainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Texas Regional Haze 

SIP.

Statewide ...................... 3/19/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

The following sections are not approved as part 

of the SIP: The reasonable progress four-factor analysis, reasonable progress goals and 

the calculation of the emission reductions 

needed to achieve the uniform rates of 

progress for the Guadalupe Mountains and 

Big Bend; calculation of natural visibility conditions; calculation of the number of deciviews 

by which baseline conditions exceed natural 

visibility conditions; long-term strategy consultations with Oklahoma; Texas securing its 

share of reductions necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals at Big Bend, the 

Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains; technical basis for its long-term strategy 

and emission limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big Bend, 

the Guadalupe Mountains and Wichita Mountains. 

■ 6. Section 52.2302 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2302 Federal implementation plan for 

regional haze. 

(a) Requirements for Martin Lake 

Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow 

Unit 4; Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Coleto 

Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and 

San Miguel affecting visibility. 

(1) Applicability. The provisions of 

this section shall apply to each owner 

or operator, or successive owners or 

operators, of the coal burning 

equipment designated as: Martin Lake 

Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Units 1, 2, 

and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow 

Unit 4; Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Coleto 

Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and 

San Miguel. 

(2) Compliance dates. Compliance 

with the requirements of this section is 

required by February 4, 2019 for Martin 

Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 

3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; and Sandow 

Unit 4. Compliance with the 

requirements of this section is required 

by February 4, 2021 for Big Brown Units 

1 and 2; Monticello Units 1 and 2; 

Coleto Creek Unit 1; and Tolk Units 1 

and 2. Compliance with the 

requirements of this section is required 

by February 4, 2017 for San Miguel. 

These compliance dates apply unless 

otherwise indicated by compliance 

dates contained in specific provisions. 

(3) Definitions. All terms used in this 

part but not defined herein shall have 

the meaning given them in the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and in 40 CFR parts 51 and 

60. For the purposes of this section: 24-hour period means the period of 

time between 12:01 a.m. and 12 

midnight. Air pollution control equipment 

includes selective catalytic control 

units, baghouses, particulate or gaseous 

scrubbers, and any other apparatus 

utilized to control emissions of 

regulated air contaminants which would 

be emitted to the atmosphere. Boiler-operating-day means any 24- 

hour period between 12:00 midnight 

and the following midnight during 

which any fuel is combusted at any time 

at the steam generating unit. Daily average means the arithmetic 

average of the hourly values measured 

in a 24-hour period. Heat input means heat derived from 

combustion of fuel in a unit and does 

not include the heat input from 

preheated combustion air, recirculated 

flue gases, or exhaust gases from other 

sources. Heat input shall be calculated 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. Owner or Operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises any of the coal burning 

equipment designated in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

Regional Administrator means the 

Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 

or his/her authorized representative. Unit means one of the coal fired 

boilers covered under paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(4) Emissions limitations—SO2

emission limit. The individual sulfur 

dioxide emission limit for a unit shall 

be as listed in the table in this paragraph 

(a)(4) in pounds per million British 

thermal units (lb/MMBtu) as averaged 

over a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day 

period. 

Unit 

SO2 Emission 

limit 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

Sandow 4 .............................. 0.20 

Martin Lake 1 ........................ 0.12 

Martin Lake 2 ........................ 0.12 

Martin Lake 3 ........................ 0.11 

Monticello 3 .......................... 0.06 

Limestone 2 .......................... 0.08 

Limestone 1 .......................... 0.08 

Big Brown 1 .......................... 0.04 

Big Brown 2 .......................... 0.04 

Monticello 1 .......................... 0.04 

Monticello 2 .......................... 0.04 

Coleto Creek 1 ..................... 0.04 

Tolk 172B ............................. 0.06 

Tolk 171B ............................. 0.06 

San Miguel ............................ 0.60 

(i) For each unit, SO2 emissions for 

each calendar day shall be determined 

by summing the hourly emissions 

measured in pounds of SO2. For each 

unit, heat input for each boileroperating-day shall be determined by 

adding together all hourly heat inputs, 

in millions of BTU. Each boileroperating-day of the thirty-day rolling 

average for a unit shall be determined 

by adding together the pounds of SO2

from that day and the preceding 29- 

boiler-operating-days and dividing the 

total pounds of SO2 by the sum of the 

heat input during the same 30-boileroperating-day period. The result shall be 

the 30-boiler-operating-day rolling 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
352 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

average in terms of lb/MMBtu emissions 

of SO2. If a valid SO2 pounds per hour 

or heat input is not available for any 

hour for a unit, that heat input and SO2

pounds per hour shall not be used in the 

calculation of the 30-boiler-operatingday rolling average for SO2. 

(ii) In lieu of paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 

section, and if San Miguel meets 

paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, it may 

install a CEMS at the inlet of the 

scrubber system. The 30 BOD SO2

average from the existing outlet CEMS 

must read at or below 6.0% (94% 

control) of a 30 BOD SO2 average from 

the inlet CEMS. 

(5) Testing and monitoring. (i) No 

later than the compliance date as set out 

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the 

owner or operator shall install, calibrate, 

maintain and operate Continuous 

Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) 

for SO2 on the units listed in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section in accordance with 

40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and (h), 

and appendix B of part 60 of this 

chapter. No later than the compliance 

date as set out in paragraph (a)(2), San 

Miguel must submit a letter to the 

Regional Administrator that informs the 

EPA which compliance option it elects, 

as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section. San Miguel must then adhere to 

the compliance method set forth in that 

letter to the Regional Administrator. All 

owners or operators shall comply with 

the quality assurance procedures for 

CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. 

Compliance with the emission limits for 

SO2 shall be determined by using data 

from a CEMS. 

(ii) Continuous emissions monitoring 

shall apply during all periods of 

operation of the coal burning 

equipment, including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, except for 

CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks, and zero and span adjustments. 

Continuous monitoring systems for 

measuring SO2 and diluent gas shall 

complete a minimum of one cycle of 

operation (sampling, analyzing, and 

data recording) for each successive 15- 

minute period. Hourly averages shall be 

computed using at least one data point 

in each fifteen minute quadrant of an 

hour. Notwithstanding this requirement, 

an hourly average may be computed 

from at least two data points separated 

by a minimum of 15 minutes (where the 

unit operates for more than one 

quadrant in an hour) if data are 

unavailable as a result of performance of 

calibration, quality assurance, 

preventive maintenance activities, or 

backups of data from data acquisition 

and handling system, and recertification 

events. When valid SO2 pounds per 

hour, or SO2 pounds per million Btu 

emission data are not obtained because 

of continuous monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 

or zero and span adjustments, emission 

data must be obtained by using other 

monitoring systems approved by the 

EPA to provide emission data for a 

minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour 

period and at least 22 out of 30 

successive boiler-operating-days. 

(6) Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. Unless otherwise stated 

all requests, reports, submittals, 

notifications, and other communications 

to the Regional Administrator required 

by this section shall be submitted, 

unless instructed otherwise, to the 

Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6, to the 

attention of Mail Code: 6PD, at 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. For each unit subject to the 

emissions limitation in this section and 

upon completion of the installation of 

CEMS as required in this section, the 

owner or operator shall comply with the 

following requirements: 

(i) For each emissions limit in this 

section, comply with the notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements for CEMS compliance 

monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d). 

(ii) For each day, provide the total 

SO2 emitted that day by each emission 

unit. For any hours on any unit where 

data for hourly pounds or heat input is 

missing, identify the unit number and 

monitoring device that did not produce 

valid data that caused the missing hour. 

(7) Equipment operations. At all 

times, including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, the owner 

or operator shall, to the extent 

practicable, maintain and operate the 

unit including associated air pollution 

control equipment in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing 

emissions. Determination of whether 

acceptable operating and maintenance 

procedures are being used will be based 

on information available to the Regional 

Administrator which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operating and maintenance 

procedures, and inspection of the unit. 

(8) Enforcement. (i) Notwithstanding 

any other provision in this 

implementation plan, any credible 

evidence or information relevant as to 

whether the unit would have been in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate 

performance or compliance test had 

been performed, can be used to establish 

whether or not the owner or operator 

has violated or is in violation of any 

standard or applicable emission limit in 

the plan. 

(ii) Emissions in excess of the level of 

the applicable emission limit or 

requirement that occur due to a 

malfunction shall constitute a violation 

of the applicable emission limit. 

(b) [Reserved] 

■ 7. Section 52.2304 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2304 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) Portions of SIPs addressing 

noninterference with measures required 

to protect visibility in any other state are 

disapproved for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

(e) The following portions of the 

Texas regional haze SIP submitted 

March 19, 2009 are disapproved: The 

reasonable progress four-factor analysis, 

reasonable progress goals and the 

calculation of the emission reductions 

needed to achieve the uniform rates of 

progress for the Guadalupe Mountains 

and Big Bend; calculation of natural 

visibility conditions; calculation of the 

number of deciviews by which baseline 

conditions exceed natural visibility 

conditions; long-term strategy 

consultations with Oklahoma; Texas 

securing its share of reductions 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals at Big Bend, the 

Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita 

Mountains; technical basis for its longterm strategy and emission limitations 

and schedules for compliance to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals for Big 

Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains and 

Wichita Mountains. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31904 Filed 1–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES