Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner MarkR. Vickery, P.G., ExecutiveDirector 

## 10 APR 

## 12'" PH 4: 08
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Protecting Texas byReducingandPreventingPollution 

### April6, 2010



### Dr. Alfredo "Al"Armendariz, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue ' Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Dear Dr. Armendariz: Docket No. 2009-1127-SIP

On March I0, 20I0, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted a revision 

### to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Dallas-Fort Worth 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. · The Commission adopted the SIP revision to provide a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACn ..update, a 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 117 rule revision noninterference demonstration, and a modified failure-to-attain contingency plan.

Enclosed are the proposed revision to the SIP, a public hearing**certification~** 

### a complete record ofthe public hearings, and the accompanying order. I look forward 

### to yourexpeditious approval ofthis SIP revision. Sincerely,

# ~:~~~ Chairman
BWS/mac
Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor ofTexas 

### Mr. TobyBaker, Office ofBudget, Planning and Policy, Office ofthe Governor 

# MJ:. Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us printed on recydeJ paper using soy-based ink

## TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

THE STATE OF 1EXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS DocketNo. 2009-1127-SIP

This is to certify that the attached are true and correct copies of documents for a
revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan, adopted 

### on March 10, 2010, pursuant to 40

Code of Federal Regulations (C.P.R.) 

### § 51.104. I am the records administrator for the 

### Air Quality Division ofthe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission).

# ~D~~ \1**~** Texas Commission on Environmental QualityTexas Commission on Environmental Quality Public Hearings October 29, 2009 and November 2, 2009 Concerning Revisions to the DFW Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP Project No. 2009-021-SIP-NRINTRODUCTION

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) held public hearings in Austin on
October29, 2009; and FortWorth on November2, 2009, to receive testimony regarding revisions to
the state implementation plan (SIP) concerning the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Eight-Hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstration.

This SIP revision contains elements and actions required by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), including a DFW Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT) to 30 TAC Chapters 115 and 117 into the Texas SIP, a demonstration of noninterference
with the SIP for the Chapter 117 rule revision, and a modified failure-to-attain contingency plan.

The comment period closed on November 9, 2009. All testimony and comments have been
reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing record contains a complete record of the public hearing and is divided into the following four sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation of Testimony

o Staff Recommendations/Order

Additional copies ofthis hearing record are maintained in the TCEQ central office at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. Forfurther information, please contact Mary Ann Cook at (512) 239-
6739.

# PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PROPOSALPUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publication of notice of public hearings in the following newspapers on the date listed:
Austin American-Statesman, September 28, 2009 Fort Worth Star-Telegram, September 25, 2009

2. Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in the October 9, 2009, issue of the Texas Register (34 TexReg 7133).

3. Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearings to the following officials and agencies: Speaker of the House
Lieutenant Governor
Alamo Area Council of Governments Capital Area Planning Council City of Austin, Mayor's Office City of Dallas, Department of Environmental and Health Services City of Dallas, Department of Aviation City of El Paso, Environmental Services City of Fort Worth, Environmental Management Department City of Fort Worth, Mayor's Office City of Houston, Department of Health and Human Services City of Houston, Mayor's Office
East Texas Council of Governments
El Paso Metropolitan Planning OrganizationFederal Highway Administration
Galveston County Health District Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services

North Central Texas Council of Governments
Houston-Galveston Area Council
South East Texas Regional Planning Commission
Tarrant County Judge
Texas Department of Transportation Travis County Judge
Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
New Mexico Environmental Department
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
United States Environmental Protection Agency

### Example of Newspacer Classified A,g
Fort Walth Star-Telegram, 

### September25, 2009Compounds and corresponding revis ons to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements o Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, hapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51. 02, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. Additionally, the commission will also receive te · ony regarding the proposed eight-hour ozone attainment demo stration and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration for e Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area. The proposed amendment to Chapte 101, Subchapter H. Division 3, Mass Emissions Cap and Trade CT) Program, would revise the definition of"Uncontrolleddesign ca acity" to provide additionalflexibility for certain stationary diesel en ines and clarify both site and facility applicability. In addition, the p posed amendment would maintain the integrity ofthe nitrogen oxi es (NO.) cap in the HGB ozone nonattainment area and minimize in reases in the NO. cap by discontinuing the acceptance of late ECT- forms, Level ofActivity Certification, from major sources ofNO submitted after March 30, 2010. (Rule ProjectNo. 2009-019-101-E The proposed amendment to Cha r 101, Subchapter H. Division 6, Highly-Reactive Volatile Organi Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program, would reduce the cap amount ofallowances and revisethe allocationmethodology o allowances for participants inthe Highly-Reactive Volatile Organic ompound (HRVOC) Emissions Cap and Trade Program. A propose amendmentto §I01.1 would also update the definition ofvolatile org ·c compound (VOC) to link the 30 TAC definition with the current definition in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations and correct the repo le quantity for 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptaftuoropropane. (Rule Project No 2009-006-101-EN) The proposed amendments to Chap r 115, SubchapterE, Division 4, OffsetLithographic Printing, woul reduce the VOC content limits on fountain solutionsusedby sources tare subjecttothe existingChapter 115 rules. The proposed rule aking would also limit the VOC contentoffountain and cleaning so tions used by certain sources that
are exempt from the existing Cha 115 rules. (Rule Project No. 2008-019-115-EN) The proposed HGB Attainment D Federal Clean AirAct-required S elements, including a photochemical modeling analysis, a weight f evidence analysis, a reasonable available control technology (RA analysis, a reasonably available control measures (RACM) analys' , a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for 2018, and a con· gency plan. In addition, the Houston-Galveston Area Council has mmitted to emissions reductions through the Voluntary Mobile Em ssion Reduction Program and implementation oftransportation co I measures. The proposed revision also describes the concurren proposed rule revisions in Chapters 101 and 115. The commiss' n is also soliciting comments on whether it is appropriate to perfo a 1997 eight-hour ozone standard mid-course review analysis, and, · so, what elements should be contained in the analysis. The co ission is also seeking input on the appropriate date to submit the mi course review. (Rule Project No. 2009-017-SIP-NR) The proposed HGB Eight-Hour ne Nonattainment Area RFP SIP revision demonstratesthatthe 18 rcentozoneprecursoremissionsreductionrequirementwill bemetfo the analysisperiodof2002to 2008, 9 percent between 2009 and 2011 9 percent between 2012 and 2014, 9 percent between 2015 and 201 , 3 percent in 2018, and 3 percent for contingencypurposes. Thisre ision also includes a revisedMVEB for the milestone years 2008, 20 I, 2014, 2017, and 2018. No new on-road mobile source controls ve been adopted as part ofthe plan. However, on-road mobile source missions inventories have been updatedusingthe latestavailable da andthe EPA'sMOBILE6 inventory development tool. As a result ofthe quired mobile source emission inventory updates, the MVEBs are u ted aspart ofthis SIPrevision. (Rule Project No. 2009-018-SIP-N ) Public hearings on these proposals ll be held atthe following times and locations: October 28, 2009, 2:0 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in Conference Room A atthe Houston-Galve n Area Council. 3555 TIIIlinons Lane, Houston; and in Austin on 0 ober 29, 2009, 3:00p.m., at the Texas Commission on Environmen Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle. e hearingswill be structured for the receipt oforal or written comm nts by interested persons. Registration will begin 30 minutes prior o eachhearing. Individuals may presentoral statementswhencalledu n in orderof registration. There will be no open discussion during e hearing; however, commission staffmemberswillbe availableto di uss the proposals 30minutesbefore each hearing and will answer q stions before and after the hearing. Persons planning to attend the he' g, who have special communication orother accommodation nee , should contact Charlotte Horn, Texas Register Team (512) 239-077

. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Comments may be submitted to J ssica Rawlings, Texas Register Team, Office ofLegal Services, Te Commission on Environmental Quality, MC 205, P.O. Box 1308 , Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electro comments may be submitted at www5.tceq.state.tx.uslruleslecomm ts/. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitte via the eComments system. All comments should reference the le or SIP project number that the comment pertains to: Rule Project No. 2009-019-101-EN for the proposed MECT rule mendments, Rule Project No. 2009-006-101-EN for the propo ed HRVOC rule amendments, Rule Project No. 2008-019-115- N for the proposed VOC rule amendments, SIP Project No. 2 9-017-SIP-NR for the proposed HGB Attainment Demonstratio SIP revision and SIP Project No. 2009-018-SIP-NR for the p posed HGB RFP SIP revision. Comments must be received by November 9, 2009. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtaine from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.state.tx.uslnav!J eslpropose

_adopt.html. Copies of the proposed SIP revisions an all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site http:llwww.tceq.state.tx.uslimplementationlairlsip/Hottop.html. Fo further information regarding the proposed rules and SIP revisions, please contact Ray Schubert, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 39-6615. TRD-200904267 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Divisi n Texas Commission on Environmen I Quality Filed: September 25, 2009 

# • •
Notice ofPublic Hearings on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules, and 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements ofTexas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51.102, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. Additionally, the commission will also receive testimony regarding the



### INADDITION October 9, 2009 34 TexReg 7133proposed eight-hour ozone volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RAC1) update, demonstration of noninterference, and modified failure-to-attain contingency plan for the Dallas-Fort-Worth (DFW) area. The proposed amendments to Chapter 115, SubchapterE, Division 4, OffsetLithographic Printing, would reducethe VOC content limits on fountain solutionsused by sourcesthatare subjecttothe existingChapter 115 rules. The proposed rulemaking would also limit the VOC contentoffountain and cleaning solutions usedby certain sourcesthat
are exempt from the existing Chapter 115 rules. (Rule Project No. 2008-4J19-11S-EN) The proposed DFW SIP revision contains Federal Clean Air Act-required SIP elementsincluding anupdate to the VOC RACTelementof the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision. TheproposedDFW SIPrevision also includes a demonstration ofnoninterferenceto attainmentofthe 1997 eight-hourozone standard from a Chapter 117 rule revision proposed by the commission onAugust 12, 2009, and a modified failure-to-attain contingency plan. The proposed revision also incorporates the concurrently proposed rule revision in Chapter 115 regarding the offsetlithographicprinting contingency measure. (Rule Project No. 2009-4)21-SIP-NR) Public hearings on these proposals will be held at the following times and locations: in Austin on October 29,2009, 1:00 p.m., at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100Park 35 Circle; and inFort Worth onNovember 2, 2009, 2:00p.m., atthe Texas CommissiononEnvironmental Quality, Region 4 Office, DFW Public Meeting Room, 2309 Gravel Road, FortWorth. The hearings will be structured for the receipt oforal or written comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30minutes prior to each hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order ofregistration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, commission staffmemberswill be available to discuss the proposals 30 minutes before each hearing and will answerquestionsbefore and after the hearing. Personsplanningto attend the hearing, who have special communication or other accommodation needs, should contact Charlotte Hom, Texas Register Team (512) 239-0779. Requests shouldbe made as far in advance as possible. Comments may be submitted to Jessica Rawlings, Texas Register Team, Office ofLegalServices, Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at www5.tceq.state.tx.us/ru/es/ecomments!. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. All commeots should refereoce the rule or SIP project oumber that the commeot pertaiDs to: Rule Project No. 2008-4J19-11S-EN for the proposed VOC rule ameodmeots aod SIP Project No. 2009-4J21-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW SIP revisioo. Commeats must be received by November 9, 2009. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.state.tx.uslnavlru/es/propose

_adopt.html. Copies of the proposed SIP revision and the appendix can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http:llwww.tceq.state.tx.uslimplementation!airlsip/Hottop.html. For further information regarding the proposed rule and SIP revision, please contact Ray Schubert, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-6615. TRD-200904265 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental QuaiHy Filed: September 25, 2009 

# • • •

34 TexReg 7134 October 9, 2009 Texas Register Notice ofWater Quality Applic tions
The following notices were issue on September I0, 2009 through September 17, 2009. The following require the applican to publish notice in a newspaper. Public comments, requests for pub c meetings, orrequests for a contested case hearing may be submit! d to the Office ofthe ChiefClerk, Mail Code 105, P.O. Box 13087, A . Texas 787ll-3087, WITiflN 30DAYS OFTHEDATE OFNEW PAPERPUBLICATIONOFTHE NOTICE. INFORMATION SECTION LAS VENTANAS LANDPAR RS LTD has applied for a renewal ofTCEQ Permit No. WQ0014534 01, which authorizes the disposal oftreated domestic wastewater at daily average flow not to exceed 630,000 gallons per day via surface· 'gation of262 acres ofnon-public access land. This permitwill no authorize a discharge ofpollutants intowaters inthe State. Thewaste atertreatmentfacility anddisposal site will be located approximately .6 miles west-southwest ofthe intersection ofRanch-to-Market Ro 620 and Lakeway Boulevard in Travis County, Texas 78734. KINDER MORGAN PETCOKE P which operates Kinder Morgan Deepwater Bulk Terminal, a pe leum coke storage and handling facility, has applied for a**m~Yor** endment to TPDES Permit No. WQ000430I000to authorize an ad itional impoundment for retaining storm water associated with the troleum coke operation and an increase in the storage area for pe leum coke. The current permit authorizes the discharge ofprocess wastewater and storm water on an intermittent and flow variable bas via Outfall 001. The facility is locatedjustsouth of the Houston S "p Channel, and approximately 1.0 mile northeast ofthe intersection o East Beltway and State Highway 225, in the City of Pasadena, ·s County, Texas. The TCEQ Executive Director has reviewed is action for consistency with the Texas Coastal ManagementPro goals and policies in accordance with the regulations of the Co Coordination Council, and has determined thatthe action is consis entwiththe applicable CMPgoals and policies. FORTHANCOCKWATERCON OLANDIMPROVEMENTDIS- · TRICT which proposes to operate ort Hancock WCID Plant, has applied for a new permit, proposed rmit No. WQ0004869000, to authorizethe discharge ofmicrofilter ackwash water andreverse osmosisrejectwater atan averageflow t toexceed36,000gallonsper day viaevaporation. Thispermitwilln authorize adischarge of pollutants into waterinthe State. The facility d the disposal site willbe located approximately 2.5 milesnorthwest fthe intersectionofStateHighway 180 (Knox Avenue) and Interstate 0, Hudspeth County, Texas. CITY OFCOLEMANhas applied ora renewalofTPDESPermitNo. WQ0010150001 which authorizes the discharge oftreated domestic wastewater at a daily average flo not to exceed 800,000 gallons per day. The current permit also autho · s the disposal oftreated domestic wastewater via irrigation ofS acres ofCity owned pastureland. The facility is located east ofthe ity ofColeman on the south side ofHordsCreeks and approximate! 3/4 milenorthwest ofthe intersection ofFarm-to-Market Road 568 and U.S. Highway 84 in Coleman County, Texas 76834. CITY OF RUNAWAY BAY has a plied forarenewal ofJ'PDESPermitNo. WQ0010862001 which au orizesthe discharge oftreateddomestic wastewater at a daily ave e flow not to exceed 400,000 gallons perday. The facility is locate approximately 2,000 feet north of U.S. Highway 380andapproxim ly 7,000 feet southwestofthepoint where U.S. Highway 380 crosses Lake Bridgeport in Wise County, Texas 76426.Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., ExecutiveDirector



### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Protecting Texas byReducing andPreventingPollution



### NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE TEXAS 

### COMMISSION ONENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

### ONPROPOSEDREVISIONS TO 30 

### TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO THE 

### STATE IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

### (commission) will conduct public hearings to 

### receive testimony regarding proposed revisions 

### to 30 TAC Chapter 

### 101, General Air 

### Quality Rules, and 30 TAC Chapter 115, 

### Control ofAir 

### Pollution from 

### Volatile Organic Compounds and corresponding revisions 

### to the state 

### implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements ofTexas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, 

### SubchapterB; and 40 

### Code ofFederal Regulations §51.102, 

### and 

### the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. Additionally, the commission will also receive testimony regarding the proposed eight-hour ozone volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RACT) update, demonstration of noninterference, andmodified failure-to-attain contingencyplan forthe Dallas-Fort-Worth (DFW) area.



### The proposed amendments to Chapter 115, 

### SubchapterE, Division 4, Offset

### Lithographic Printing, 

### would reduce the 

### VOC content 

### limits on fountain solutions used by sources that 

### are subject to the 

### existing Chapter 115 

### rules. The proposedrulemaking would also limitthe VOC content offountain and cleaning solutions used by 

### certain 

### sources that 

### are exemPt from the existing 

### Chapter 115 rules. (RuleProject

### No. 1008-019-115-EN)



### The proposed DFW SIP revision contains Federal Clean Air 

### Act-required SIP elements including an update 

### to the VOC RACT element ofthe DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision. The proposed DFW SIP revision also includes a demonstration of noninterference 

### to attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard from a Chapter 

### 117 rule revision proposed by 

### the commission on August 12, 2009, and a modified failure-to-attain contingency plan. The proposed revision also incmporates the concurrently proposed rule revision in Chapter 11S

### regarding the offset lithographic printing contingencymeasure. (Rule ProjectNo.1009-0ll-SIP-NR)

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us prinlec..l on rnycled pi!per**u~in~** .soy-based jnh"Public hearings on these proposals will be held at the following times and locations: 

### in Austin on October 29, 2009, 1:00 p.m., at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle; and in Fort Worth on November 2, 2009, 2:00 p.m., 

### at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Region 

### 4 Office, DFW Public Meeting Room, 2309 Gravel Road, Fort Worth. The hearings will be structured for the receipt of 

### oral or written comments by interestedpersons. Registration will begin 30 minutespriorto each hearing. Individuals maypresent oral
statements when called upon in order of registration. There 

### will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, commission staffmembers will be available to discuss the proposals 30 minutes before each hearing and will answer questions before and 

### after the hearing. Persons planning to attend the hearing, who have special communication or other accommodation needs, should contact Charlotte Horn, Texas Register Team (512) 239-0779. Requests should be made as 

### far in advance aspossible.

Comments may be submitted to Jessica Rawlings, Texas Register Team, Office ofLegal Services, Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711:3087, orfaxed to (512) 239-4808. Electroiric comments may be submitted at

### www5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/ecommentsl. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. 

### All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that the comment pertains to: Rule Project No• .2008-019-115-EN for the proposed VOC rule amendments and SIP Project No. 2009-021-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW SIP revision. Comments must be received by November 9, 2009. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's Web site at 

### http:llwww.tceq.state.tx.uslnavlruleslpropose_adopt.html. Copies ofthe proposed SIP revision and the appendix can be obtained from the commission's Web site at 

### http:llwww.tceq.state.tx.uslimplementation/air/sip/Hottop.html. For further information regarding the proposed rule and SIP revision, please contact Ray Schubert, 

### Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239- 6615.



### Issued in

### Austin, Texas, on September23, 2009.STATE OF TEXAS AIR QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF OZONE AIR POLLUTION

DALLAS/FORT WORTH 1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY P.O. BOX 13087 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087



### Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Update, 30Texas Administrative Code Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and AttainmentDemonstration Contingency Plan State Implementation Plan Revision

TCEQ PROJECT NO. 2009-021-SIP-NR

Proposed September 23, 2009

### Thispage intentionally left blank.DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update, 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and Attainment Demonstration Contingency Plan State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision (DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision) proposes changes to the State ofTexas Air Quality Implementation Plan for the Control ofOzone Air Pollution. This SIP revision proposes to integrate several actions applicable to the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone standard nonattainment
area (Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Collin, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties) into the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration and the Texas SIP upon adoption by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

This DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision proposes several revisions to the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. As required by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) Amendments under§§ 172(c)(l), l82(b)(2) and I82(t), an updated RACT determination for the DFW area that documents the state's RACT analysis of I l control technique guidelines (CTG) documents issued between 2006 and 2008 by the EPA is proposed. In addition to the RACT update, this SIP revision proposes to incorporate the associated 30 TAC Chapter I I

### 5 and 30 TAC Chapter 117 rule revision proposals into the Texas SIP. The Chapter IIS rulemaking proposed concurrently with this SIP revision would revise rules governing offset lithographic printing emission sources. That rulemaking resulted from the state's RACT determination regarding offset lithographic printing sources upon its analysis of the CTG document for that emission source category. The Chapter II7 rulemaking proposed August I3, 2009, addresses a petition filed by the Elk Corporation ofTexas and approved by the commission in February 2009. That rulemaking proposes to expand a specific and limited exemption from Chapter 117 stationary source rules. Finally, this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision proposes modifications to the DFW attainment demonstration contingency plan. This revision proposes removal and replacement of a Chapter 115 rule contingency measure because the rule is being revised for RACT purposes.
This DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision demonstrates that the Chapter I 17 rule revision will not interfere with the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission reductions are identified to replace reductions that would no longer be available for the area's ozone control strategy upon adoption ofthe Chapter I I 7 rule rev1s1on. Replacement reductions from fleet turnover (occurring 2009 through 2010) are allocated for use in the attainment demonstration to replace the NOx reduction that would not materialize ifthe exemption is expanded as proposed in the Chapter 1 I 7 rulemaking. Because replacing the NOx reduction in the control strategy will maintain the integrity ofthe attainment demonstration, the adoption of the Chapter 117 rule revision will not interfere with the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration.

As required by the FCAA, the measures identified in the proposed contingency plan will continue to meet the three percent emissions reduction requirement from the 1999 adjusted base year emissions inventory used to develop the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision. This revision
removes the offset lithographic printing rule contingency measure, because the RACT update analysis revealed the need for a proposed rule revision applicable to those sources. This revision proposes a reallocation to the contingency plan ofreductions predicted to result from the 2009 through 20IO mobile source fleet turnover. The proposed contingency plan contains an increased portion ofthe fleet turnover reductions to make up the difference for reductions lost to the area's contingency plan upon removal of the offset lithographic printing contingency measure. The

Proposed September 23, 2009DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

removal ofthe offset lithographic printing rule contingency measure would not adversely affect the DFW area's demonstration of attainment, since replacement reductions are identified. In addition to the fleet turnover, two previously identified contingency measures 

### will remain in the plan. Those two measures are the state VOC rules, applicable in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties, to the degassing or cleaning processes of stationary, marine, and transport vessels, and to petroleum-based dry cleaning businesses.

Proposed September 23, 2009 iiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

SECTION V: LEGAL AUTHORITY

A. General The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to control the quality ofthe state's air, including maintaining adequate visibility.

The first air pollution control act, known as the Clean Air Act ofTexas, was passed by the Texas Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean Air Act of Texas was superseded by a more comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAA in 1969, 1971, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999,2001,2003,2005,2007, and 2009. In 1989, the TCAA was codified as Chapter 382 ofthe Texas Health & Safety Code. Originally, the TCAA stated that the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the state air pollution control agency and is principal authority in the state on matters relating to the quality of air
resources. In 1991, the legislature abolished the TACB effective September I, 1993, and its powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions were transferred to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation ofthe TNRCC, the authority over air quality is found in both the Texas Water Code and the TCAA. Specifically, the authority ofthe TNRCC is found in Chapters 

### 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subchapters A - F, H - J, and L, include the general provisions, organization, and general powers and duties of the TNRCC, and the responsibilities and authority ofthe executive director. This chapter also authorizes the TNRCC to implement action when emergency conditions arise, and to conduct hearings. Chapter 7 gives the TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature continued the existence of the TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and changed the name of the TNRCC to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 2009, the 81 sr Texas Legislature, during a special session, amended section 5.014 ofthe Texas Water Code, changing the expiration date of the TCEQ to September 1, 201 I, unless continued in existence by the Texas Sunset Act.
The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level ofquality to be maintained in the state's air and to control the quality ofthe state's air by preparing and developing a general, comprehensive plan. The TCAA, Subchapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect information to enable the commission to develop an inventory ofemissions; to conduct research and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to prescribe monitoring requirements; to institute enforcement proceedings; to enter into contracts and execute instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon health, welfare, social and economic factors, and practicability and reasonableness; to conduct hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens' groups and other agencies and political subdivisions ofthe state as well as with industries and the federal government; and to establish and operate a system ofpermits for construction or modification offacilities.
Local government authority is found in Subchapter E ofthe TCAA. Local governments have the
same power as the TCEQ to enter property and make inspections. They also may make recommendations to the commission concerning any action of the TCEQ that affects their territorial jurisdiction, may bring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements with the TCEQ or other local governments. In addition, a city or town may enact and enforce ordinances for the control and abatement ofair pollution not inconsistent with the provisions of the TCAA and the rules or orders ofthe commission.

Proposed September23, 2009 iiiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Subchapters G and H of the TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establish vehicle inspection and maintenance programs in certain areas of the state, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act; coordinate with federal, state, and local transportation planning agencies to develop and implement transportation programs and measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS; establish gasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund and authorize participating counties to implement vehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and accelerated vehicle retirement programs.
B. Applicable Law The following statutes and rules provide necessary authority to adopt and implement the state implementation plan (SIP). The rules listed below have previously been submitted as part ofthe SIP.

Statutes All sections ofeach subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted. TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, Chapter 382 TEXAS WATER CODE Chapter 5: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter A: General Provisions Subchapter 8: Organization ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter D: General Powers and Duties ofthe Commission Subchapter E: Administrative Provisions for Commission Subchapter F: Executive Director (except§§ 5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275, 5.231, 5.232, and 5.236) Subchapter H: Delegation ofHearings Subchapter 1: Judicial Review Subchapter J: Consolidated Permit Processing Subchapter L: Emergency and Temporary Orders(§§ 5.514, 5.5145, and 5.515 only) Subchapter M: Environmental Permitting Procedures(§ 5.558 only)

Chapter 7: Enforcement Subchapter A: General Provisions(§§ 7.001, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, and 7.005 only) Subchapter 8: Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief(§ 7.032 only) Subchapter C: Administrative Penalties Subchapter D: Civii Penalties (except § 7.109) Subchapter E: Criminal Offenses and Penalties: §§ 7.177, 7.179-7.183
Rules All ofthe following rules are found in 30, Texas Administrative Code,
as ofthe following effective dates: Chapter 7: Memoranda ofUnderstanding,§§ 7.110 and 7.119 Chapter 19: Electronic Reporting

Proposed September 23, 2009 iv September I, 2009 September 1, 2009

May 2, 2002

March I, 2007DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Chapter 35: Subchapters A-C, K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and Permits; Temporary Suspension orAmen9ment ofPermit Conditions July 20, 2006 Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§ 39.201; 39.401; 39.403(a) and (b)(8)-(l0); 39.405(f)(l) and (g); 39.409; 39.411 (a), (b)(l)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(l)-(6) and (d); 39.413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39.418(a) and (b)(3) and (4); 39.419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39.420(a), (b) and (c)(3) and (4); 39.423 (a) and (b); 39.601-39.605 March 29,2006 Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings; Public Comment, §§ 55.1; 55.21(a)- (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (f) and (g); 55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6)- (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(l), (2), and (6) and (b); 55.154; 55.156; 55.200; 55.201(a)- (h); 55.203; 55.205; 55.209, and 55.211 March 29, 2006 Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules January 1, 2009 Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, SubchapterA June 30, 2004 Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter July 19, 2006 Chapter 112: Control ofAir Pollution from Sulfur Compounds July 16, 1997 Chapter 113: Standards ofPerformance for Hazardous Air Pollutants and for Designated Facilities and Pollutants May 14, 2009 Chapter 114: Control ofAir Pollution from Motor Vehicles June 26, 2008 Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds July 19, 2007 Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction or Modification May 29, 2008 Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollution by Control ofAir Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds March 4, 2009 Chapter 118: Control ofAir Pollution Episodes March 5, 2000 Chapter 122: § 122.122: Potentialto Emit December 11,2002 Chapter 122: § 122.215: Minor Permit Revisions June 3, 2001 Chapter 122: § 122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions June 3, 2001 Chapter 122: § 122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions December 11, 2002 Chapter 122: § 122.218 Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit Revisions Involvingthe Use ofEconomic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and Emissions Trading June 3, 2001

Proposed September 23, 2009 vDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

SECTIONVI. CONTROL STRATEGY

A. Introduction (No revision)

B. Ozone (Revision)

1. Dallas-Fort Worth (Revision) 2. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (No revision) 3. Beaumont-PortArthur (No revision) 4. ElPaso (No revision) 5. RegionalStrategies (No revision) 6. Northeast Texas (No revision) 7. AustinArea (No revision) 8. SanAntonioArea (No revision)

C. Particulate Matter (No revision)

D. Carbon Monoxide (No revision)

E. Lead (No revision)

F. Oxides ofNitrogen (No revision)

G. Sulfur Dioxide (No revision)
H. Conformity with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No revision)

I. Site Specific (No revision)

J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No revision)

K. Clean Air Interstate Rule (No revision)

L. Transport (No revision)

M. Regional Haze (No revision)

Proposed September 23, 2009 viDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACT-- Alternative Control Techniques AD

-- Attainment Demonstration AF

-- Air-to-Fuel APU

-- Auxiliary Power Units ARPDB

-- Acid Rain Program Data Base ATCM- Airborne Toxic Control Measure auto-GC --Automated Gas Chromatograph BACT

-- Best Available Control Technology BCCA-AG

-- Business Coalition for Clean Air-Appeal Group BMP

-- Best Management Practices BPA --Beaumont-Port Arthur Btulhr

-- British Thermal Units per Hour Btu/scf

-- British Thermal Units per Standard Cubic Feet CAE

-- Cetane Additive Enhanced Diesel Fuel CAIR

-- Clean Air Interstate Rule CAMx

-- Comprehensive Air Model with Extensions CARB

-- California Air Resources Board CBD

-- Houston's Central Business District CFR

-- Code ofFederal Regulations CMAQ

-- Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CO

-- Carbon Monoxide CTG

-- Control Technique Guidelines DECS

-- Diesel Emission Control Strategy DERC

-- Discrete Emission Reduction Credits DFW

-- Dallas-Fort Worth DFW AD SIP

- DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP revision DPM

-- Diesel Particulate Matter DRRP

-- Diesel Risk Reduction Program DV

-- Design Value DYe-- Current Design Value DVf

-- Future Design Value EAC

-- Early Action Compact EDMS

-- Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System E-GRID-2007

-- Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database EEIRE

-- Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy EGAS

-- Economic Growth Analysis System EGF

-- Electric Generating Facilities EGU

-- Electric Generating Units EI

-- Emissions Inventory EPA

-- United States Environmental Protection Agency EPS3

-- Emissions Processing System, version 3 ERC

-- Emission Reduction Credits ERCOT

-- Electric Reliability Council ofTexas ESAD

-- Emission Specification for Attainment Demonstration ESL --Energy Systems Laboratory, the Texas A&M University System F

-- Fahrenheit FAA-- Federal Aviation Administration FCAA --Federal Clean Air Act

Proposed September 23, 2009 viiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

FCV --Fuel Cell Vehicle FGR

-- Flue Gas Recirculation FHWA --Federal Highway Administration FR

-- Federal Register FT

-- Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel GIS

-- Geographic Information System GloBEIS --Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System gpm
-- Gallons per Minute GTM --Gross Ton Mile HAP

-- Hazardous Air Pollutant HARC

-- Houston Advanced Research Center HOT-- Heavy-Duty Truck ijECT --Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program HGB --Houston-Galveston-Brazoria H-GAC

-- Houston-Galveston Area Council

·HOV --High Occupancy Vehicle hp

-- Horsepower HPMS

-- Highway Performance Monitoring System HRVOC- Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound HSC

-- Houston Ship Channel IC

-- Internal Combustion ICI

-- Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional IECC

-- International Energy Conservation Code 1/M

-- Inspection and Maintenance 

### km

-- Kilometer Kvs

-- Vertical Exchange Coefficient LAER

-- Lowest Achievable Emission Rate lb/MMBtu

-- Pound per Million British Thermal Units LDAR

-- Leak Detection and Repair LIDIR

-- Light Detection and Ranging LDEQ

-- Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality LDGV --Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicle LOT-- Light-Duty Truck LDV --Light-Duty Vehicle LED

-- Low Emission Diesel LEV-- Low Emission Vehicle LEV II-- California's Low Emission Vehicle II Program LIRAP

-- Low Income Repair and Assistance Program LNB --Low Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Burners LNC

-- Low Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Combustors LNG

-- Liquefied Natural Gas LTO

-- Landing and Take-Off MACT --Maximum Achievable Control Technology Mcf--Thousand Cubic Feet MCR

-- Mid-Course Review MDPV --Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle MECT

-- Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program MM5

-- Fifth Generation Meteorological Model MMBtulhr

-- Million British Thermal Units per Hour MMcf--Million Cubic Feet MMS

-- Minerals Management Service

Proposed September 23, 2009 viiiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

MOA

-- Memorandum ofAgreement MON

-- Miscellaneous Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) mph

-- miles per hour MVEB --Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget MW --Megawatts MY-- Model Year NAAQS

-- National Ambient Air Quality Standard NCTCOG

- North Central Texas Council ofGovernments NEGF --Non-Electric Generating Facility NEI

-- National Emissions Inventory NESHAP

-- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ng!J --Nanogram per Joule NMIM

-- National Mobile Inventory Model NOAA

-- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Non-EGU --non-Electric Generating Unit NOx

-- Nitrogen Oxides NOy

-- Nitrogen Species NSCR

-- Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction NTRD

-- New Technology Research and Development Program 0 3

-- Ozone OGV

-- Ocean-Going Vessel PAYD --Pay As You Drive PBL --Planetary Boundary Layer PEl

-- Periodic Emissions Inventory PERP

-- Portable Engine Registration Program PiG

-- Plume-in-Grid PM

-- Particulate Matter PM2.s

-- Particulate Matter 2.5 microns and less ppb --Parts Per Billion ppbC

-- Parts Per Billion Carbon ppbv

-- Parts Per Billion by Volume ppm
-- Parts Per Million PSCF --Potential Source Contribution Factors PSDB

-- Point Source Database psia

-- Pounds per Square Inch Absolute PUC

-- Public Utility Commission RACT

-- Reasonably Available Control Technology RACM --Reasonably Available Control Measure RFP --Reasonable Further Progress RMSE

-- Root Mean Square Error ROP

-- Rate-of-Progress RRF

-- Relative Reduction Factor SB --Senate Bill SCAQMD

-- South Coast Air Quality Management District scfm

-- Standard Cubic Feet per Minute SCR

-- Selective Catalytic Reduction SEP

-- Supplemental Environmental Programs SETPMTC

-- Southeast Texas Photochemical Modeling Technical Committee SIC

-- Standard Industrial Classification SIP-- State Implementation Plan

Proposed September23, 2009 ixDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

SNCR

-- Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction SOY-- Single Occupancy Vehicle STP

-- Surface Transportation Program SWCV --Solid Waste Collection Vehicle TAC

-- Texas Administrative Code T

ACB

-- Texas Air Control Board TCAA

-- Texas Clean AirAct TCEQ --Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) TCM

-- Transportation Control Measure TOM

-- Travel Demand Model TERP

-- Texas Emission Reduction Plan TexAQS 2000

-- Texas Air Quality Study 2000 TexAQS II-- Texas Air Quality Study 2006 TKE

-- Turbulent Kinetic Energy TNMHC

-- Total Non-methane Hydrocarbon TNRCC

-- Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission tpd --tons per day tpy

-- tons per year TSE

-- Truck Stop Electrification TTl-- Texas Transportation Institute TUC --Texas Utility Code TxDOT --Texas Department ofTransportation TxLED

-- Texas Low Emission Diesel USC-- United States Code VMEP --Voluntary Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Program VMT --Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC

-- Volatile Organic Compound VRU --Vapor Recovery Unit ZEB

-- Zero Emission Bus ZEV

-- Zero Emissions Vehicle

Proposed September 23, 2009 XDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

IDENTIFICATION OF REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
Throughout this document, references are made to this SIP revision, to other SIP revisions, and to composites of SIP revisions and SIP-related documents. In order to clarify and more clearly define the references contained in this document, the list below identifies and provides additional information for each. The referenced documents may be directly accessed from the 

### links provided. May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, and DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, both refer to: The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Ozone Nonattainment Area Attainment Demonstration (AD) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (TCEQ Project No. 2006-013-SIP-NR, adopted May 2007) April 2008 supplementto the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision refers to: A TCEQ Jetter to the EPA of April 23, 2008, that provides clarification and supplemental information regarding the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision Related document: A March 7. 2008, Jetter from the EPA to the TCEQ requesting supplemental information for clarification ofthe May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision

DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision refers to: The DFW AD SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (Contingency Measures Plan) (TCEQ Project No. 2008-016-SIP-NR, adopted November 2008)

DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision refers to: The DFW AD SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERC) Program) (TCEQ Project No. 2008-016-SIP-NR, adopted December 2008)

DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision refers to this SIP revision document: The DFW Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update, 30 Texas Administrative Code (T AC) Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and Attainment Demonstration Contingency Plan SIP Revision (TCEQ ProjectNo. 2009-021-SIP-NR, proposed September 23, 2009)

DFW 1997 eigbt-bour ozone attainment demonstration refers to: The Texas SIP revisions relative to the DFW nine-county nonattainment area (Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Collin, Ellis, Kaufman, Rockwall, Parker, and Johnson Counties) demonstration of attainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, comprised of the following documents: the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision (also called the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision), the April 2008 supplement to the DFW 1997 EightHour Ozone AD SIP Revision, the DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision, the DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision, and (pending adoption) this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision.

Tbe Texas SIPrefers ·to: The SIPrevisions that make up the State ofTexas Air Quality Implementation Plan for the Control ofOzone Air Pollution

Proposed September23, 2009 xiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary List of Acronyms Identification of ReferencedDocuments Table of Contents Listof Tables Chapter I. Background and Introduction 1.1. General (Revision) 1.2. Health Effects (No revision) 1.3. Public/Stakeholder Participation (Revision) 1.4. Social and Economic Considerations (Revision) 1.5. Fiscal and Manpower Resources (No revision) Chapter

### 2. · Photochemical Modeling (No revision) Chapter 3. Corroborative Analysis (No revision) Chapter4. Required Control Strategy Elements 4.1. Overview ofExisting Control Strategies (No revision) 4.2. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Control Measures

4.2.1. VOC Control Measures (Revision)

4.2.1.1. Background (Addition) 4.2.1.2. Proposed 30 Texas Administrative Code (T AC) Chapter 115 VOC Rule Revision (Addition)

4.2.2. NOx Control Measures

4.2.2.1. Major Source NOx Reductions

4.2.2.1.1. Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Sources (Revision)

4.2.2.1.1.1. Background (Addition) 4.2.2.1.1.2. Proposed 30 TAC Chapter 117 Rule Revision (Addition) 4.2.2.1.1.3. Demonstration ofNoninterfereance (Addition) 4.2.2.2.

- 4.2.2.4. (No revision) 4.2.3. -4.2.7. (No revision) 4.3. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis (Revision)

4.3.1. DFW VOC RACT Analysis Update (Addition)

4.3.1.I. CTG Document Recommendations Not Applicable to the DFW Area (Addition) 4.3.1.2. CTG Document Recommendations that DoNot Represent RACT for the DFW Area (Addition) 4.3.1.3. CTG Document Recommendations for which RACT Determinations are Not Being Made (Addition) 4.3.1.4. CTG Document Recommendations that Represent RACT for the DFW Area (Addition) 4.4. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis (No revision) 4.5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) (No revision) 4.6. Contingency Measures (Revision)

4.6.1. Background 4.6.2. Revised DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan (Addition)

4.6.3. Allocation ofthe June 2009 through 2010 fleet turnover reductions (Addition)

AppendixA: Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

Proposed September 23, 2009 xiiNumber

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3 DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

LIST OFT ABLES

Table Name

Emission Reductions Provided by Proposed Contingency Plan

Calculations Showing Three Percent Required Reductions

Allocation ofEmission Reductions from the 2009 through 2010 Fleet Turnover

Proposed September 23, 2009 xiiiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### CHAPTER1. BACKGROUNDANDINTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL (Revision) The "History ofthe Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)," a comprehensive overview of SIP revisions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the State of Texas is viewable on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) Web Site, at; http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implt;imentation/air/sip/miscdocs/SIPHistory updated.pdf

The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Ozone Nonattainment Area Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard, also called the DFW 1997 Eight,.Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision or May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, was adopted by the TCEQ in May 2007 and subsequently submitted to the EPA. The DFW nonattainment counties include Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Collin, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall. During the EPA's review of that SIP submittal, a March 7, 2008, letter from the EPA to the TCEQ requested clarification and additional information applicable to the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision. A TCEQ letter to the EPA ofApril 23. 2008, (referred to as the April 2008 Supplement to the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision) provided additional information to clarify and support the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision to the EPA.
Upon review of the April 2008 Supplement to the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, the EPA requested thatthe TCEQ implement an enforceable mechanism to limit the use of Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCs) in the nine-county DFW eight-hour ozone nonattainment area, consistent with attainment and maintenance of the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The EPA asked the state to revise the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision to provide additional emissions reductions sufficient to meet contingency plan mandates ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), and to implement a rule limiting DERC use in the DFW area. In June 2008, the TCEQ informed the EPA ofits intention to propose a revised contingency plan as well as DERC SIP and rule revisions to satisfy the EPA requests.

In July 2008, the EPA proposed a conditional approval ofthe DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision. The DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision, adopted by the commission and submitted to the EPA in November 2008, revised the attainment demonstration contingency plan. That revised plan identified four measures to provide reductions in the event the DFW area fails to meet its June IS, 2010, deadline for attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Three previously identified volatile organic compounds (VOC) rule contingency measures (applicable to offset lithographic printing, petroleum-based dry cleaning, and degassing or cleaning processes of stationary, marine, and transport vessels) and the 2009 through 20I0 fleet turnover completed the DFW attainment demonstration contingency plan.

Effective February 13, 2009, the EPA published a final conditional approval of the DFW nonattainment area's 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration, as submitted in the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision and April 2008 Supplement, and as revised in the DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision. Both the contingency plan and the VOC reasonably available control technology (RACT) analysis elements of the attainment demonstration were deemed adequate, and both were given final approval by the EPA. Final full approval of the attainment demonstration was withheld, pending the EPA's approval ofthe SIP and rule revisions to provide the enforceable mechanism to limit DERC use in the DFW area consistent with the 1997 eighthour ozone attainment demonstration.

Proposed September 23, 2009 1-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

The commission adopted the DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision and submitted it to the EPA in December 2008. That SIP revision and the corresponding DERC rule revision together addressed the EPA condition for final approval ofthe attainment demonstration, limiting DERC
use in 2009 and subsequent calendaryears consistent with the area's attainment ofthe 1997 eighthour ozone standard. Accordingly, the DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision incorporated the adopted revised DERC rule in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 101, and implemented a required annual review by the TCEQ executive director. The annual review of banked credits and requests to use DERCs will be evaluated in light of the attainment demonstration to determine annual DERC use limitations and subsequently apportion DERC allowables for use within the nine-county DFW area. The DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision and the DERC rule revision are both currently under review by the EPA.

This DFW RACT Update, 30 TAC Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and Attainment Demonstration Contingency Plan SIP Revision (DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision) proposes revisions to the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration, and as a result, the Texas Air Quality Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution. Also called the DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision, this revision proposes several actions. First, it updates the EPA-approved VOC RACT analysis determination element ofthe attainment demonstration to include the state's analysis of control technique guidelines (CTG) documents issued by the EPA in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Those CTGs
were not addressed in the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision; however, the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires states to address these. Documentation ofa DFW VOC RACT update analysis and the TCEQ determinations regarding the CTG recommendations is provided in Chapter 4, Required Control Strategy Elements, ofthis SIP revision and in Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis Update.

In addition to the RACT update, the DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision proposes inclusion of associated 30 TAC Chapter 115 and 30 TAC Chapter 117 rule revisions into the Texas SIP. The Chapter 115 rulemaking proposal is based on the RACT analysis update contained in this SIP revision. In its review, staffdetermined that some ofthe recommendations made in the EPA's Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG represent RACT for the DFW area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing the Chapter 115 rulemaking (TCEQ Rule Project 2008-019-115-EN) to limit the VOC content ofsolvents used by offset lithographic printing facilities in the DFW area. The rulemaking proposes to implement the EPA's recommendation to reduce fountain solution and cleaning material VOC contents, and further expands applicability to smaller sources not already subject to the rule. Discussion concerning RACT determinations regarding heatset press and letterpress printing sources is provided in Chapter 4, Required Control Strategy Elements, ofthis SIP revision and in Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis Update.

In addition to the VOC RACT update and Chapter 115 rulemaking, this proposed DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision proposes inclusion of an associated Chapter 117 rule revision, proposed by the commission on August 12, 2009, into the Texas SIP. The Chapter 117 rule proposal responds to a petition for rulemaking filed by the Elk Corporation of Texas and approved by the commission on January 28, 2009. The rulemaking proposes to exempt, from Chapter 117 rules, low temperature drying and curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing and wet-laid, non-woven fiber mat manufacturing where nitrogen-containing resins or other additives are used.

The proposed expansion of a Chapter 117 rule exemption could reduce the predicted nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions from Chapter 117 rules for the DFW area by up to 0.1 tons per day

Proposed September 23, 2009 1-2DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

(tpd). This SIP revision proposes that 0.1 tpd NOx portion of uncommitted surplus emission reductions from the 2009 through 20I0 vehicle fleet turnover be used as the replacement reduction. The reduction replacement serves to maintain integrity of the DFW 1997 eight-hour
ozone attainment demonstration, providing the required demonstration of noninterference proposed in this SIP revision.

As a final action, this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision proposes a modified contingency plan for the area's 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Removal ofthe offset lithographic printing rule contingency measure from the contingency plan is proposed because a revision ofthat Chapter I 15 rule for RACT purposes is also being proposed. This SIP revision proposes to replace the measure with a portion ofthe emission reductions predicted from vehicle fleet turnover for the one-year period beginning June 15, 2009. The fleet turnover contingency measure would provide VOC reductions sufficient to replace reductions removed from the contingency plan along with the offset lithographic printing measure. The proposed contingency plan retains two state VOC rule contingency measures previously identified for the DFW area applicable to petroleum-based dry cleaning, and degassing or cleaning processes of stationary, marine, and transport vessels. Additional information about these measures and the proposed contingency plan is contained in Chapter 4, Required Control Strategy Elements, ofthis SIP revision. As proposed in this SIP revision, emission reductions to result from the two remaining state VOC rule contingency measures together with the allotment for contingency of emission reductions from the 2009 through 20I0 fleet turnover will provide a total three percent emissions reduction to the DFW attainment demonstration's 1999 adjusted base year emissions inventory.

The 0.1 tpd NOx reduction replacement in the control strategy will not interfere with the DFW area's attainment demonstration. The 2009 through 2010 vehicle fleet turnover will provide sufficient reductions to offset the possible 0.1 tpd NOx emission increase from Chapter I I 7 rule exemption expansion. The reductions from fleet turnover will also provide the emission reductions needed to replace the offset lithographic printing rule contingency measure. After the reduction replacements are complete, 7.42 tpd NOx emission reductions from the 2009 through 2010 vehicle fleet turnover will remain surplus and available for other future SIP purposes. The proposed allocation of the fleet turnover reductions is provided in Table 4.3: Allocation of Emission Reductions from the 2009 through 2010 Fleet Turnover, and further described in Chapter 4, Required Control Strategy Elements, ofthis SIP revision.

Commission adoption of this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision would further supplement the DFW I997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration by incorporating the VOC RACT update, the associated Chapter 115 and Chapter I I 7 rule revisions, and the contingency plan. Additional information about each ofthe actions proposed in this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision is contained in Chapter 4, Required Control Strategy Elements, ofthis document.

There are no outstanding SIP requirements for the DFW area under the one-hour ozone NAAQS. A final rule published in the Federal Register by the EPA on October 16, 2008, (73 FR 6I357) describes the EPA determination that, effective November I7, 2008, the DFW one-hour ozone nonattainment area (consisting ofDallas, Denton, Collin, and Tarrant Counties) has attained the one-hour ozone standard. This determination was based on the EPA's review ofcertified ambient air monitoring data showing attainment ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2004 through 2006 period. The one-hour ozone standard attainment determination was further supported by EPA's review of quality-controlled, quality-assured ozone data for 2007 and 2008. Due to the area's one-hour ozone standard attainment, the EPA determined that all requirements to submit any

Proposed September 23, 2009 1-3DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

demonstration of attainment, Five Percent Increment of Progress (lOP) plan, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency plan, or other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, are suspended for as long as the area continues to attain that standard.



### 1.2. HEALTH EFFECTS (No revision)



### 1.3. PUBLICISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION (Revision) The commission will hold two public hearings for this proposed SIP revision at the following times and locations:

p:;J;;: ·,';

.. ' 

### .·.TIME 

# :·.·..z.'

...



## . CITY '·DA:TE \'.•

..·. LOCATION ;. Austin October 29,2009 l:00 P.M. (CST) TCEQ Headquarters 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, TX 78753 Building 

### E. Room 201S Fort Worth November 2, 2009 2:00 P.M. (CST) TCEQ Region 4 Offices 2309 Gravel Road Fort Worth, TX 76118 Public Meeting Room

The comment period will open on October 9, 2009, and close on November 9, 2009. Written comments will be accepted via mail, fax, or through the eComments system. All comments should reference the 

### "DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision" and 

### Project Number 2009-021-SIP-NR. Comments may be submitted to Mary Ann P. Cook, MC 206, State Implementation Plan Team, Chief Engineer's Office, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-5687 (Attn. Mary Ann P. Cook). Electronic comments may be submitted via the eComments Form for Proposed TCEO Rulemakings, at http://www5.tceg.state.tx.us/rules/ecomments. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. 

### Comments must be 

### received by November 9, 2009. Copies ofthe proposed SIP revision and all appendices can be obtained from the TCEQ's Web site at http://www.tceg.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/dfw.html.

Prior to opening each of the public hearings, TCEQ staff will hold a short discussion session where interested persons may direct questions to staffand obtain information. For the hearing to be held in Austin on October 29, 2009, the preceding discussion session will begin at 12:30 p.m. CST and end at I:00 p.m. CST. For the hearing to be held in Fort Worth, the preceding discussion period will begin at I:30 p.m. CST and end at 2:00p.m. CST. Also prior to opening each hearing, sign-up lists will be made available for interested persons to indicate a desire to provide oral comment. In the event no party signs up to speak at a hearing, the hearing will not be officially opened. Ifinterested parties sign up to provide comment, a hearing will be officially opened and those who signed up to speak will be called upon to provide oral comments. TCEQ staffis unable to hold discussions with or answer questions from speakers during public hearings.

Proposed September 23, 2009 1-4DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Comments on the 30 TAC Chapter 115 and Chapter 117 rule proposals associated with this SIP revision will not be addressed by the comments responses for this SIP revision. Only comments clearly identified as applicable to this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision will be addressed in the Response to Comments document for this SIP revision. Instructions for submitting comments on the 30 TAC Chapter 115 and Chapter 117 rule proposals are contained in the preamble applicable to each ofthose rule proposal packages.

1.4. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (Revision) There are no social or economic issues of concern attributable to this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision. For a detailed explanation of any social and economic issues involved with the associated Chapter 115 and 117 rulemaking, please refer to the preamble in each of those proposals. Proposed rulemaking documents may be accessed from the TCEQ public Web site rule project information search address, at http://www5.tceg.state.tx.us/rules/. TCEQ proposed and adopted rules may be accessed from the Texas Register index on the Texas Secretary ofState's Web site, located at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/index.shtml.

1.5. FISCAL AND MANPOWER RESOURCES (No revision)

Proposed September 23, 2009 1-5DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

CHAPTER 2. PHOTOCHEMICAL MODELING



### (No revision)

Proposed September 23, 2009 2-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

CHAPTER3. CORROBORATIVEANALYSIS

(No revision)

Proposed September 23, 2009 3-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

CHAPTER4. REQUIRED CONTROL STRATEGY ELEMENTS

4.1. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONTROL STRATEGY (No revision)

4.2. NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx) AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) CONTROLMEASURES

4.2.1. VOC Control Measures (Revision)

4.2.1.1. Background (Addition) Under 42 United States Code (USC), § 7511(b), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) to assist states in developing RACT for major sources ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. States can adopt and implement the CTG recommendations, or they can adopt alternative approaches, but in either event, a RACT demonstration and any rule revisions must be submitted to the EPA for review and approval as part ofthe State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) provides that states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above must revise their ozone SIPs to include requirements for RACT for VOC sources covered by any EPA CTG document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the date ofattainment. The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area's attainment date is June 15, 2010. The nine county area includes Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Collin, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties.

The EPA provided final approval of the volatile organic compounds (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis element ofthe DFW attainment demonstration in the conditional approval for the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision (74 FR 1903; January 14, 2009). During and shortly after development ofthat SIP revision, the EPA issued II
new CTG documents. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staffhas evaluated the new CTG documents to make RACT determinations for the State ofTexas and to determine if additional VOC controls are necessary to fulfill RACT requirements. Section 4.6, Contingency Measures, ofthis SIP revision further describes the RACT update analysis proposed in this SIP revision, and Appendix A: DFW Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update provides additional details regarding evaluation ofthe II CTG recommendation documents.

The TCEQ has determined that some emission control recommendations in the Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG document (71 FR 58745, October 5, 2006) represent RACT for the DFW area. In offset lithographic printing, VOC emissions result from the evaporation of components of the ink, fountain solutions, and cleaning solutions. Fountain solutions can account for up to 25 percent of the total VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing operations. Cleaning solutions containing organic solvents, used to remove excess printing ink oils or unwanted debris from the offset lithographic printing, also contribute to VOC emissions.

4.2.1.2. Proposed 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 VOC Rule Revision (TCEQ Rule project 2008-0 19-115-EN) (Addition) Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing a Chapter 115 rule revision to implement new RACT requirements for offset lithographic printing sources in the DFW area, as required by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), § 172(c)(l) and § 182(b)(2). The proposed

Proposed September 23, 2009 4-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

rulemak.ing implements the 2006 CTG recommendations to limit the VOC content of solvents used by offset lithographic printing facilities in the DFW nine-county 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. The proposed rulemak.ing is scheduled for the commission's consideration for adoption at the March I0, 20I0, TCEQ agenda.

The proposed rule revision would amend Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4, to reduce VOC content limits of fountain solutions used by offset lithographic printing operations currently subject to these rules. The proposed rules would also limit the VOC content of fountain and cleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations that are exempt under current rules. Existing Chapter 115 rules limit the VOC content offountain and cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing lines in the DFW area with combined uncontrolled VOC emissions of at least 50 tpy. The proposed rules would expand requirements in the DFW area beginning March I, 20II, to limit the VOC content of fountain and cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing lines located on a property with combined uncontrolled VOC emissions ofat least three tpy.

Because the commission is proposing a revised Chapter I I 5 to include RACT requirements for offset lithographic printing sources, the state VOC rule for those sources will no longer be available for use as a measure in the DFW attainment demonstration contingency plan. In order to maintain integrity of the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration, this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision proposes to modify the contingency plan, to remove and replace the state VOC rule offset lithographic contingency measure as more specifically described in Section 4.6, ContingencyMeasures, ofthis SIP revision.

Additional information on the proposed rulemak.ing is contained in the preamble for TCEQ Rule project 2008-0 19-115-EN. Additional information on the RACT analysis of the Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG can be found in Appendix A: DFW Reasonably Available Control TechnologyAnalysis Update.



### 4.2.2. NOx Control Measures

4.2.2.1. Major Source NOx Reductions

4.2.2.1.1. Industrial, Commercial, andInstitutional (IC/) Sources (Revision)

4.2.2.1.1.1. Background (Addition) Concurrent with adoption ofthe May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, the commission adopted a revised 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter B, Division 4 rule for major emission sources on May 23, 2007. The rule established new emission control requirements, beginning in March I, 2009, and March I, 20I0, for major industrial, commercial, or institutional (ICI) sources ofNOx in the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area Subchapter B, Division 4, requires owners or operators ofmajor ICI sources ofNOx in the DFW I997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area to reduce NOx emissions from a wide variety ofstationary sources, providing emissions reductions to help bring the DFW ozone nonattainment area into compliance with the I997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

On December II, 2008, a petition for rulemak.ing requesting an amendment to Chapter 1 I7, Subchapter B, Division 4, for certain DFW area sources, was filed with the commission. The petition (TCEQ Rule Project No. 2009-012-PET-NR), submitted by Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., on behalf of Elk Corporation of Texas, requested that the agency initiate rulemak.ing to revise 30

Proposed September23, 2009 4-2DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter B, § 117.403(a)(l2). The request related to owners and operators of low-temperature drying and curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing and wet-laid, non-woven fiber mat manufacturing located at major sources in the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. Source categories affected by the petitioners request are currently required to comply with Chapter 117 rule requirements by March I, 2010.

Elk Corporation ofTexas operates an asphalt shingle manufacturing plant in Ennis, Texas. In the petitioner's manufacturing process, a urea-formaldehyde resin binder is used with other nitrogencontaining compounds on a fiberglass substrate that is then passed through a drying and curing
oven. This operation results in nitrogen-containing off-gas that is vented through incinerators and reacts with oxygen to form NOx. The petitioner asserts that emissions associated with the manufacturing process alone makes compliance with the applicable NOx emission specification in § 117.41O(b) of 0.036 pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) infeasible. On January 28, 2009, the commission considered and approved the petition for rulemaking. The commission issued an order on February 2, 2009, directing the executive director to examine the issues in the petition and to initiate rulemaking.

4.2.2.1.1.2. Proposed 30 TAC Chapter I I 7 Rule revision (TCEQ Rule Project 2009-023-117- EN) (Addition) On August 12, 2009, the TCEQ proposed an amendment to § 117.403 to implement the rule changes requested by Elk Corporation ofTexas. The proposed rulemaking would amend Chapter I I7, Subchapter B, Division 4, § 117.403 for the DFW eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. It would expand the exemption in § 117.403(a)(l2) to include low-temperature drying ovens and curing ovens used in wet-laid, non-woven fiber mat manufacturing as well as in low-temperature drying ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing where nitrogen-containing resins or other additives are used. The current§ ll7.403(a)(l2) only exempts curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing in which nitrogen-bound chemical additives are used. If adopted, the Chapter 117 rule revision would become effective on February 4, 2010. This DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision proposes to incorporate a revised § 117.403 into the SIP

.. In 2006, during Chapter 117 rulemaking development for the DFW 1997**~ight-hour** ozone nonattainment area. comments were received from Owens Corning pointing out technical feasibility issues with controlling NOx emission from curing ovens ofthis specific operation. In response to those comments, a provision was added under § 117.403(a)(l2) to exempt curing
ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing in which nitrogen-bound chemical additives are used. While the type of manufacturing covered by the proposed rulemaking is different from that specified in the current rule exemption, the technical feasibility issue for Elk Corporation of Texas is similar to the Owens Corning issue, and is the basis of the current exemption in§ 117.403(a)(l2). The addition ofnitrogen-bound chemical additives contributes to the creation of non-combustion related thermal NOx that cannot be controlled using control methodologies identified by the commission as appropriate for curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing.

NOx emissions from curing ovens ofthis type are small contributors to the total NOx emissions. Ifthe Chapter 117 rule revision is adopted, approximately 0.1 tons per day (tpd) ofanticipated NOx emission reduction will be no longer available to support the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Therefore, a demonstration ofnoninterference submittal to the EPA is required under the FCAA Section II0(1).

Proposed September 23,2009 4-3DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

4.2.2.1.1.3 Demonstration ofNoninterference under FCAA Section 110(1) (Addition) The estimated 0.1 tpd NOx emission increase and resulting loss to the DFW control strategy that would result from the Chapter 117 rule exemption expansion would be insignificant and not expected to interfere with the DFW area's attainment ofthe 1997 ozone standard. However, the TCEQ provides this demonstration of noninterference to support the state's assertion that expansion of the exemption in§ 117.403(a)(12) as proposed would not negatively impact the status ofthe area's attainment oftheNAAQS.
The EPA issued draft guidance on June 8, 2005, titled "Demonstrating Noninterference under Section 110(1) ofthe Clean Air Act When Revising a State Implementation Plan." The guidance provides options available for states to demonstrate noninterference in nonattainment areas for affected pollutants. One option for demonstrating noninterference is through the substitution of
measures that provide equivalent or greater emissions reduction/air quality benefits than the measure(s) being removed from the SIP.

The commission proposes to replace the 0.1 tpd NOx reduction from the § 117.403 exemption with 0. 1 tpd NOx allotment of vehicle fleet turnover surplus emission reductions predicted to
occur in the one-year period beginning June 15, 2009. Allocating 0.1 tpd NOx reduction from fleet turnover surplus emissions ensures that adoption ofthe Chapter 117 rulemaking associated with this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision will not interfere with the DFW 1997 eight-hourozone attainment demonstration.

4.2.2.2.- 4.2.2.4 (No revision)

4.2.3.

- 4.2.7 (No revision)

4.3. REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS (Revision)

4.3.1 DFW VOC RACT Analysis Update (Addition) The DFW nine-county ozone nonattainment area is classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, and thus required to meet RACT mandates ofthe 1990 FCAA Amendments under§§ 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2) and 182(f). States containing nonattainment
areas classified as moderate or higher must demonstrate that current rules fulfill 1997 eight-hour
ozone RACT requirements for all control technique guidelines (CTG) categories, and for all nonCTG major sources ofNOx and VOC.

Section 183(e) ofthe FCAA directs the EPA to regulate categories that account for at least 80 percent ofthe VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products in ozone nonattainment
areas. FCAA § 183(e)(3) requires the EPA to regulate VOC emissions from consumer arid commercial products by issuing national regulations applicable to manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers, or by issuing CTG documents.

Under 42 United States Code (USC),§ 75ll(b), the EPA is required to issue CTG documents to assist states in developing RACT for major sources of VOC emissions. States can adopt and implement the CTG recommendations, or they can adopt alternative approaches, but in either event, a RACT demonstration and any rule revisions must be submitted to the EPA for review and approval as part ofthe SIP. The FCAA provides that states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above must revise their ozone SIPs to include requirements for RACT

Proposed September23, 2009 4-4DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

for VOC sources covered by any EPA CTG document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the date ofattainment.

The DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision submitted to the EPA in May 2007 demonstrated fulfilled VOC RACT requirements for the nine-county DFW 1997 eight-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The RACT element ofthat SIP revision: (I) identified VOC emission CTG source categories for the area and provided negative declarations for the categories where
no major emission sources exist; (2) identified the state regulation(s) that implement or exceed RACT for each applicable CTG source category; and (3) described the basis for concluding that the regulations fulfill RACT. That RACT analysis demonstrated that current VOC rules and controls for the DFW area satisfy the FCAA requirements for RACT for all CTG or alternative control technology (ACT) VOC source categories specific to any CTG or ACT documents issued prior to 2006. RACT for all non-CTG/ACT major VOC emission source categories for which controls are technologically and economically feasible is met by the EPA-approved Chapter 115 rules or other federally enforceable measures.
The EPA provided final approval ofthe VOC RACT analysis element ofthe DFW attainment demonstration in the conditional approval document for the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision (74 FR 1903; January 14, 2009). However, during and shortly after development of that SIP revision, the EPA issued II new Consumer and Commercial Products CTG documents. Some of the recommendations made in the new CTGs were updates to previously issued guidelines, and some were recommendations for new categories. The RACT analysis did not include the 2006 through 2008 CTG documents. The EPA requires SIP revision submittals within one year after final Consumer and Commercial Products CTG documents publish in the Federal Register; however, there was not sufficient time to address those in the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision before the submittal deadline. During development ofthat SIP revision, the commission had requested extension ofthe deadline to allow sufficient time to review, evaluate and act upon the CTGs. In its final rule, the EPA did not extend that deadline, but did indicate an intention to work with states to ensure timely submittals ofthe required SIP revisions.

The II CTG documents published in the Federal Register in lieu of national regulations each contain recommendations for VOC controls on various consumer and commercial products. On October 5, 2006, final CTGs for Group II product categories were published (71 FR 58745). On October 9, 2007, final CTGs were published for Group III product categories (72 FR 57215). Final.CTGs for Group IV product categories were published on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481). The following is a list ofthe CTG documents:

• Flat WoodPaneling Coatings, Group IIIssued in 2006
• Flexible Packaging PrintingMaterials, GroupIIIssued in 2006
• Industrial CleaningSolvents, GroupIIIssued in2006
• OffsetLithographic andLetterpress Printing, GroupIIIssued in 2006
• LargeAppliance Coatings, GroupIIIIssued in 2007
• Metal Furniture Coatings, GroupIIIIssued in 2007
• Paper, Film, andFoil Coatings, GroupIIIIssued in 2007
• Auto andLight-Duty TruckAssembly Coatings, GroupIVIssued in 2008
• Fiberglass BoatManufacturingMaterials, GroupIVIssued in 2008
• Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, GroupIVIssued in 2008
• Miscellaneous Metal andPlastic Parts Coatings, Group IVIssued in 2008

Proposed September 23, 2009 4-5DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

TCEQ staff evaluated the new CTG documents to make RACT determinations for the State of Texas and to determine ifadditional VOC controls are necessary to fulfill RACT requirements. The following provides a brief summary of the state's RACT determinations regarding the II CTG documents. This DFW RACT, Rule and Contingency SIP Revision proposes an update to the VOC RACT element of the DFW area's 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Details regarding the state's evaluation ofthe CTG documents and RACT determinations for the
source categories addressed are provided in the VOC RACT analysis update for the DFW area contained in Appendix A: DFWReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis Update. Through this SIP revision, the TCEQ demonstrates a continued VOC RACT fulfillment in the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. The RACT update provided in this SIP revision identifies state regulation(s) that implement or exceed RACT for each applicable CTG source category, and describe the TCEQ's basis for concluding that the regulations fulfill RACT for the DFW area. Although the FCAA requires states to implement RACT for new or revised CTGs, the recommendations made do not always constitute RACT for an affected area. As indicated by the EPA in the introduction ofeach ofthe CTG documents, the purpose ofthe CTG is to assist states in determining what represents RACT for specific nonattainment areas.
4.3.1.1. CTG Document Recommendations Not Applicable to the DFW Area The TCEQ provides a negative declaration for the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG source category. The TCEQ determined that no sources meeting the applicability criteria recommended in the CTG document are located in the DFW area. Additional information is provided in Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis Update.
4.3.1.2. CTG Document Recommendations that Do Not Represent RACT for the DFW Area The TCEQ has determined that (I)the recommendations do not represent RACT due to economic
or technological feasibility concerns, or that (2) the TCEQ has equivalent or superior controls in place for the following four CTG source categories: Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials; Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; and Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings. Therefore, the TCEQ is not proposing to implement any rule amendments or new rules associated with these CTG categories. Additional information is provided in Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis Update.
4.3.1.3. CTG Document Recommendations for which RACT Determinations are Not Being
The TCEQ is not making a determination at this time whether the CTG recommendations for the Industrial Cleaning Solvents or the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives categories represent RACT for Texas. The TCEQ's initial assessment indicates that the EPA substantially underestimated the scope and potential impact ofthe CTGs, and that the implementation ofthe recommendations would have widespread and potentially adverse impacts to small businesses and micro-businesses. The TCEQ will continue to evaluate the CTGs, and intends to provide small business outreach in order to more clearly gauge adverse impact potential. A RACT determination regarding the recommendations for this CTG source category will be made after these outstanding issues are addressed. Once adequate stakeholder input is received and the TCEQ determines potential impact to small businesses, economic and technological feasibility, and practical enforceability of the recommendations, a RACT determination can be made. Additional information is provided in Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control TechnologyAnalysis Update. ·

Proposed September 23, 2009 4-6DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

In a letter to the EPA dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding several issues related to recommendations made in the CTG documents for the following source categories: Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. A number of the CTG recommendations regarding VOC content limits for specific coatings categories are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the EPA's original CTG recommendations. The TCEQ requested clarification to determine if implementing the CTG recommendations would be backsliding. Staffhas requested this clarification to ensure that the TCEQ has all the appropriate infonnation needed to detennine whether the recommendations represent RACT for Texas. As of September 4, 2009, the EPA had not yet responded to the request for clarification. Therefore, the TCEQ cannot yet detennine whether these CTGs represent RACT for Texas. A RACT detennination will be made after the EPA provides clarification to the issues identified and the TCEQ evaluates the CTG recommendations in context with the EPA's response.
4.3.1.4. CTG Document Recommendations that Represent RACT for the DFW Area The TCEQ has detennined that some recommendations in the Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG represent RACT for the DFW area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing rulemaking to limit the VOC content of solvents used by offset lithographic printing facilities in certain areas of Texas, including the DFW area (Rule Project 2008-0 19-115-EN). The proposed rulemaking would implement CTG recommendations to reduce the VOC content of fountain solutions and cleaning materials, and would expand applicability of the current rule to include smaller sources not currently subject to the rule. The TCEQ is not proposing to implement any rulemaking associated with the control requirements for heatset presses or letterpress printing recommendations. Additional discussion concerning the state's detennination regarding the CTG recommendations for heatset press and letterpress printing is provided in Appendix A: DFW Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update. The Chapter 115 rulemaking (TCEQ Rule Project No. 2008-019-115-EN) associated with this SIP revision, proposed to implement RACT for offset lithographic printing sources, is described in Section 4.2.1., VOC ControlMeasures, ofthis SIP revision.

4.4.

- 4.5. (No revision)

4.6. CONTINGENCY MEASURES (Revision)
4.6.1. Background (Addition) FCAA (42 USC§§ 7502(c)(9) and 7511a(c)(9)) and the EPA final Phase 2 1997 eight-hour ozone implementation rule require that the SIPs for all 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas include contingency measures as additional controls needed to further reduce emissions in the event an area fails to attain by its attainment date. The Act requires that states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above include contingency measures in their SIPs (sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). Per the FCAA, the failure-to-attain contingency plan must identifY control measures sufficient to secure an additional three percent reduction (from the 1999 adjusted base year emissions inventory used in the attainment demonstration) in ozone precursor emissions should a moderate nonattainment area fail to attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15,2010, required attainment date. The May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, Appendix B: Emissions Inventory Development identifies 520.08 tpd ofVOC and 754.56 tpd ofNOx in the 1999 adjusted base year emissions inventory from all anthropogenic sources in the DFW ninecounty nonattainment area.

Proposed September 23, 2009 4-7DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

As part of its January 14 2009, final conditional approval ofthe DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, as supplemented and revised (74 FR 1903), the EPA deemed the failure-toattain contingency plan (as submitted in the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, supplemented in April 2008, and revised in the November 2008 DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision) to be complete and fully approved. That contingency plan identified emissions reductions from three state VOC rules along with emission reductions from the 2009 through 20I0 mobile source fleet turnover as the contingency measures. At the time these VOC rules were identified for the DFW eight-hour ozone failure-to-attain contingency plan, they were not required to meet VOC RACT requirements. The three rules, applicable to (I) Offset Lithographic Printing, as in 30 TAC § l15.449(c); (2) Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels, as in 30 TAC § 115.549(b); and (3) Petroleum Dry Cleaning, as in 30 TAC § 115.559(a), were determined to provide a cumulative 1.80 tpd VOC emission reduction from sources in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties. Surplus emission reductions predicted to result from the fleet turnover to
occur over a one-year period beginning June 15, 2010, were identified to provide the remainder ofemission reductions needed for the three percent contingency requirement.

The turnover of the on-road fleet of cars and trucks will result in additional VOC and NOx emission benefits in 2009 and beyond because newer vehicles have significantly lower emission standards than vehicles they are replacing. New vehicle emission standards are lower primarily due to a number offederal rules such as the Tier 2 standards for automobiles and light trucks, and the 2007 Heavy-Duty Diesel standards for large diesel highway trucks. Emission reductions predicted to occur from the fleet turnover during the one-year period beginning June 15, 2009, are estimated to total4.86 tpd VOC and 20.78 tpd NOx.

4.6.2. Revised DFW 1997 Eigbt-Hour Ozone Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan (Addition) This DFW RACT, Rule and Contingency SIP Revision proposes a revised contingency plan for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Removal of one measure from the contingency plan

- the offset lithographic measure
- and a modified allotment of fleet turnover reductions dedicated to the failure-to-attain contingency plan are both proposed in this SIP revision. Upon adoption ofthis DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision, 13.36 tpd of the NOx emission reductions, and 4.86 tpd ofthe VOC emission reductions predicted from the June 2009 through 2010 fleet turnover will be dedicated to provide reductions for the contingency plan.

Due to the associated Chapter 115 rule proposal applicable to the same sources, the offset lithograph printing rule contingency measure (and the associated 0.24 tpd predicted VOC reduction) is being removed as a contingency measure. However, the two other state VOC rules identified in the SIP revision will remain in the SIP. Those two VOC rule contingency measures provide controls applicable to the degassing or cleaning process of stationary, marine, and transport vessels, and to petroleum-based dry cleaning.

The three contingency measures identified in Table 4.1: 

### Emission Reductions Provided by Proposed Contingency Plan, and further described below, are measures identified for the proposed DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration contingency plan, for implementation in the event the contingency plan is triggered.

1. A VOC reduction of0.18 tpd will be made through controls on the degassing or cleaning process of stationary, marine, and transport vessels. All affected persons in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties must be in compliance with 30 TAC. Chapter 115. Subchapter F. Division 3 (relating to Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine. and Transport Vessels) as soon as practicable, but no later than one year, after notification is

Proposed September 23, 2009 4-8DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

published in the Texas Register ofthe commission's detennination that this contingency rule is necessary as a result of failure to attain the 1997 NAAQS for ozone by the attainment deadline as set forth in the 1990 Amendments to the FCAA, 

### § 172(c)(9). The commission will submit notification to the Texas Register for publication within 60 days after the EPA notifies the state ofits failure through publication ofa final action in the FederalRegister.
2. A VOC reduction of 1.38 tpd will be made through controls on petroleum-based dry cleaning businesses. All affected petroleum solvent dry cleaning facilities in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties must be in compliance with 30 TAC. Chapter 115, Subchapter F. Division 4 (relating to Petroleum 

### Dry Cleaning Systems) as soon as practicable, but no later than one year, after notification is published in the Texas Register ofthe commission's detennination that this contingency rule is necessary as a result of failure to attain the 1997 NAAQS for ozone by the attainment deadline as set forth in the 1990 Amendments to FCAA, 

### § 172(c)(9). The commission will submit notification to the Texas Register for publication within 60 days after the EPA notifies the state of its failure through publication ofa final action in the FederalRegister.

3. Emission reductions to provide 4.86 tpd VOC and 13.36 tpd NOx, allotted to the DFW contingency plan from and out of surplus emission reductions that will result from the motor vehicle fleet turnover to occur during a one-year period beginning June 15, 2009.



### T bl 41 E . . Red



### a e . : MISSIOn uct1ons p 'd db p 

### rov1 e )l'_ 

### rol!_osedC f 

### on me:ency PI

### an Contine;ency Measure Emission Reductions (tpd) State VOC rule contingency measure applicable to the Degassing or Cleaning ofStationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels* State VOC rule contingency measure applicable to Petroleum Dry Cleaning* Mobile source fleet turnover emission reductions** (portion allocated for contingency) Total ContingencyPlanReductions *applicable m Collm, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties only **attributable to DFW nine-county area 

# voc NOx

0.18 00.00

1.38 00.00

4.86 13.36 6.42 13.36

The method used to calculate the DFW three percent contingency emission reduction requirement is represented in the following equation: RvNOCBASE 

### + RN/NOxBASE >=0.03 where; Rv =typical summer day VOC reductions in mass units 

### R.N = typical summer day NOx reductions in mass units VOCBASE = the mass of anthropogenic VOC emissions in the 1999 adjusted base year inventory, and NOxBASE =the mass ofanthropogenic NOx emissions in the 1999 adjusted base year inventory,
and was calculated as follows: [(6.42/520.08) 

### + (13.361754.56)] = 3%

Table 4.2: Calculations Showing Three Percent Required Reductions shows that the proposed DFW contingency plan will provide a 1.23 percent reduction from the DFW area 1999 adjusted

Proposed September 23, 2009 4-9DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

base year VOC emissions inventory, and a 1.77 percent reduction from the corresponding NOx emissions inventory. Following the EPA's NOx substitution guidance to calculate the contingency plan reductions, the 1.23 (percent VOC reduction) is added to the l.77 (percent NOx reduction) to equal the required 3.00 (percent total VOC and/or NOx emissions reductions). This modified contingency plan identifies measures to provide the required reductions, totaling 6.42 tpd VOC and 13.36 tpd NOx.

2 C I Table 4. : a culations Showin2 Three percent R . dR d equ1re e uct10ns Modified DFW Conting_ency_Plan Calculations 

## voc NOx 1999 adjusted base year El, DFW 9-county area {tQ_d weekdayl 520.08 754.56 tpd emissions reductions from the two state VOC rule measures 1.56 0.00 tpd emissions reductions from the surplus fleet turnover emissions reductions allotted for the contingency Qlan 4.86 13.36 (Totalt/!_dreductions to be/!_rovided bythe modified**contin~ncyplanl_** (6.42) 03.36) Percentag_e ofinventory_reduction for each Q_recursor 1.23% 1.77% Total percentage o.f_reductionsprovidedbytheplan 3.00% total

4.6.3. Allocation ofthe June 2009 through 2010 fleet turnover reductions (Addition) Table 4.3: Allocation ofEmissions Reductionsfrom the 2009 through 2010 Fleet Turnover consolidates emissions reductions allocations proposed in this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision. Out ofthe total 4.86 tpd VOC and 20.78 NOx emission reductions predicted to occur from the fleet turnover expected to occur during the one-year period beginning June 15, 2009, all of the 4.86 tpd VOC and 13.36 tpd of the NOx reductions are allotted to provide reductions for the proposed DFW contingency plan. The remaining 7.42 tpd surplus NOx emissions reduction from fleet-turnover is surplus and usable for other future SIP purposes.

T bl 4 3 All

a e . : ocatlon ofE

.. IDISSIODS Rd ti e uctlons rom th 2009 th e h 2010 Fl T rougt eet urnover Vehicle Fleet TurnoverEmission Reductions• (tpd) 

## voc NOx Total emissions reductions from June 2009 through 2010 fleet turnover 4.86 20.78 Allocation to replace NOx reduction lost from control strategy upon adoption ofChap. I I 7 rulemaking (_see section 4.2.2.11 -0.00 -0.10 Allocation to the proposed DFW contingency plan -4.86

- 13.36 Remainingsurplus emission reductions available for future SIP use 0.00 7.42
• from the mne-county DFW etght-hour ozone nonattamment area

Proposed September23, 2009 4-10DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

APPENDIX A:

Dallas-FortWorth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

Proposed September 23, 2009DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Description

Section 1.0. Introduction

Section 2.0. RACT Evaluation Approach 2.1. General Discussion INDEX:

2.2. Identification ofCTG Emission Source Categories 2.3. Determining ifState Regulations Fulfill RACT Requirements

Section 3.0. RACT Determination and Discussion 3.1. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group II, Issued in 2006 3.2. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group III, Issued in 2007 3.3. EPA Consumerand Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group IV, Issued in 2008

Attachment I December 8, 2008, Letter to Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency on Issues related to Control Technique Guidelines documents

Proposed September 23, 2009 A-1 A-2

A-3 A-3 A-3 A-3

A-4

A-4

A-6

A-7

A-10DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

DALLAS-FORT WORTH REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS UPDATE



### 1.0. Introduction

The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) eight-hour ozone nonattainment area (Dallas, Denton, Collin, Tarrant, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties) is currently classified moderate nonattainment for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard, the area is required to meet the mandates ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) under§§ 172(c)(l), 182(b)(2) and 182(f). According to the EPA's Final Rule to Implement the Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 51.912, November 29, 2005), the area must submit as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) a demonstration that current rules fulfill the eight-hour reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for all Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) categories. The EPA previously approved the volatile organic compounds (VOC) RACT analysis, as submitted in the May 2007 DFW Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision (74 FR 1903; January 14, 2009). However, in 2006 through 2008, the EPA issued II new CTG documents containing recommendations for VOC controls on a variety ofconsumer and commercial products. Some of the new CTG recommendations update previously issued CTG documents and some of them apply to new source categories. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has evaluated the CTG documents to determine if additional VOC controls are necessary to fulfill RACT requirements. The following is a list ofthe 11 CTG documents evaluated for this DFW VOC RACT analysis update:

• Flat WoodPaneling Coatings, Group II issued in 2006
• Flexible PackagingPrintingMaterials, Group II issued in 2006
• Industrial CleaningSolvents, Group II issued in 2006
• OffsetLithographic andLetterpress Printing, Group II issued in 2006
• LargeAppliance Coatings, Group III issued in 2007
• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III issued in 2007
• Paper, Film, andFoil Coatings, Group III issued in 2007
• Auto andLight-Duty TruckAssembly Coatings, Group IV issued in 2008
• Fiberglass BoatManufacturing Materials, Group IV issued in 2008
• Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Group IV issued in 2008
• Miscellaneous Metal andPlasticParts Coatings, Group IV issued in 2008

Because the Group II CTG documents publishedjust shortly before the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision was proposed, and because the EPA issued the remaining seven after the TCEQ submitted that SIP revision to the EPA, RACT analysis determinations for the new CTGs have not yet been submitted to the EPA. This document addresses the II CTG documents, and provides a VOC RACT analysis update for the DFW area.
RACT represents the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable ofmeeting by the application ofcontrol technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility (44 Federal Register 53762; September 17, 1979). RACT requirements for moderate nonattainment areas are included in the FCAA to ensure the control, to a reasonable extent, ofozone precursor emissions at major sources are controlled. However, RACT control levels are not necessarily equal to the best available control technology (BACT) levels expected

Proposed September 23, 2009 A-2DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

of new sources or to the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) levels required for major sources ofhazardous air pollutants.

RACT and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration factors such as technological and economic feasibility; however, there is significant distinction between RACT and RACM. In order for a control measure to be determined RACM, the measure must advance the area's NAAQS attainment. However, a measure need not advance NAAQS attainment to be determined RACT, as benefits resulting from RACT implementation are presumed under the FCAA.

2.0. RACT Evaluation Approach
2.1. General Discussion The TCEQ demonstrates that RACT requirements are fulfilled by: (1) identifying all CTG source categories ofVOC and NOx emissions and submitting negative declarations for categories where
no major emission sources exist; (2) identifying all non-CTG major sources of VOC and NOx emissions; (3) identifying the state regulation implementing or exceeding RACT for each applicable CTG source category or non-CTG major emission source; and (4) describing the basis for conclusion that the regulations fulfill RACT. Because this SIP revision**focu~es** specifically
on the 11 CTG documents issued by the EPA from 2006 through 2008, this RACT analysis provides only an update to the DFW VOC RACT demonstration.

2.2. Identification ofCTG Emission Source Categories The EPA has issued CTG documents defining RACT for existing facilities. The TCEQ reviewed the 11 Consumer and Commercial Products CTG documents issued from 2006 through 2008 to identify all source categories of VOC emissions that require RACT. RACT determinations are not required if there are no facilities in the DFW area that are subject to the CTG document. Negative declarations for source categories described in the EPA guidance documents that do not exist in the DFW area are included.

2.3. Determining ifState Regulations Fulfill RACT Requirements The EPA previously approved the VOC rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 as meeting RACT requirements for the DFW area for CTG documents issued prior to 2006. RACT determinations regarding the CTG documents issued in 2006 and later were made by comparing the CTG recommendations to TCEQ rules to determine ifthe existing rules satisfied RACT. Specific discussion regarding the CTG recommendations evaluated is provided in Sections 3.3.2. through 3.3.4.

BACT is an emission standard based upon a maximum achievable degree ofemission reduction, and is at least as stringent as the emission standards set by any applicable FCAA provision. MACT is an emission standard that requires the maximum reduction ofhazardous emissions, and is at least as stringent as the average emission level achieved by controls on the top 12 percent of existing sources in the applicable source category. Emission sources that are subject to the more stringent BACT or MACT requirements were determined to fulfill RACT requirements. The TCEQ reviewed the emission sources in the DFW area and the applicable state rules to verify that all CTG emission source categories in the DFW area are subject to requirements that meet or exceed applicable RACT requirements or that further emission controls are not economically or technologically feasible.

Proposed September 23, 2009 A-3DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

3.0. RACT Determination and Discussion
3.1. The EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group II Issued in 2006

3.1.1. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings The TCEQ is not proposing to implement any rule amendment or new rule for the DFW area associated with the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG. The EPA indicated in Appendix 

### B: State andLocal Regulationsfor Flat Wood Paneling ofthe CTG document that two facilities in Texas
ozone nonattainment areas are potentially subject to the recommendations. Based on a review of the 2005 point source emissions inventory, the TCEQ determined that only one facility in the DFW area, Buell Door Company, TCEQ Account Number DB-0128-U, may fit the source category description in the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG. However, that facility ceased all operations in 2006 and to date has not reported any emissions for the site for subsequent years. The TCEQ does not expect that the company will resume business operations at this facility; therefore, the TCEQ provides a negative declaration for this CTG category for the DFW area.
3.1.2. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials The TCEQ is not proposing to implement any rule amendments or new rules for the DFW area associated with the Flexible Packaging Printing Materials CTG document. Rules for flexographic and rotogravure printing in Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 3 and the sites' permit provisions sufficiently satisfy RACT for the DFW area. The Flexible Packaging Printing Materials CTG recommends an add-on air pollution control device requirement on any flexible package printing press with the potential to emit 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC. Current TCEQ rules control emissions from flexographic and rotogravure printing lines on a property with the combined uncontrolled potential to emit 50 tpy or more of VOC when operating at maximum production rate. The TCEQ has identified nine facilities in the DFW nonattainment area that potentially meet applicability criteria in this CTG document. However, eight facilities have enforceable limitations on VOC emissions in place that restrict VOC emissions to less than 25 tpy, consistent with the recommendation to allow sites to elect the 25 tpy enforceable limitation. The remaining facility, Printpack Inc., TCEQ Account Number TA-0282-E, has enforceable permit provisions that are more effective overall than the CTG recommendations regarding VOC capture and destruction efficiency. The permit requirements specified for these facilities sufficiently fulfill RACT requirements for this CTG category.
The CTG also recommends specific work practice requirements for flexible package printing operations with an uncontrolled potential to emit 15 pounds per day (ppd) or more ofVOC. The EPA's CTG document does not provide a VOC emissions reduction estimate for implementing these work practices. Based on the TCEQ's review, the potential benefit from implementing the work practices is not reliably quantifiable, and any emission reduction would likely be miniscule. Additionally, the TCEQ expects that most facilities already voluntarily follow similar work practices for safety reasons or that they have required work practices as part of a permit authorization. The TCEQ does not consider it reasonable to impose additional rule requirements for general housekeeping requirements when neither need nor quantifiable benefits are apparent.
3.1.3. Industrial Cleaning Solvents The TCEQ is not making a RACT determination at this time regarding the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations. The TCEQ's assessment indicates that the EPA substantially underestimated the scope and potential impact ofthe recommendations. In Appendix D of the CTG document: Number of nonattainment facilities organizedbyState that are estimatedto meet the applicability criteria recommended in the CTG, the EPA estimated 92 facilities in Texas nonattainment areas would be subject to the recommendations. However, the North American

Proposed September23, 2009 A-4DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes provided in Appendix C ofthe CTG document: Summary of NAICS Codesfor nonattainment facilities estimated to meet the applicability criteria recommended in the CTG suggests a much broader applicability. Based on the EPA's 15 ppd VOC suggested exemption threshold and the listed NAICS codes, the TCEQ estimates that implementation ofthis recommendation would have widespread and possibly adverse impact on small business and micro-business in Texas. Evaluating technological and economic feasibility aspects ofa proposed technology or control measure is integral to determining RACT; however, identifying potentially impacted businesses and determining applicability of a technology or measure are required to conduct those evaluations. Because additional research is needed in order to clarify and determine source applicability of this CTG, a RACT analysis cannot be completed at this time. The TCEQ will continue to evaluate this CTG, and intends to conduct small business outreach to potentially impacted stakeholders in order to obtain the information needed to complete a RACT analysis. A RACT determination for this CTG category can be made only after the TCEQ has determined impact to small businesses, technological and economic feasibility, and practical enforceability ofthe CTG recommendations.

3.1.4. Offset Lithographic & Letterpress Printing The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendations do represent RACT for the DFW area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing rulemaking to limit the VOC content ofsolvents used by offset lithographic printing facilities in the DFW area. The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the VOC content ofthe fountain solutions and cleaning solutions, and expands rule applicability to include smaller sources not subject to the existing rule.

The TCEQ is not proposing to implement any rule amendments or new rules for the DFW area associated with the recommended control requirements for heatset presses. The CTG recommends an add-on air pollution control device requirement for each heatset offset lithographic press with an uncontrolled potential to emit 25 tpy ofVOC or more from the dryer. The EPA recommends different control efficiencies for devices installed before and after the effective date ofthe rule implementingthese CTG recommendations; EPA recommends requiring
a 90 percent overall control efficiency for control devices installed before the rule effective date and a 95 percent overall control efficiency for control devices installed after the rule effective date. The commission is not proposing any rule amendments or new rules to implement the EPA's recommendations for these sources.
In the DFW area, the existing Chapter 115 rules require control devices with an efficiency ofat least 90 percent to be installed on heatset offset lithographic presses located on a property with combined VOC emissions ofat least 50 tpy. The existing Chapter 115 requirement may not be as stringent as the EPA's recommendations for control devices installed before the rule effective date in all instances, since an individual press with uncontrolled emissions greater than 25 tpy could be located on a site with total emissions less than 50 tpy when uncontrolled. However, staff reviewed the point source emissions inventory, Title V, and central registry databases to identify heatset presses in the DFW area potentially subject to the EPA's CTG recommendations and determined that the heatset presses identified have control devices with a minimum efficiency of 90 percent to comply with either Chapter 115 rules or as part oftheir permit authorization. Since the level of control on heatset presses identified in the DFW area either meets or exceeds the EPA's recommendations for control devices installed before the effective date of the rule, the commission is not proposing any new rules or rule revisions for control devices on heatset presses in the DFW area.

Proposed September 23, 2009 A-5DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

The EPA also recommends requiring a 95 percent overall efficiency for control devices installed after the rule effective date on individual heatset web offset lithographic presses with the uncontrolled potential to emit at least 25 tpy ofVOC. Control devices installed in the future will be required to meet best available control technology standards of at least 95 percent control efficiency as part oftheir pennit authorization. Therefore, the commission is not proposing any new rules or rule revisions for control devices installed on heatset presses after the effective date ofthe rule.

The TCEQ is not proposing to implement any new rules associated with the recommendations applicable to letterpress printing emission sources in DFW area. Letterpress printing operations
are not currently regulated under Chapter 115 rules; however, the CTG recommends an add-on air pollution control device requirement for each heatset letterpress with an uncontrolled potential to emit 25 tpy or more ofVOC from the dryer. Reviews ofthe point source emissions inventory, Title V database, and central registry databases indicate there may be some letterpress printing operations co-located with offset lithographic printing operations in the DFW area; however, it appears that none of the presses have potential to emit over 15 tpy of VOC, so they are not subject to the recommended controls.

The 2006 CTG also recommends limiting the VOC content ofcleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations to 70.0 percent VOC by weight in conjunction with work practice standards. However, the proposed rules retain the more stringent existing Chapter 115 cleaning solution content limit of70 percent VOC by volume in conjunction with work practice standards. In addition, the proposed rules retain the existing Chapter 115 option to limit the cleaning solution content to 50 percent VOC by volume. The TCEQ is proposing to include this option to retain the flexibility afforded to owners and operators subject to the current rules. The CTG also recommends requiring specific work practices for cleaning operations for offset lithographic and letterpress printing facilities with the uncontrolled potential to emit of 15 ppd or more of VOC. The TCEQ expects that most facilities are already voluntarily following similar practices for safety reasons or have required work practices as part of the sites' pennit authorization. The TCEQ does not consider it reasonable to implement additional rule requirements for general housekeeping requirements on sites when there is no apparent need nor any quantifiable benefit.

3.2. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group III Issued in 2007

3.2.1. Large Appliance Coating By letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding several issues related to the Large Appliance Coatings CTG recommendations. Current TCEQ rules in Chapter 115 for large appliance coating operations are based on the Large Appliance Coatings CTG issued by the EPA in 1977. A number ofthe recommended VOC content limits for specific coatings categories listed in the 2007 CTG document are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the EPA's 1977 CTG recommendations for the Large Appliance Coatings category. Since the 2007 Large Appliance Coatings CTG document does not specifically address this issue, the TCEQ has requested clarification to verify that implementation of the new recommendations would not be backsliding, and to ensure that the TCEQ has all infonnation needed to detennine whether the 2007 CTG recommendations represent RACT for Texas. See Attachment 1for the TCEQ letter to the EPA requesting clarification on these issues.

As ofSeptember 4, 2009, the EPA has not responded to the TCEQ request for clarification on the Large Appliance Coatings CTG recommendations. Therefore, the TCEQ is not making a RACT detennination until the EPA provides clarification to the issues identified, and the TCEQ evaluates the CTG recommendations in context with the EPA's response.

Proposed September 23, 2009 A-6DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

3.2.2. Metal Furniture Coatings In the previously mentioned letter to the EPA of December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding several issues related to the Metal Furniture Coatings CTGs. Current TCEQ rules in Chapter 115 for metal furniture coating operations are based directly on the 1977 Metal Furniture Coatings CTG document issued by the EPA. A number of the VOC content limits for specific coatings categories recommended in the 2007 CTGs are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the EPA's 1977 recommendations for the Metal Furniture Coatings category. Since the 2007 Metal Furniture Coatings CTG document does not specifically address this issue, the TCEQ has requested clarification from the EPA to ensure that implementing the 2007 CTGs would not be backsliding, and to be certain that the TCEQ has the appropriate information to determine whether the 2007 CTGs represent RACT for Texas. See Attachment 1 for the TCEQ letter to the EPA requesting clarification on these issues.

As ofSeptember 4, 2009, the EPA has not responded to the TCEQ request for clarification on the CTG recommendations. Therefore, the TCEQ is not making a RACT determination until the EPA provides clarification to the issues identified, and the TCEQ evaluates the CTG recommendations in context with the EPA's response. ·
3.2.3. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings The TCEQ is not proposing to implement any rule amendment or new rule associated with the Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG for the DFW area. The EPA recommendation for the installation of controls to achieve 90 percent reduction or compliance with the more stringent coating content limits would only apply to individual presses with a potential to emit 25 tpy or more ofVOC priorto the consideration ofcontrols. The TCEQ has identified two facilities in the DFW area that fit the applicability description in this CTG document. However, the rules in Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2, and the sites' permit provisions are sufficient to satisfy RACT for the DFW area for this category of sources. One facility, Rock Tenn Converting Company, TCEQ Account Number DB-0 179-D, has an enforceable permit limitation ofless than 25 tpy VOC emissions from the coating line operations. This is consistent with the CTG recommendation to allow sites to elect enforceable limitations to keep VOC emissions less than 25 tpy. The other facility, Printpack Inc., TCEQ Account Number TA-0282-E, has enforceable permit previsions regarding VOC capture and destruction efficiency that are overall more effective than the CTG recommendations. The specified permits requirements for these facilities sufficiently fulfill RACT for this CTG category.
The CTG also recommends specific work practice requirements for cleaning operations at paper, film, and foil coating facilities with uncontrolled emission potential of 15 ppd or more of VOC. The two facilities identified in the DFW area each have work practices incorporated into the site' permit conditions. These enforceable work practices provide a reasonable level of control for these activities and are sufficient to fulfill RACT. The estimated VOC emissions reduction from work practice implementation was not provided by the EPA in the CTG document. Therefore, the TCEQ cannot ascertain whether any quantifiable environmental benefit would result from regulatory work practice requirements at the facility. The TCEQ does not consider it reasonable to implement additional rule requirements for general housekeeping requirements when there is
no apparent need nor any quantifiable benefit.

3.3. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group IV Issued in 2008
3.3.1. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

Proposed September23, 2009 A-7DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

The TCEQ is not proposing to implement for the DFW area any rule amendments or new rules associated with the Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG. One site identified in the DFW area is subject to the Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG document: General Motors Corporation's Arlington Assembly Plant, TCEQ Account Number TA-0 157-1. However, the EPA indicates on page 23 ofthe CTG document that VOC emission reductions will not result from implementing the CTGs for coatings. Because auto and light-duty truck coating facilities have previously reduced coating operation VOC emissions in compliance with 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Subpart MM, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations; 40 CFR Part 63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), Subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; and existing state rules, the TCEQ agrees that the CTGs for coatings would not result in any actual VOC emission reductions.

Permit requirements (TCEQ Permit Number 19156) for the General Motors Corporation Arlington Assembly Plant provide overall VOC emission controls superior to the CTG recommendations. Permit Number 19156 requires thermal or regenerative oxidizer controls at the many coating operations (clear coat operation line, prime electrodeposition coating oven, automatic zones ofprimer surfacer booth, primer surfacer oven, base basecoat spray booths) at the facility. In addition, coatings used must comply with the most recent VOC content requirements for coatings in the 30 TAC Chapter 115, NSPS Subpart MM, and NESHAP Subpart 1111. While the CTG document recommends coating VOC content limits slightly lower than those currently required at the facility, the control device efficiency requirement recommendations for these operations range from 75 to 91 percent. The overall level of VOC control for coating operations at the Arlington Assembly Plant is equivalent or superior to that recommended by the EPA in the CTG and sufficiently meets RACT for this category. Therefore, there is no environment benefit or other practical value in implementing rules to incorporate the recommended coating controls into Chapter 115. Regarding the recommended work practices for coating-related activities and cleaning materials, TCEQ Permit Number 19156 specifies good industrial housekeeping and painting operation cleanup requirements. Additionally, as pointed out by the EPA in the CTG document, the NESHAP regulations require facilities to develop and implement work practice plans to reduce organic hazardous air pollutant emissions. These enforceable work practices provide reasonable control levels for these activities and are sufficient to fulfill RACT. An estimate of any VOC reduction benefit for implementing recommended work practices is not provided in the CTG document. Therefore, the TCEQ is unable to determine whether any real environmental benefit would result from imposing further regulatory work practices on the facility.
3.3.2. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials The TCEQ has determined that the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG recommendations do not represent RACT for Texas. The CTG document identified no facilities subject to the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG document in the DFW area; however, the TCEQ cannot make a definitive negative declaration for this source category. Based on information provided by the EPA in the CTG document, the TCEQ has determined that implementing the recommended controls would not result in substantive VOC reductions, nor would it be economically feasible. The EPA stated in the CTG document that 67 facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas nationwide are expected to meet the applicability of the CTG. However, the EPA expects that additional VOC reductions will not result from any applicable major source because these emission control requirements of the 2001 Boat Manufacturing NESHAP already apply to these sources. Per the EPA, the CTG may affect only 23 minor sources nationwide in ozone nonattainment areas. A potential estimated net emission

Proposed September23, 2009 A-8DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

reduction ofapproximately 40 tpy VOC is predicted by the EPA, and the total estimated emission reductions from all 67 facilities is estimated at 1601 tpy VOC. The EPA's suggested controls would result in only a 2.5 percent reduction to the nationwide total VOC emissions from this category. In prior EPA guidance ("Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register" Issued May 25, 1988), alternative threshold applicability is allowed, provided the overall controlled level for the alternative ranges within 5 percent ofthe EPA's recommended controlled level. Based on the same criterion, because the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG would not result in reductions exceeding a de minimis threshold previously established by the EPA, the CTG does not represent RACT.
Furthermore, the TCEQ disagrees with the cost analysis and determination that the controls are economically feasible. The EPA appears to have calculated the total $168,000 cost based on multiplying the estimated 40 tpy reduction by the approximately cost effectiveness in dollars per ton from the 200I NESHAP. This total cost estimate represents an additional average annual cost ofapproximately $7,300 per facility. However, the EPA economic report referenced in the CTG document, Economic Impact Analysis of the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP (EPA-452/R-01- 0ll), indicates substantially higher costs. The EPA economic report shows that Boat Manufacturing NESHAP compliance costs per facility average over $100,000 in total variable costs and over $4,000 in total fixed costs. While many ofthe facilities are likely to be larger businesses than would be targeted by the controls proposed in the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG, over 95 percent ofthe 125 facilities evaluated in the economic report exceeded total costs of$25,000, and 99 percent exceeded total costs of$10,000. The TCEQ concludes that the EPA's economic assessment in the CTG document underestimates true cost impact, and no effective environmental benefit in the ozone nonattainment area would result. The controls recommended in the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG specifically target small businesses, and cost impact to small businesses must be weighed more heavily than the cost impact to larger businesses. Based on this analysis, the TCEQ has determined that the potential cost impact to small businesses is not reasonable or feasible considering the lack of environmental benefit.

3.3.3. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives The TCEQ is not making a RACT determination at this time regarding the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations. As similar to the TCEQ's assessment regarding the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG, the TCEQ's initial assessment ofthis CTG again indicates that the EPA substantially underestimated the scope and potential impact ofCTGs for these sources. An evaluation ofthe technological and economic feasibility is integral to determining whether a control technology or measure represents RACT, but making the determination is impossible when applicability ofthe measure is ambiguous. The TCEQ will continue to evaluate this CTG and intends to provide small business outreach to engage stakeholders and others potentially impacted by the suggested control measures. A RACT determination for this source category will be made after adequate stakeholder input has been received and upon TCEQ determination of impact to small businesses, technological and economical feasibility ofthe recommendations, and practical enforceability ofthe CTG.

3.3.4. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings In the previously mentioned letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding several issues related to the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG. The current TCEQ rules in Chapter 115 for these coating operations are based directly on original CTG recommendations issued by the EPA in 1978. Several of the recommended VOC content limits for specific coatings categories listed in the 2008 CTG are less

Proposed September23, 2009 A-9DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the EPA's original recommendations for these categories. Since the 2008 CTG document does not specifically address this issue, the TCEQ requested clarification to ensure that that implementing the 2008 CTG would not be backsliding and to be certain that the TCEQ has all information needed to appropriately determine whether the 2008 recommendations represent RACT for Texas. See Attachment I for the TCEQ letter to the EPA requesting clarification on these issues.

As ofSeptember 4, 2009, the EPA has not responded to the TCEQ request for clarification on the CTG recommendations. Therefore, the TCEQ is not making a determination until the EPA provides clarification to the issues identified by the TCEQ and the TCEQ evaluates the CTG recommendations in context with the EPA's response.

Proposed September 23, 2009 A-10DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

APPENDIX A

Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

Attachment 1
December 8, 2008, Letter to Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency on issues related to Control Technique Guidelines documents

Proposed September 23, 2009

### • Buddy Garcia, Chaimuzn Larry R. Soward, Commissioner BryanW. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., ExecutiveDirector 

## TEXAS 

## COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas bgReducing andPreventingPollution

.

December 8, 2008



### Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Organization United States Environmental Protection Agency Mail Drop C504-01 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

DearDirectorHarnett:
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),, Air Quality Division is currently reviewing the Consumer and Commercial Products Group 

### II, Group 

### ill, and Group IV Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2006 through 2008. Our evaluation of these CTG documents has prompted several questions regarding the CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The issues and questions related to these CTG documents arc detailed beiow.

Texas' existirig rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 for controllingvolatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of large appliances 1

, metal fumiturc2

, and misceJlaneous metal parts and products3 were based on the EPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) corresponding 1977 and 1978 Guideline Series4 (GS) recommendations. The

-existing emission standards for surface coating oflarge appliances and metal furniture are not specific to coating**~es;** however, the 2007 erG documents for Large Appliance Coatings5 and Metal Furniture Coatings recommend setting coating type specific emission standards. Some of the recommended emissions standards are equivalent or more stringent than the existing generic standards while some recommended emission standards are less .stringent than the existing standards. Similarly, the 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings' also recommends emission standards for certain coating types that are less stringent than the existing 30TAC Chapter 115 emission standards. Please see the enclosed table for a more detailed comparison ofthe existing VOC emission standards based on the 1977 and 1978 OS recommendations (and TCEQ rules) versus the 2007' and 2008 CTO documents for these categories. ·
Since some ofthe limits recommended for these specific coating types are less stringent than the existing emission standards based on the EPA's original OS**reco~endations,** TCEQ's Air Quality Division has.

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us printed (ttl m:yclal f'Dpcr usinlt stl)'--biw:od ink

### Mr. William T. Harnett Page2 December 8, 2008

concerns that implementing the new 

### CTG recommendations could be perceived 

### as backsliding. In addition, these discrepancies may make it impossible for TCEQ staff to 

### detennine if actual VOC reduction benefit would occur from implementing the 

### CTG recommendations. Given the limited explanation8 

### of how these differences should be considered in light of the original GS standards, the TCEQ Air Quality Division is requesting written guidance to 

### clarify the intent ofthe EPA's new CTG recommendations with regard to the following issues.
I. Specific clarification is needed that implementing the recommendations in the new erG would notbe considered backsliding.
2. Are the coating type categories in the new erG considered by the EPA to be coating types that
were umegulated by the original GS recommendations or is this a situation where these specific coatings were covered under the original guidance, but the EPA has re-evaluated what is technically feasible for these specialty coating types? What data was used to make this determination?

3. In 

### light of the varying stringency of the recommended coating standards 

### in these new CTG documents, how did the EPA detennine the overall reduction benefit? Additional infonnation, beyond what ·is provided in the docket, is necessary for the state to 

### detennine whether implementing**th~** 

### erG recommendations will result in a net VOC reduction in the specific nonattainment areas where these CTG recommendations would be.implemented.

The EPA's clarification regarding these issues is critical for the Air Quality Division to complete our evaluation ofthe erG recommendations and proceed with any recommendation to TCEQ's executive management and the commission regarding the· potential implementation of the EPA's CTG recommendations. Therefore, your expeditious response regarding these issues is 

### greatly appreciated. You may contactme at 512-239-4696. Sincerely,

# ~eeL .f=-susanaM. Hildebrand, P.E. Director, Air QualityDivision Texas Commission 

### on Environmental Quality SMHILNsy
Enclosures: References EmissionLimit Comparison Table

cc: Mr. Guy Donaldson, BPA**R~gion** 

### 6 Ms. Ellen Belk, 

### EPA Region 6 Mr. Bruce Moore, EPA, Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards · Mr. BiliJohnson, EPA, Office ofAirQuality Planning and StandardsEnclosure: References

1: Title 30 TAC §115.42l{a)(l), Emission Specifications for Large Appliance Coating (Amended January 17, 2003). 2: Title 30 TAC §115.42l(a)(2), Emission Specifications for Metal Furniture Coating**(Amen~ed** January 17, 2003). 3: Title 30 TAC §115.42I(a)(9)(A), Emission Specifications for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating (Amended January 17, 2003). 4: Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources- Volume V: Surface Coating ofLargeAppliances, Publication number EPA-450/2-77-0.34. Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources- Volume 

### III: Surface Coating ofMetal Furniture, Publication number EPA-45012-77-032. Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources- Volume· VI: Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Publication number EPA-450/2-78- 015. S: Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07- 

### 004. 6: Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture- Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07- 005. 7: Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-08-003. 8: EPA Docl,<et Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0334-0010.Enclosure: Emission

### Limi,t Comparison Table Comparison of30TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTGRecommended Emission Limits

Chapter 115 CI'GRecommended CoatingType* Emission Limit** Emission Limit** · Baked Coating_ ·Air-Dried Coatine LareeAppliance Coatlnt General, One Component 

### 2.8 2.3 2.3 General, Multi-Component 

### 2.8 2.3 2.8 Extreme High Gloss 

### 2.8 3.0 2.8 Ext1:eme Performance 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Heat Resistant 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Meta'llic 

### 2.8 3.5 3.5 Preu·eatment Coatings 

### 2.8 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 

### 2.8 3.0 .3.5 MetalFurniture Coating

· General One Component 

### 3.0 2.3 2.3·

General Multi-Component 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 Extreme High Gloss 

### 3.0 3.0 2.8 Extreme Performance 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Heat Resistant 

### 3.0 3.0

. 3.5 'Metallic 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Pretreatment Coatings 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Miscellaneous MetalParts andProducts CoatinK General One Component 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 General Multi Coml?_onent


### .3.0 2.3 2.8**Camouflag~** 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Electric-lnsulating Varnish 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Etching Fillei· 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Extreme High-Gloss 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Extreme Perfonnance 

### 3.5 3.0 3.5 Heat-Resistant 

### 3.5 3.0 3.5 High Performance Architectural 

### 3.0 6.2 6.2 High**Tem~erature** 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Metallic 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Military Specification · 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 Mold-Seal 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Pan Backing 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Prefabricated Architectural 

### 3.0 2.3 3.5 Multi-Component Prefabricated Architectural One- 

### 3.0 2.3 3.5 ComQ_onent Pretreatment Coatings 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Repair and Touchup_ 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 SiliconeRelease ' 

### 3.0 3.5 

### 3.5 Solar-Absorbent 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5

### Comparison of30 TAC Cbapter 115**Emissio~** 

### Limits and %006-2008 CTGRecommended Emission Limits


### Chapter 115 CTG Recommended CoatingType* Emission Limit** Emission Limit** Baked Coatlna Air-Dried Coating Vacuum-Metalizing 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Drum**Coating~**

### New. Exterior 

### 3.0 2.8 2.8 Drum**Coating~**

### New, Interior 

### 4.3 3.5 3.5 Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Exterior Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 

### 4.3 4.2 4.2 Interior
• The CTGrecommended emission limits for coating types listed in red font are less stringent than existing Chapter 115

### limits.
•• Limitexpressed in pounds per gallon ofcoating (minus water and exempt solvent) delivered to the application system.



# . .0



### Mr. William T. Harnett Page3 December 8, 2008

bee: TheresaPella Ashley Forbes VincentMeiller Lindley Anderson Amy Browning

# WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONYReference Number

W-1

W-2

W-3 INDEX OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY

Submitted By
Patricia Eldridge, Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast Guy Donaldson, Unites States Environmental Protection Agency Guy Donaldson, Unites States Environmental Protection Ag.ency.L ., -::.·

### ......

Docket No. 2009-0843-RUL 

### TCEQ Public Hearing October28,2009 

# RECEIVED OCT**!~** 

### LUU!;j AlR Q_UAL.ITY 

# 9l'flliON

Item: Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds {VOC) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) Update Rule Project No. 2008-019-115-EN

My name is Patricia Eldridge. I am a Director with Printing Industries ofthe Gulf Coast (PIGC). PIGC is an affiliate of Printing Industries ofAmerica, which is the largest trade association for the printing and graphics industries with over 11,000 member companies worldwide. ·

PIGC's purpose is to serve as the official representative ofthe graphic communications industry in the Texas gulfcoast region and furtherthe cause ofthe industry in the areas ofbusiness, government, and tothe general public.

Iwould like to thanktheTexas Commission on Environmental Quality for allowing me to speak with you today and offerour comments on this proposed rule. The association will be submittingformal written comments as well.

While our written comments will focus on several specific sections ofthe rule, today I would like to focus my comments and concerns on two main areas:

- 1. The economic impact on the businesses by the adoption and implementation ofthe proposed rule; and 2. The overall benefit to public health given the numberof business affected by the rule.

First, I would like to provide a briefoverview ofthe industry. The printing industry covers multiple processes, ofwhich lithographic isjust one. Most print operations utilize more than
one process in their businesses with lithography being the most common. In fact, 75% ofall print businesses have lithographic operations.

It is also an industry ofsmall business. By the government definition ofsmall business, firms with less than 100 employees, the general commercial printing industry is 95% small business ofwhich approximately 65% ofthose have ten orfewer employees. There are less than 20 print facilities in theTexas gulfcoast region that have more than 100 employees. 

# W-1

# . ,

These small businesses have limited financial and technological resources available to them. As
a result, more flexibility and options must be offered to them.

And then there is the current economic situation. Printing has traditionally been one ofthe first industries impacted by economic downturns and one ofthe last to recover. As businesses scale back on their advertising, marketing, and promotions, the printing industry is hit hard by greatly reduced print sales and volume. Profit margins in the graphic communications industry are historically low compared to many other industries; but have really dropped since 

### 2007. From 

### 2008-2009, margins have gone from 

### 3.1% downto 

### 1.6%.

All ofthese factors are placing a tremendous burden o.n companies making it difficultto absorb

. higher costs and cost-related activities.

· Specifically, the**~'mandated"** lowVOC requirements forfountain solutions and cleaning solvents

in the proposed rule will add undue hardship on these firms. The rule summary published indicated a "conservative 

### 6% price increase" for these products. The actual price increase is
more in the 

### 40% range.

' That means, ifwe use the 

### 768 gallon peryearthreshold with the current average cost of

### $15.00 per gallon forsolvent, a company would see an increase in over 

### $4,600 a year forthat same amount of lowVOC product.

Another aspect is the overall effectiveness of lowVOC solvents as cleaning agents. In general, low VOC cleaners have not had the same "cleaning ability" as a traditional higherVOC product. This means, in orderto achieve the same result,. a clean blanket or roller, a largervolume ofthe ·cleanerwill be needed as well as an increase in the amount oftime needed to adequately clean the rollers and blankets. So now a wash-up that would take 

### 10-15 minutes could nowtake easily 

### 20-30 minutes. At the current average press operator rate of

### $21.64 per hour, it could add 

### $4 -$5 perwash-up to labor costs. Given the number ofjobs run every day (on average) and the number of presses most companies have (again on average), they will increase their labor costs 

### $60- $80 per day; 

### $300-$400 perweek; 

### $1,200- $1,600 per month; or 

### $14,400- $19,200 annually.

The 

### $4,600 ayear cost increase in product is for the equivalent amount of high VOC cleaner. That numberdoes nottake into account the increased amount of. low VOC solvent needed to clean the same amount of presses. Just addingthe 

### $4,600 product cost increase to the 

### $14,400

- $19,200 labor cost**increase~** adds 

### $19,000- $23,800 to a company's expenses.

# ..

In discussing the use of low VOC solvents and cleaning products with printers, the feedback has been negative. Those who have tried them have mentioned that they do notwork as well as the higher VOC material. To quote one printer, "our guys have said they (the more expensive washes) don't do as good ajob."

Lower vapor pressure solvents, although higher in cost than traditional cleaning solvents, is a
more effective alternative. The product cost increase is not as high as low VOC products and most press operators do not see the greatly increased wash-up time that they experience with the lowVOC materials. ·
Reducing the amount of alcohol substitute to 3% by weight with no alcohol in the fountain solution will be atremendous change in production for most operations. It's notsimply a matter ofchanging one productoutfor another- you are changing a process. Printing is not just a mechanical process; it is a chemical process as well. Equipment must be modified in order to accommodate the chemistry change and press operators must be trained in new procedures.

In any case, all ofthese increased expenses will need to be passed on to the consumer. In addition, given the economic climate and the projection of its duration, these requirements could drive more printers outof business. No business, nojobs, no sales tax revenue, no property tax revenue.
Incorporating best management practices such as towel handling procedures could be aviable low-cost alternative while reducing emissions.

The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act states that air quality standards will be established. These standards must be attained and maintained to protect public health.

When looking at the impact ofthe printing industry on the overall air emissions in the DallasFort Worth and especially Houston-Galveston areas, it is not a significant contributor. The Houston-Galveston area has perhaps five to seven lithographic facilities that are permitted and already using BACT. We estimatethat 80 companies in the Houston-Galveston region have greaterthan 3 tons peryear emissions. Approximately 70% ofthese firms, or 56 ofthem, are belowten tons of emissions. Given the intensive industrial nature ofthe Houston-Galveston
area in the petrochemical and energy industries, the printing industry is a minorsource of emissions.**~** I ,\•

Although there are several portions ofthe rule we can support since they follow the EPA's 2006 Offset lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG, there are a few noted exceptions TCEQ would liketo adoptthat are a concern to the printing industry.

The items, such as the lowerVOC cleaning solvents, due to their higher cost and reduced effectiveness will significantly increase production cost. Given the relatively low numbers of firms that would be affected in the Houston-Galveston area, the overall health benefitto the general public is negligible. The minor environmental benefit does notoutweigh the high cost to small businesses.
Printing Industries ofthe GulfCoast is ready to continue to workwith the TCEQ in finding solutions that are responsible, fair and equitableforall parties concerned.

We thank you forthe opportunityto review and comment on thisvital piece of proposed legislation.
Respectfully Submitted,

Patricia Eldridge Director, Printing Industries ofthe GulfCoast

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGtoN6 1445 ROSS "VENU£, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733



### Michael Parrish State Implementation Plan Team 

### Office ofLegal Services, 

### MC 205 

## NOV 0 9 

## 2009

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality PO Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087
Dear Mr. Panish: 

## Thankyou for the opportunityto 

### submit comments on the 

### September4, 2009 proposed revisions to 

### the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality State

### Implementation Plan (SIP) revision titled.,"Chapter 115, Control ofAirPollution from Volatile Organic Compounds; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

### Control Techniques Gtiidelines.(CTG) Update"; Rule ProjectNo. 2008-019-115-EN. This VOC RACT SIPis an importantelement ofTexas' planto address ozone air quality problems 

### in the state.
The Clean Air

### Act and subsequentfederal regulationsrequire Texas to 

### submit a 

### SIP revision to the·

### Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) 

## that incorporates recent Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs). These rule revisions includeprovisions related to The Offset Lithographic and PrintingPress CTG issued by

### EPA 

### in 2006. We appreciate the.efforts ofthe 

### State

### indevelopingtheseSIPrevisions.
Our detailed 

### comments onthe 

### proposed rules are included as ail

### attachmentto this letter. Please contactme or Ms. 

### Ellen Belkofmy staff

### at**214-665~2164** 

### ifyouhave any 

### questions. SillCerely yours;



# ,.., . J·j\ /f4 "-----· Guy 

### Donaldson Chief AirPlanning

### Section**(6PD~)** 

### Enclosure
Cc: Lindley Anderson Air Quality

### Planning Section 

# W-2

### Detailed 

### Comments

Comments 

### on Chapter 115,Control 

### ofAirPollution 

### from Volatile

### OrganicCompounds; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

### ControlTechniques Guideliat4 (CTG) 

### Update"; Rule ProjectNo

. 

### .2008-019-US-EN, Proposed September23, 2009.


### Wehave reviewed

### this,actionwith respect to 

### the Lithographic Printing Materials 

### and Letterpress Printing Materials 

### Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) 

### issued by EPA in 2006 

### (7lFR58745, October 

### 5, 2006), and have the.following comments.


### Heatset OffsetLithographic Presses (TCEQpropo.sal, pp. 

### S-7).
1. Heatset OffsetLithographic Presses: DFW Area TCEQ is 

### not proposing to implement 

### any rule amendments 

### ornewrules for 

### the DFW area associated with

### the

### recommended control reqUirementsforheatset presses. However, the 

### existing Chapter 115 requirements may

### not be as 

### stringent as EPA'srecommendations for 

### control devices 

### installedbefore the 

### rule effective date in 

### all instances, 

### since an individual 

### press with

### uncontrolied enrissions 

### greater.than 25 tpy

### 'couldbe located ona site withtotal 

### emissions less than 50 tpy

### when uncontrolled. V**arlo~** 

### databases were reviewed to 

### identify heatset presses potentiallysubjectto the CTG

### reco1111Ilendations.andit

### was determined that

### the heatset presses identified in the DFW area 

### eithermeet or exceed the 

### :reconunendations.
RACT should be 

### federally enforceable. Please explainwhy TCEQ believes

### it

### is appropriate to 

### use permit

### conditions to

### implement RACT 

### rather than 

### adopting RACT

### thr()uglrthe rulemaking 

### process and revising the 

### affected provisions ofChapter 

### ll5

### for an existing 

### major 

### VOC sourte.
Please providethe 

### facility-specificinformation used 

### in this analysis. 

### This shouldinclude infor.mation for each heatsetpressidentified with 

### uncontrolled emissions greaterthan 25 tpy 

### located ona site with total emissions 

### less than50tpy 

### when uncontrolled, and

### provide all documentationrelied on for the 

### analysis, includingpermitinformation.and other documentation as 

### applicable.
2. Heatset Offset 

### Lithographic Presses: Control Requirementsfor·Future Equipment 

### Installations
"The commissiondoesnotagree thatapplying RACT standards tofuture equipment installations is necessary to

### meet1he mandates 

### oftheFCAA under §§172(c)(l), 

### l82(b)(2), and 182(t)" 

### (TCEQ 

### proposal, p. 7).

EPA disagrees 

### withthis statement. Pleaseremovethislanguage as well as any similar 

### statements 

### included elsewhere 

### inthe revisions. Such statementsmay have implicationsfor approvability for RACT, RACT shouldapplyto

### both existing and new

### sources.
2

### Cleaning Solution (TCEQproposal, pp. 7-8).
EPA 

### continues to believe workpractice requirements provide reasonable, 

### cost effective ways to 

### reduce emissions and that these control requirements should 

### be

### met. In orderto 

### meetRACT requirements, the state 

### should 

### either adopt

### rules implementing the workpractice requirements, or 

### provide analysis demonstrating 

### that 

### the requirements are satisfied by

### existing federally enforceable rules.

3UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733



### Mary Ann 

### P. Cook State Implementation Plan Team ChiefEngineer's Office, MC 206 

## NOV 

# ·0 9 2009

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality PO Box: 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087

Re: TCEQ Project No. 2009-021-SIP-NR

·Ms. Cook:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions address three issues: an updated Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) determination that incorporates 11 control technique guidelines (CTGs) issued through 2008; incorporation ofthe revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (T 

### AC) Chapters 115 and 117 into the SIP; and removal and replacement ofa 30 TAC Chapter 115 rule contingency measure. Our comments follow.

RACT Deteffii.ination This revision updates the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) RACT analysis component ofthe DFW 1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration to include the state's analysis ofthe CTG documents issued by EPAin2006, 2007, and 2008. However, EPA will be able to consider approval ofthe VOC RACT update only for those CTGs that have beenthoroughly addressed. Our detailed comments are attached to this letter.

30 TAC Chapter 115 Contingency Measure The offsetlithograph printing.rule andthe associated 0.24 tpd 

### predicted in emissions reductions for VOCs is removed as a contingency measure. The estimated surplus ofemissions reductions from fleet turnover inthe DFW area, shouldthe area fail to meetthe 1997 8-hour
ozone standard byJune 15, 2010, would substitute for the shortfall left by the removal ofthe offset lithograph printing rule as a contingency measure, as well as the revision to 30 TAC 117 described above. We agree with the state's calculations. Table 4.2 (Calculations Showing Three PercentRequired Reductions) onpage 4-l0 of 

# W-3

the proposed revision includes a 1999 adjusted base year·emissions inventory (EI). The numbers for the adjusted EI however, are the same as those used in the Federally-approved SIP, which does not characterize the 1999 base yearEI as an adjusted inventory. Inaddition, Appendix: B of the state submittal for tJ?,e 1997 8-hourozone attainment demonstration does notcharacterize the · 1999 EI as an adjusted inventory. For clarity and consistency, please confirinwhether or not the 1999 inventory has been adjusted.

RecyclediRecyclsble • Pmted with Vegetable 01Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper(40% Poslconsumer)

### · We appreciatethe opportunityto commentonthese proposed SIP revisions. Should you have questions on.our RACT comments, please contact me orMs. Ellen Belk ofmy staffat**214~** 

### 665-2164. Should youhave questions onour other comments, please contact me orMs. Carrie ·Paige ofmy

## staffat214-665-6521. Sincerely yours,
.

# ~~·· Guy Donaldson Chief

. Air Planning Section(6PD-L)


### ·Enclosure: Detailed Comments (4 pages)

### Detailed Comments

We have reviewedthis action withrespect to the CleanAirAct (CAA) andthe Control. Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) issuedbyEPA 

### in2006,2007, and 2008, andhave the following comments.


### WorkPractice Requirements: For a number ofCTGcategories,TCEQbaschosen not to adoptthe**rec~mmended** 

### workpractices. For 

### all applicable CTGs, EPA continues to believe workpractice requirements provide reasonable, cost effective controls andthat these requirements should be met. EPA continues tobelieve that workpractice requirements are animportant wayto reduce emissions. 

### Inordertomeet RACT requirements, the state should either adoptrules implementing the work practice requirements, orprovide analysis demonstratingthattherequirements are 

### satisfied by existing rules. ·


### CTG 

### categories: Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings andMiscellaneous Metal andPlastic Parts Coatings (section 4.3.1.3, andAppendix A). Forthese five CTGs, Texas 

### has neither adoptedrules norprovided a negative declaration. 

### Inorderfor the DFW areato meetthe requirements for RACT (40 CFR51.912), the state will need to complete RACT determinations and take appropriate action for the CTG categories of**Ind~trial** 

### Cleaning Solvents, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. EPA willbe able to consider approval ofthe VOC RACT update only for those CTGsthat have been thoroughly addressed.

- ·
We recognize that EPA

### has not yetresponded to the TCEQletter ofDecember 8, 2008

·concerning the CTG documents for LargeAppliance Coatings, Metal FurnitUre Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (section4A.l.3, andAppendix D). While the new CTG documents for these source categories recommendmore stringent limits for general use coatings, there are some specialty categories for whichthe new · CTGs recommend limits that are less stringentthan the general use limits established 

### in the guidance from the 1970s. Forsome ofthe subcategories within theseCTGs;the limits inthenewCTGs are less stringent thanthe approved Texas 

### SIP, so 

### it is possible the new limits will result in·increased emissions. Ingeneral, EPA expects the limits in the CTG to result 

### inreductions 

### in VOCs, but it is unclearfor specific states or areas whetheroverall reductions will occur.

We believethat Texas has at leasttwo options for moving forward with the specialty coating types discussed above. The state couldleavethe limits 

### in place for the specialty categories where the existing limits are more stringent

### than the limits. 

### inthe CTGs orthe state couldrelaxthe limits consistent with the new CTG, inwhich case Texas wouldhave toprovide additional analysis to showcompliance with 110(1) ofthe CAA. We notethat Texas is notrequired to adoptthe less stringent limits inthe CTG. The CTG provides recommendations, butdoes notbind states to adopt specific limits orrequirements to



### 1

### meet RACT. Ifthe existing Texasrules as they apply to specialty categories are more stringentthanthe limits recommended 

### in the CTG, the state could choose to submitthem
as meetingthe RACTrequirement, and, assuming all otherrequirements are met, we anticipate thatwe would be able to approve them as meeting RACT for the source categories. addressed bythe CTGs. The state would still need to evaluatethemore stringentrecommendations for general use categories and adoptthem as appropriate. If Texas choosesto relax limits for specialty coatings

### thatare inthe approved SIP 

### consistentwith the recommended limits

### .in the

### CfGs, the state would needto demonstrate under section 110(1) thatthe SIP asrevised ·would not interfere With attainment ofor reasonable furtherprogresstoward attainment oftheNationalAmbient Air Quality

. Standard (NAAQS) orinterfere with any other applicable requirement ofthe CAA. In

general, ifa submittedrevision.achieves the same or greateremissionreductions as the approved SIP 

### within the sametirneframe as providedunderthe existingplan, we have been ableto 

### approvetherevision as meeting section 11

### O(l)

. • 

### Flat WoodPaneling Coatings (section4.3.1.1 and Appendix A). No comments. 

### Fiberglass BoatManufacturing Materials (section4.3.1.2 and Appendix A): Forthe Fiberglass BoatManufacturingMaterials source category, TCEQ 

### has identifiedno facilities 

### in DFW subject

### to this CTG (pages 4-8, D8 and D-9). HoweverTCEQ is not making a definitive negative declarationfor this source category. Instead, theTCEQ 

### "has determined that implementingtherecommended controls intheFiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTGdocument would neitherresultin substantive VOC reductions norbe economically feasible."

Theproposal relies inpartonEPA'sprior guidance, "Issues Relatirig to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarificationto Appendix

## .b ofNovember 24, 1987Federal Register", issued May25, 1988; 

### Inparticular, please see Attachment 2 of the guidance, for

### anExample 5% Rule Calculation. This calculation should

### be based · specifically on sources inthe Dallas-Fort Worth area. We 

### do notbelieve the TCEQ's interpretation ofthis 1988 guidance is.correct. EPAcontinues to believe that these are costeffective controls. To meet VOC RACTrequirements this category needs tobe addressed.



### Automobile andLight-Duty Truckhsembly Coatings (section 3.3.1,·and Appendix A). RACT shouldbe federally enforceable. Please explain why TCEQ believes itis appropriate to use a pennitcondition for a facility inthe affected areato implement RACT. Please provide a copy ofthe fmal permit(s) used inthis analysis, including permitinformation for General Motors CorporationArlington Assembly Plant Regarding workpracticerequirements, please see the comment above.


### FlexiblePackagingPrintingMaierials (section 4.3.1.2 andAppendix A). RACT should

### be federally enforceable. Please explain whyTCEQ believes itis appropriate to use a permit condition for a facility inthe affected areato implement



### 2

### RACT. Please provide a copy ofthefmal permit(s) used inthis analysis, including permit information for PrintpakInc. Regarding workpractice requirements, please see the comment above.
Paper, Film, andFoil Coatings (section 4.3.1.2 andAppendix A). RACT should be federally enforceable. Please explain why TCEQ believes itis appropriate to use a permitconditionfor a facility inthe affected areato 

### implementRACT. Pleaseprovide a copy ofthe final permit(s) used inthis analysis, includingpermit informationfor Rock Tenn Converting Company and Printpak. Inc. Regarding work practice requirements, please see the comment above. Lithographic PrintingMaterials andLetterpressPrintingMaterials (section4.3.1.4 and Appendix A). Detailed comments regarding this are included ina separate letter addressing these rule revisions. (Rule ProjectNo. 2008-019-115-EN). Sincethis rulemaking is specifically discussed in section 4.3.1.4 andAppendix A ofthe proposal,
our comments are also included here.


### Heatset OffietLithographic

### Presses (Appendix A, pp. AS and A6).

1. Heatset Offset Lithographic Presses: DFWArea
TCEQ is notproposingto implement anyrule amendments or new rules for the DFW area associated withthe recommended control requirements for heatset presses. However, the existing Chapter 115 requirements may notbe as stringent
as EPA'srecommendations for control devices installed before the rule effective date in 

### all instances, since an individual press 

### with uncontrolled emissions greater than 25 tpy could be located ona site with total emissions less than 50tpy when uncontrolled. Various databases were reviewedto identify heatset presses potentially subjectto the CTGrecommendations and it was determinedthatthe heatsetpresses identified inthe DFWarea eithermeetorexceed the recommendations.

Please provide the facility-specific informationused inthis analysis. This should include informationfor eachheatsetpress identified withuncontrolled emissions greater than25 tpy located on a site withtotal emissions less than 50tpy when uncontrolled, and provide all documentationrelied onfor the analysis, including permit information and other documentation as applicable. ·
RACT should be federally enforceable. Please explain why TCEQ

### believe~ itis appropriate

### to use permitconditions 

### to implement RACT rather

### than adopting RACT through the rulemaking process and revising the affected provisions of Chapter 115 for an existing major VOC source.



### 3

### 2. Heatset OffsetLithographic Presses: Control Requirements for Future Equipment Installations ·
"Theconunission does not.agree that applying RACT standards to future

. equipmentinstallations isnecessaryto meetthemandates ·ofthe FCAA under §§172(c)(l), 182(b)(2), and 182(f)" (TCEQ proposal,"p. 

### 7).

EPAdisagrees withthis statement. Pleaseremove this language as well as any similarstatements includedelsewhereinthe revisions. Such statements mayhave implications for approvability for RACT. RACT**sh~uld**

### apply to both existing andnew sources. ··**~.** 

### Cleaning Solution

EPA continues tobelieve workpractice requirements provide reasonable, cost ·

·effective ways to rectuce emissions and

### that these control requirements should

### be met. 

### Inorderto meet RACT requirements, the state should either adopt rules implementingthe workpractice requirements, orprovide analysis demonstrating that**~e** 

### requirements are satisfiedby existingfederally enforceable rules.



### 4INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

Reference Number Submitted by

0-1 Joe Polanco, Printing & Imaging Association of MidAmerica

### Page 1


# .TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION

October 29, 2009, 1:00**p.m~** 

### Location: Austin, 12100 Pari< 35 Circle, Building E, Room 2018


### Rule Project Nos.: 2009-021-BIP-NR, DFW RACT, Rule, Contingency SIP Revision, 2008-019-115-EN, Chapter 115 Offset Lithographic Rule Revision 

### Presenting IfYes, check all NAME Oral (Please Print) REPRESENTING Testimony? projects (Circle One) to comment on Offset 

# {!

# lt,J ·J-

# Cbev 1r/ 

# £-rL**~u**

# t)1'T"**~>~u- ('b~otr~** **Vas~ f'"D~**  Litho
.t. 

# s Rule

I

# w~.\:S~~ 

# li?\C_**fi...~ y** **Tr~u- ~r_**  Yes

# ~**i)~\N**

Yes No

Yes

. No

Yes No

Yes No



### Yes No

Yes No

### BEARING 

## OFFICERREPORT

I am 

### the hearing officer assigned to 

### conduct the public hearing regarding proposed reVisions to 30 TAC Chapters 101 and 115 rules and corresponding revisions to the state implementationplan for the control ofozone air 

### pollution. (Rule ProjectNos. 2008-019- 115-EN, 2009-006-101-EN, and 2009-021:.SIP-NR)
Apublic hearing was scheduled for October29,2009 at 1:00 p.m. in

### the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

### complex, Building E, 

### Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle in 

### Austin, TX.


### At 1:00 p.m., the room was 

### open, TCEQ 

### staffand a courtreporter were present and ready to open the hearing for public comment. After 

### waiting for 15 minutes, no one had 

### arrived to 

### make comments on the record. Therefore, the public hearing was not formally opened for comment and ·no transcript

## was prepared.

# ~·'

# 12 ' ' '

.

, ...



### Date signed·

### PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115, AND TO THE
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN



### ******************************************************* TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 2, 2009


### ******************************************************

BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled meeting came on the 2nd day of November, 2009, from
2:02 p.m. to 2:11p.m. at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Region 4 Office, DFW Public Meeting Room, 2309 Gravel Road, Fort Worth, Texas, and
the following proceedings were reported by me, Lauren M. Morrison, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the
State of Texas.**l"\'1~ 1\Tl\l1~** 

# 1l'{

.**---~-~---** 

# l:t**1~PO**

# lt'I'Il\!.G·**8l~It\71C1~** 

# arecordof excellence

1801 Lavaca • Suite 1Ui • Austin, Texas 78701 • 512-474-2233 

# I

### 1 P R 0 C E E D I N G S


### 2 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009
3 (2:02p.m.)
4 MS. COOK: Good afternoon. Today is
5 November 2, 2009. I would like to welcome everyone to 6 this public hearing conducted by the Texas Commission
7 on Environmental Quality. My name is Mary Ann Cook.
8 I'm with the Air Quality Division of the Chief
9 Engineer's Office. Additional TCEQ staff here today
10 are Teresa Pellae and Kathy Singleton.
11 We are here to receive oral and written
12 comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115
13 rules and corresponding revisions to the State
14 Implementation Plan for the control of ozone air
15 pollution under the requirements of Texas Health and
16 Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter
17 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations,
18 §51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection 19 Agency concerning State Implementation Plans.
20 The proposed rule revisions apply to 30
21 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4, for offset
22 lithographic printing, the proposed Dallas-Fort Worth
23 reasonably available control technology update, 30 TAC
24 Administrative Code Chapter 117 rule revision, 25 noninterference demonstration and attainment 2

### 1 demonstration contingency plan**supervisio~,** 

### revises and
2 supplements the DFW area's demonstration of attainment
3 for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
4 This proposed SIP action updates the DFW 5 reasonably available· control technology, or RACT,
6 demonstration for volatile organic compounds, or VOCs.
7 It incorporates the proposed 30 TAC Chapter 115 Rule,
8 Subchapter E, Division 4, regarding offset lithographic
9 printing rule revisions. It incorporates revisions to 10 30 TAC Chapter**~1**

### 7, which was proposed on August 12, 3



### 11 2009, and demonstrates noninterference of that rule with
12 attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. And
13 further, it revises the failure-to-attain contingency
14 plan.
15 If you intend to present oral comments on 16 either of these proposals and have not yet signed**in~** 

### 17 please sign in now at the registration table. We have
18 copies of the rule, of the SIP, hearing notice, and a 19 key in the back. We have plenty copies, so take them.
20 We will also be continuing to accept

-- 21 TCEQ will continue to accept written comments on this
22 proposal

-- these proposals until Monday, November 9,
23 2009. This hearing is strictly for receiving oral or 24 written comments. Open discussion may not occur during 25 the hearing; however, if you have any additional

### 1 questions regarding the proposals, there should be
2 additional opportunity to speak with staff after the
3 hearing.
4 We will now begin receiving comments in
5 the order in which you are registered. Once I call your 6 name, please come to the

-- we don't have a podium
7 front, state your name and whom you represent, and
8 provide your comments. 9 I believe we only have one person signed
10 in, and that would be Mr. Joe

-- Polanco?
11
12
13 

### MR. POLANCO: Polanco.
MS. COOK: with PIA MidAmerica?
MR. POLANCO: Correct. Do you want me 14 from here to stand? What's the best way to do it?
15 MS. COOK: I think if you got up here
16 and faced that way maybe. Is that okay?
17 

### MR. POLANCO: Face the camera or back

18 

### MS. COOK: I think here.
19 

### MR. POLANCO: Okay.

. 20 MS. COOK: Don't you guys think?

21 COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF
22 PRINTING & 

### IMAGING ASSOCIATION OF MIDAMERICA 

# --

23 

### 24 Polanco. MR. POLANCO: Good afternoon. I'm Joe
I'm the president of the Printing 

### & Imaging
25 Association of MidAmerica. We're the trade 4

### 1 association that**rep~esents** 

### commercial and advertising
2 printers in Texas as well as Dallas-Fort Worth, of
3 course, being impacted by Chapter 115. I'm going to 4 skim through this very quickly. I've made written
5 comments to the state in this format as well as what
6 I'm going to say today, so I want to highlight this.
7 We've already prepared comments already to 8 the state, submitted last week, predominantly on a 9 variety of suggestions on the language, which would make
10 the proposed regulations more consistent with the EPA's
11 Control Technique Guidelines as well as**simplif~ing** 

### the
12 process of compliance.
13 This afternoon I really want to focus on 14 the size of the impacted community and explore the
15 concept that the proposed regulations may not have a 16 significant impact on reducing emissions in the
17 Dallas/Fort Worth area. 18 Per our internal records as well as data 19 from the Comptroller's office, we estimate there are 20 approximately 900-1000 printing companies in the DFW
21 area. Because of major shifts in technology affecting
22 the industry and today•s present economic conditions, we 23 anticipate that this number will decrease by 15 to 20
24 percent over the next two to three years. 25 We also estimate that about 15 percent of 5

### 1 those so-called printers are really virtual. They are 2 really manufacturers' reps that do not have any printing
3 facilities at all. Along those same lines, 15 to 20
4 percent of the remaining

-- excuse me. Let me rephrase
5 that.
6 We estimate about 15 percent of all the
7 printers that are less than three tons of VOCs, that are 8 presently going to be exempt under this new proposed
9 regulation, are migrating away from offset technology.
10 Within three to five years, they will not be using
11 offset technology but digital technology,**whic~·does** 

### not 12 emit any kind of VOCs.
13 Yet, a portion of the industry will
14 continue to use lithographic technologies, which are 15 predominantly the larger printers, because of mass 16 marketing. It's very economical to produce that way. 17 And those companies will continue to operate. We
18 estimate there are about 140 

### companies in the DFW area 19 which fall in that greater than three tons of VOCs.
20 We also want to bring it up to TCEQ that a 21 significant number of these companies no longer use 22 isopropyl alcohol on a daily basis. They have gone
23 

### alcohol-free, so to speak. We also estimate, based on 24 conversation with suppliers, that

-- and this is an 25 estimate

-- that probably the entire industry consumes 6

### 1 no more than 80 tons of alcohol a year. Of those 140
2 companies, which are considered major printers,
3 approximately 30 of those companies emit more than 10
4 tons. That's based on the 2007 emissions inventory that
5 was submitted to the TCEQ. And only a handful of those
6 emit more than 50 tons. 7 Based on discussions with suppliers,
8 printers, we estimate the total emissions from the
9 impact of companies are about 1,400 tons per year. 10 Companies who are permitted and following RACT
11 guidelines probably

-- excuse me. Let me**rephra~e** 

### that.
12 Companies who are permitted are following RACT
13 guidelines; thus, it's the remaining companies who will
14 be the target of these proposed rules. We
15 conservatively estimate that that group, if you will,
16 emits about 600 tons of emissions.
17 If we do the math, we're talking reducing
18 VOCs through clean solids. Predominantly you'll be 19 reducing the amount of VOCs we have there. Many of
20 those companies are already alcohol-free, so there's
21 going to be very little gain by going alcohol-free.
22 We would assume, in our calculations, 23 we're talking about 180 tons reduction of VOCs in a 24 year. That's less than one ton per day. The question 2 5 we ask as an industry: Is this a significant amount, 7

### 1 especially as we calculate a cost of $10,000 per ton of

2 

## vocs. 3 Consequently, we would like to recommend
4 to the TCEQ they would further study and analyze the
5 actual size of the inventory of commercial lithographic
6 printers in the DFW area and determine if implementing
7 the proposed rules, Ch. 115, will truly provide a



## s significant reduction in emissions.
9 We feel that the data we've been operating
10 from over the years has changed dramatically, that the
11 industry has made a lot of impact as far as pro.cess 12 controls to reduce the emissions. And because the
13 industry has shifted from a very large and very 14 segmented industry to a much smaller industry, that the
15 actual impact is much smaller than anticipated.
16 

### So again, those are my comments. Thank
17 you. 18 MS. COOK: Thank you. Is that the same 19 as this?
20 MR. POLANCO: Same thing. 21 MS. COOK: Okay. 22 Are there any other comments? 23 Okay. Once again, the deadline for
24 comment receipt is November 9, 2009. All comments 25 should reference the applicable rule or SIP project 89



### 1 number. Copies of the proposed rule and SIP provisions

2 

### are also available from the Commission•s website.

3 

### Please feel free to pick up a handout that
4 

### has those web addresses, on the back table. If you
5 

### would like to sign up to receive e-mail updates when new
6 

### information is added to our SIP hot topics web page,
7 

### sign-up instructions are also provided on that handout.
B 

### We thank you for your interest in DFW air

9 

### quality and for attending this hearing. We appreciate
10 

### your comments

. 11 If there are no further comments,! then
12 this hearing is 

### now closed.
13 {Hearing adjourned: 2:11p.m.)
14
15

16


### 17
18
19


### 20 

### 21
22 

### 23

24


### 251



### 1 C E R T I F I C A T E


### 2 STATE OF TEXAS
3 COUNTY OF TRAVIS
4 I, Lauren M. Morrison, a Certified
5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do
6 hereby certify that the above-mentioned matter occurred
7 as hereinbefore set out. 8 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the proceedings of
9 such were reported by me or under my supervision, later

l.O 

### reduced to typewritten form under my supervision and
11 control and that the foregoing pages are a full, true 12 and correct transcription of the original notes. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand and seal this 5th day of November 2009.
15
16
17
18 19
20
2.1
22
23
24
25 Lauren M. Morrison Certified Shorthand Reporter CSR No. 8909

- Expires 12/31/11
Firm Registration No. 276 Kennedy Reporting Service, Inc. Cambridge Tower 1801 Lavaca Street, Suite 115 Austin, Texas 78701 512.474.2233

### ragt: 1 

# TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION

November 2, 2009, 2:00p.m. Location: TCEQ Regional Office, 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth

Rule Project Nos.: 

### 2009-021-SIP-NR, DFW RACT, Rule, Contingency SIP Revision, 2008-019-115-EN, Chapter 115 Offset Lithographic Rule Revision Presenting IfYes, check all NAME Oral (Please Print) REPRESENTING Testimony? projects (Circle One) to comment on 

# ® DFW 

### Offset 

# 0LLvv\'B**?a_t'~-G** Yes SIP Litho 

# lAS**~PA** 

## ·'R(, Rule

... d

# C!xl/s~l 

# La LlJ.$'

# G'Y\ 

# ['i_,. L1__0_Wa.ut 

# flssot)q_

# ./Ps Yes 

# (3

l**~** j 

### Yes@ 

# k:**+~** 

# fv1c**/G.'-~** 

# ,, 

# ,, jj/qcZ. 

# ac**~** 

# 1-v' 

# a fr/(,(_

# (;1/c,l'J

# t{~scc .

## tf( .>

# Yes~r:>**~···· ~**  

# .:::t()**~** OLA-NlCO

# en~**IV\~~**

# J**~r** C/J. 

### €}No 

# ?(**cl/xl~** 

# (/ftvr jU{·-{c;eJ() Yes

# ~ 

# R,·fa- l£hl'CI.f) l!:>e111\ttvVL Yes 

# @> 

# G-"7 0 0 '""'0- \) 

# 3

# ·~""" 

# HPA Yes 

# G)

I

### t'age L.



# . TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION

November 2, 2009, 2:00 p.m. Location: TCEQ Regional Office, 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth


### Rule Project Nos.: 2009-021-SIP-NR, DFW RACT, Rule, Contingency SIP Revision, 2008-019-115-EN, Chapter 115 Offset Lithographic Rule Revision Presenting IfYes, check all 

### NAME Oral 

### (Please Print) REPRESENTING Testimony? projects (Circle One) to comment on 

# @ DFW 

### Offset 

# e-- /Zep ,]&e 

# /3 "/,fo 11..- 

### Yes Litho 

# .Ji·i**.~~ k~~/**  

# /f.l7fctr SIP Rule

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

# EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY

### To:



### Prom:

Docket

### No.: ·

.Subject: 

### Commissioners Date: Februmy 19, 2010 LaDonna Castduela, 

### ChiefClerk 

### Mark R. Vickery,

### P.G., Executive

### Directm


## Suaa..aM. 

## Bildobraud. P.E.,

# Cllief~ 2009-1127.SIP
·Commission Approval 

### .foi Adoption .of RoviSions to 

### the 

### State of 

### Texas Air Quality 

### IinplementationPlanforthe 

### Control ofO.mneAir

### Pollution: · The :o.Ilas-Fort Worth (DFW) 

### Reasonably Available Control**T~logy** 

### (RAC'l) 

### Update, 30 

### Texas

### AdmiDistrative Code (I'AC) Chaptar 

### 117 Rule 

### bvision

### Nonin.terfarence Demonstraticm, BDd Modified Failm.to-Attain Contm.gengy 

### Plan State 

### Implementation 

### ·Plan (SIP) Revision 

### (DFWRACT, RDle, 

### and Cnntinpncy 

### SIP Revision)

.

. . 

### RuleProject

### No. 2009-021-SJP

.. NR,

. 

### Baclcgroundudreasoia(s) for

# t.·SJP J."eWision: · ··. · · · · .· :
. Ibis 

### DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency. 

### S1P 

## ReViSion integrates 

### sevoral 

### actions required by 

### the 

### United States 

### Environmental ProtectionAgtmr:y 

### (EPA) iDto

## iJle State of

### Texas Air Quality 

### ImplemcntatioQ. Plan for the 

### Control ofOzone 

### Air Pollution applicable to the 

### DFW 1997 

### eight-hour ozone 

### standard nonattainment arD& 

### (ColliD. 

### Dallas,**~** 

### BUis, 

### Kaufmtrft',**1~** 

### Parkat, 

### RockWall, and 

### Tammt Counties). It

. supplements**and~**the

### DFW 1997eight-hour ozone pttainment

### demonstration.
The 

### DFW 

### RA.CI', Rule, and 

### Contingency 

### SIP Revision includes RACI' determinations for 

### certain 

### volatile organic 

### compounds (VOC) 

### emission sources inthe

### DFW area, asrequiredby

### the 1990FederalClean

### AirAct

. (FCAA) 

### Amoodments u.ndcr §172(cXI) and §182(b)(2) 

### and (f). 

### Pevolopment 

### ofthe voc RACI' 

### update
was 

### required 

### to address 

### the 

### EP A1

### s issuance of11 

### control 

### teclmiques guideliJias 

### (CTG)**~ ~**  

### 2006 and

### 2008.

Two 

### state rule 

### revisions are incorporated 

### in

### this 

### SIP revision. One 

### is a 30 TAC 

### Chapter 115 

### rule rovision govmning 

### o:ffsot lithographic printing 

### emission sources to be 

### adopted CODCUr'l'CJ1tly 

### with the 

### SIP revision. That rule 

### revision resulted 

### :from the state's analysis of

### an applicable CTG doCU1Ilei11: 

### d the 

### subsequent RACI' 

### determination for 

### offset lithographic .printing 

### emission sources. Also 

### incorporated into 

### the 

### SIP revision is a Chapter 117 

### rule 

### revision 

### adopted by

### the 

### commission on JanWilY 

### 13, 2010. 

### That rule 

## rmsion resulted from

### the 

### commission's.approval ofarulemaldng petitionfiled by

### the 

### Elk Corporation. The

### reVision exempts from Chapter 

### 117 

### regulation low tm:npemtnre 

### dty:ing and curing ovens used 

### in mineral wool-type 

### fiberglass 

### manufacturing and wet-1aid, 

### non-woven fiber mat

### manufactu.ring where 

### ni1rogen-containing 

### resins or other

### additives are used. 

### Bocausethat

### rulerevision leads

### to 

### a small

## potciitiai omission

### reductions loss, this SlPrevision allocates surplus nitrogen 

### oxides (NOx) 

### emissionreductions from

### vehicle t1=tturnoverto 

### occur between 2009 

### and 2010 

### to 

### substitute for 

### .any control strategy 

## reciuctiOna. that may be 

### lost 

### from the rule 

### revision. Replacing 

### the control 

### strategy reductions serves 

### to maintain integrity 

### of the 

### attainment domonstration 

### and shows that the 

### revised Chapter 

### 117 rule 

### does not interfere 

### with attainment 

### ofthe 1997. 

### eight-hour omne standard 

### in the DFW 

### area. This 

### demoDstmtion of**n~** 

### or 

### §11

### 0(1) demonstration, isrequired

### bytheFCAA

### to 

### address backsliding

### issues.

### Cnmmissioncrs Pap2 February 19, 2010

Ra: 

### Docket

### No. 2009-1127-SIP

This 

### SIP revision also 

### modifies the DFW 1997 eight-homozone attainment demonstration contingoncy

### plan. 

### An 

### eirliat vetmOil ofthe 

### ometlithographic printing 

### mle ichmtified 

### as a coiltiiigmc)'measure for the 

### DFW aroa has 

### become

### unavailable 

### foruse in

### the 

### contingency

### plan. That 

### role is 

### no longeravailable for 

### contingency 

### use because it

### bas 

### bean

### revised in 

### accordance wi1h the**~ct** 

### detarmination 

### made for

### -those sources. and the 

# rmsad rule is 

### now considered RACI'. 

### ·'Iherefore, 

## the offset lithographic 

### .printing rule can no longer be 

### included 

### inthe :fBilure-to-attain contingeilcy 

### plan for**~** 

### DFW 

### area.

.To 

### replaco**~** 

### emissions 

### reductions from 

### offset lithographic printing 

### sources,·this 

### SIP misimi

### allocates aportion of

### Sinplus emission 

### redUdions to 

### result from 

### vehicle fleet

### turnavorto

### the 

### contingency

### plan. 

### This action 

### ·serves to majntain

### a viable 

### failureto-attain 

### contingency plait for 'the 

### DFW 

### area.
. The 

### modified contingency pla'il 

### retains 

### two provioliSly idontified state 

### 1'l11es 

### {applicable in 

## ColliD. DalW., DentoD, and 

### Tarrant .Colmties) 

### for 

### degassing or cleaning 

### _process08 ofstationary; ma:ti:ne_ 

### and transportvaisols; 

### BDd for**patrol~-haSed** 

### dry cleaning. as 

## contingency
measures as well.as vehicle fleet

### .turJlCJVor·emission i'eductiOD.il 

### pi'eviously COJDII1itted 

### far 

### contingency, along 

## WDh the 

### additional fleet tumovar 

### reductions allotted 

### in this 

### SIP 

### revision. Tho 

### plan provides 

### emission reducti011S 

### su:fficient to meet.

## the FCAA 

### requiramebt for 

## a 3 

### parcant ·conti11gcncy for the 

### attsimnent .demonstratiOJl.

. 

### Scope ofthe

### SIP midoa.:

. . '

. . This 

### DFW 

### RACT. 

### Rule. and Contingency SIP Revision integrates 

### seveml actions required by 

### the BP A into the 

### State of

### Texas Air

### Quality 

### ImplementationPlan fur the 

### ControlofOzone 

### Air

### Pollution applicable to 

### the 

## DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone 

### standard ll0Jll¢hrimnent area 

### {ColliD, 

### Dallas, 

### Dcmton, Ellis, Kaufman, Johnson,**P~.** 

### Rockwall. and

### TarrantCounties).

. . · .

•• ,J

.. · ' .•

. 

### A) summary ofwhat

### t1ae 

### SIP 

### l'ftiDonwilldo: 

### This 

### SIP 

### ,revision supplements and revisos 

### the 

### DFW 1997 oight-hour ozone attaimncmt 

### demonstration and 

### fulfiils·BPA requirel1ieiits for 

### several,acticms· to 

### be 

### Dicmporated into·the 

### Texas Air,Qiiality 

### Plan .for. the 

### Con1rol of 

### Ozone Air 

### Pollution. ·The mrision 

### supplomonts .and .revises 

### the 

### DFW 1997. eight-hour 

### .bzolle standard 

### attaimneDtdemonstrationto 

### incmporate recent

### Chapter 115 and 

### Chapter 117 rule 

### revisions, 

### updated 

### VOC RACI'-deteanin&tiODS, a 

### §ilO(l) demonstration of·nonin1mfmm0e; and .a 

### modified**~to-attain** 

### contingencyplan.

. '. B)

### Seope required byfederal**~tioDI** 

### orstateRatlrtes: 

### Underthe 

### 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the 

### DFW nine-county

### nonattaimnent area is 

### required to

### meettbt

. 

### mandates ofthc FCAA under §172{cX1) and §182(b){2) and {f). According 1D 

### the 

### EPA's Final Rule to 

### Jmplimlent the 

### Eigbt-Hotlr Ozone 

### Naticmal Ambient 

### Air Qoalit¥ Standards.

### {NAAQS) { 40 Code 

### ofFcdcmil 

### R.eguhmons 

### (CFR) §51.912, November 29, 

### 2005), .the Biea 

### must submit, 

### as a revision to 

### the 

### SIP., a demonstration that current 

### rules fulfillthe

### ·1997 eigb,t-hourRACI'requirements for

## an CI'G

### 'categories. The 

### 11

## cro·docmnents addressed 

### in this SIP 

### revision war; 

### issued between 2006 and

### 2008 by

### the EPA and 

### have not

### been 

### addressed 

### in 

### apteV'ious SlP

### revision. · · ·'Jb 

### FCAA (42 USC §7502{cX9) and §7Slla(cX9)) and the 

### EPA 

## tinai Phase 2 1997 ·eight-hour ozone implomentation m1c 

### (70 FR 71612) require that state 

### SIPs for

### alll997 eight-hour ozcme nonattainment areas 

### include 

### contmgcncy measures as additional controlsto 

### furtherreduce·mnissions in the 

### eventan area fails to 

### attain by 

### its 

### attainment .date. 

### The 

### contingency 

### measures idantified for 

### implementation must provide 

### for emissiOns

### reductions 

### equiva1elitto 

### 3

### percentof the

### base-year

### emissions inventoryustld:in 

### development ofthe



### .applicable 

### f11faimncmt dmnonstration.· The 

### FCAA requires 

### replacement of

### any reductions 

### .removed from 

### a 

### contingencyplanto

### maintainthe

### 3percentreduction 

### contingencyrequirement.

The

### FCAA requires a §

### 110(1) 

### demonstration of

### nonintmferonce in:the 

### form 

### ofa SIP submittal for 

### potential backsliding 

### issues. Because the

### Chapter 

### 117rulerevision creates 

### a small potential 

### emissionreduction loss 1D

### Commissioners Page3 February 

### 19, 2010
Ra: DocbtNo. 

### 2009-1127-SJP
the DFW ozonc control 

## stlatc&Y, emission reductions to 

### offset 

### the potential reduction loss are 

### replaced via. 

### this S1P

### revision, dmnonstratingthatthe 

### rule

### revisionwill not**~ere** 

### with

### the area's attainment status. C) 

### Additional atlifrrecommendatiou

### thatareBot required by

### fecleral 

### raleorstate

### ltatate:**N~** 

## . Statutoryauthority: 

### The authority to 

### adoptthis SJP revision is derived from Texas 

### Health and Safety Code, 

### Texas Clean Air

### Act 

### (TCAA), 

### §382.002, 

### which provides 

### that 1be 

### policy and 

### pmpose of1he TCAA 

### is to 

### safeguard the 

### state's air resources 

### from pollution; TCAA, §382.011, 

### which 

### au1:horiZes 

### the commissiop. 

### to control the quality 

### ofthe 

### state's air; 

### and §382.012, 

### which authorizes·tbe 

### coirimission to

### pmpare and 

### dovelcip a ganeral, 

### comprolumsive plan 

### for the control of 

### the 

### state•s air; 

### and Texas Water Code, §5.102, 

### GeumaJ. Powers, 

### and §5.013, 

### Gencnl1uri,sdiction 

### ofCommission. · · · ·

. The FCAA, 42 United States 

### Code (USC), §§7401, et 

### seq., requires states 

### to submit ·SIP rcMsions 

### tbat

specify the 

### mannor 

# m which 

### the NAAQS will 

### be 

## attained and 

### maintainod within each air 

### quality contrOl rDgicm. 

### ofthe 

### state. Phase 1 

### ofthe BPA•s implementatioil·rule.for 

### the 1997 

### eight-hour 

### oZODD standard, 

### published in 

### the April 

### 30, 2004, 

### issue of 1be Federal 

### Register (69 

### F.R. 23951), 

### outlines classifications, at1ainment dates, 

### and 

### BDti-backsJiding princjples. 

### Phase 2 

### ofthe 

### EPA;s implementation rule for 

### 1he 1997 

### eight-hour standard, published in 

### the 

### Nowm.ber 29, 2005, 

### issue of

### ihe Federal Register (70 

### FR 71612), 

### outlines the 

### requirmnentS for state

### plans.

. . Effect OB 

### the: A)

### Replated

## cOmmllllity: None. B)

### Public:

. . .**~** 

### are no aoticipated 

### direct impacts 

### on the 

### public,**~** 

### than 

### benefits from 

### emission reductions .from revisedrules. · C) 

### Agency pro1JU18: 

### 'Ibe.re

### ·are noanticipatedimpacts 

### on

## agencyprograms ftom

### this 

### SIPrevision.
Stakeholdermeetilap: 

### None.
PubliceoiDDlent: The commission held .two public hearings 

### to 

### receive oral 

### comments on the 

### proposod version 

### ofthis 

### SIP · 

### revision and 

### 1he 

### Chapter 115 rule revision. The public 

### comment period 

### for the proposed SIP revision and 

### Chaptm' 115 rulemalring.opened on October 9, 2009,·and closed on November**9~** 

### 2009. The OctOber 29, 2009, hearlng

# m Austin 

### was nat officially

### opened because no ,party indicated

## a desire 

### to 

### provide comment. Comments wme

### .received at

### the November2, 

### 2009;hearing 

### in

### FortWorth. Written comments were accepted viamail, 

### fax, andthrough

### the eComments system.

. 

### For the Chap1m 

### 117 rule revision, 

### a public hearing was 

### scheduled on September 17, 

### 2009, in Ennis. The 

### hearing was not 

### officially opened 

### because no party 

### indicated a desire 

### to provide 

### comment. The 

### public comment period 

### for the 

### proposed rule 

### revision opened August 28, 2009, and 

### closed September 28, 2009.

### Commissioners Page4 

### Febrwuy 19,2010

Ra: Docket

### No. 2009-1127-SIP


### The commission 

### received one 

### Wl'i1ten comment, 

### from 

### tlle EPA. 

### which in.dica:ted**~,**

### t1;le EPA would 

### cotmnmt onthe §

### 110(1) 

### dem.an.st:tation

### U1

## a: 1c¢ter

### poitaini.n&to

### theprpposod DF\\1 

### SIP**~an.** 

### ·
Comments 

### recoived applicable to 

### the**~** 

### 1**~5** 

### and Chapter · 

### U7 

## rule teViaions aro**~ssed** 

### in the 

### preambles for

### those rules. 

### No changes 

### were made to 

### 1hia SIP 

### revision in rospoi:L8e 

### to

### comments 

### :r=ooivecl on the 

### Chaptar 115 or

### Chapter 

### 117 rule**:re'Visions~** 

### ·



## .The Response 

### to 

## CommantS section 

## oft1rls 

## SU» misicm**addroBs~** 

### only**commcm~** 

### applicable to 

### this 

## I>.FW RACT,. 

### Rule, and 

### ContingeD.oy 

### SIP 

## R.cviaian. ·The EPA 

### commcm.ted on 

### tbo DFWVOC 

### :RACfupdate, 

### the -demcmstratim ()!**~** (from**th~** 

### CQap1m 

## ll7 rule 

### reviJion); aad**~** 

## modified**~plan** 

### • elemmit& Of1hiB**SIP.:~iQn.** 

### l'hc·SIP

## revision**'MIS~** 

### in 

### response to 

## cnmm•.received 

## on tile

### VOC RACT. update. 

### Ne changes**w~** 

## nw:to. ·to 

### the ;SIP 

### revision 

### in ,response. to 

### comments 

## received on the 

### demonstration of

### noninterference and 

### the modified 

### ·contingeney

### pla!a,**~** 

### the only**oom~** 

### reCeived 

### on those

## wore supportive 

## commcmts from the EPA. Significaatchangesfrom 

### proposal: · •·

. . . . . ., _ 

### Significant changes ftl'O 

### lll8de to 

## the. VOC RACT 

### Update**~lcmmt** 

### oftl:rls SIP rerisjon 

### in respOn&e to 

### cmmnents, 

### ·Staff

## proposedthatRACT**for~** 

### CTG catogori.os was 

### fulfilled througb

### ·CUll'l'llt 

### aiDm1es-and par.mitting**~-** 

### Tb.eBe c;ategories 

### inoludc FlexiQlc l'19kaging Printing; 

### Paper, 

### Film. and 

### Fcri,l .CoMings; 

### au4 

### Auto andLight

..**~**

### TtllckA.JseQ1bly**Co~.** Hpweyer, 

### inrespcmse to

### ·comments-from

## b. EPA 

### the RACT 

### determinations for. 

### these 

### three citegoiioa were 

## withtbwn ao tbat 

### stdmay**:reev~**

## the RACT analyses. The 

### RACT dctmmination fm 

### the FibOrglasa**~at** 

### Ma.nuf'aduring 

### CTG catagory 

### was proposed as not representing 

### RACT for 

### the 

### DFW area due to 

### 1he 

### potrmtia1 

### economic**~ ,on,~**  

### businessoa; 

### 11owever.**~** 

### staff

### research jndiastea that

### no sources meeting 1he 

### CTG applicability exist inthe 

### DFW area. 

### Thetafare, the 

### RACT 

### determination far 

### Fiberglass Boat**Man~.~ ·~** 

## W. a negative declaration. · ·· . , 

### No significant 

### changes were made to 

### the other elmnents 

### of this 

### SIP revision 

### as a result 

### ot; comments ·· 

### ieceiw4. , J:D. respon$0 to ·CQJDIP.QJ'lti..

### rcx:Qived.**~cable** tp 

### the .rples 

## ·associate4 with this. 

### $P**~OJ.l,** 

### substantive 

### changes 

### were made to 

### the 30 TAC 

### Chapter 115 

### rule revision, which are 

## ad4J'cssed in 

### the preambleforthat

### rule. and 

### no changes were 

### madeto

### the SIP in

### responseto 

### any commentontho 

### Chapter 

### 117 

### rule revision.

. 

### . . 

### ...., ' ' 

### PotentialcontroversialeoneerDS and legislative

### interestremabdng after

### proposaland pilbJic comment: 

### RACT determinations were·not finalized 

### for 

### eight 

### ofthe 

### 11 

# eros issued by 

### :fhe**~A** 

### between 2006 and 

### 2008, pending 

### further infmmation from the 

### EPA. While 

### not stated in formally 

### submitted COIIIJileiltS; 

### the 

### EPA has 

### verbally indicated to 

### staffthat 

### it may 

### issue 

### notices af

### failure to 

### submit to states 

### that 

### have not yet 

### addressed 

### all 

### ofthe 

### CTGs. Tho

### EPA's issuance of

### nab 

### a notice would start 

### an 18-month sawmons clock. ·The

### TCBQ will

### need to

### addl'ess the

## CTGsttnnaining in

### a:future 

### SIP revision.
Doea

### tbiB request

### affect.any 

### eur,reat

### polieie$·or**req~** 

### deveiQpmeat ofaew**~Jic:ies?** 

### No.

. . 

### What are the couequences ifthis SIP 

### revision does not 

### 10 ·forward? 

### Are there aJtematives 

### to the request? 

### The 

### VOC RACI' 

### determination·-qpciate 

### ADd 

### associated Chapter 

### llS rule

### tmsionswould

# not be incorporated

. into

### the Texas Air

### Qua1itrPlan

### for

### the DFW ozpue**»~imnent** 

### area. 

### This could

### re$ult in

### 1heEPA 

### issuing 

### a findmg 

### ofixlcompleteness for the 

### DFW 1997 eight-hour omne 

### standard attainment demanstration, 

### wbich could further result 

### in sanctions. The Chapter 1.17 role revision$, 

### the 

### assaciatcd §

### 110(1) demonstration, and

### Commissioners PageS 

### February 19, 

### 2010
Re: DocetNo. 2009-1127-SIP


### the modified contingency

### plan**wo~** 

### also 

### not be 

### incolporated into

### the

# PFW 1997 eigb.t-hour ozone 

## standard affainment 

### doinonstration. This could result in 

### BP A 

### disapproval of these elements of the 

### attainment demonat:raticm, which couldresult 

### in 

### sanctions.

· X.,pofata 

### ba adoptioa reque1hchedule: 

### Texasliegister

### proposalpublication date: NA AnticipatedTexas Registerpublication date: NA 

### Anticipated effoctivo dml: 

### NA Six-month Texas Register

### filing deadline! 

### NA · Apney

### contacts:

.· . Mary A:im 

### P. Cook, 

### SIP

### ProjoctManager, 239-6739, Air

### Quality

### Division 

# Tear Salem, 

### StaffA.ttorney, 

### 239-0469, 

## BilvU.omnentai LawDivision
Attaclmumts

·CC: 

## Cbie!"Clark, S

### copies · . 

### ExecutiveDirector's Office**~**

### M.Hildebrand, p

### .E. 

### xmnPattDsan Curtis 

### Seaton DanielWomack Office

### of

### Getleral Counsel 

# MarY Aml

### P. Cook

### RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SECTION Regardingthe 

### DALLAS-FORTWORTH (DFW) REASONABLE AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) UPDATE, 30 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (TAC) CHAPTER 117 RULE REVISION NONINTERFERENCE DEMONSTRATION, AND MODIFIED FAILURE-TO-ATTAIN CONTINGENCYPLAN STATE IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN (SIP) REVISION

The commtsston received comments from the following entities: Printing and Imaging Association ofMid-America (PIA MidAmerica); Printing Industries ofthe GulfCoast (PIGC); and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Comments received regarding the 30 TAC Chapter 115 Offset Lithographic Printing rule revisions (Rule Project no. 2008-0 19-115-EN) or the 30 TAC Chapter 117 Stationary Sources rule exemption revision (Rule Project no. 2009-023-117-EN), both ofwhich are incorporated by reference into this SIP revision, are addressed in the preambles to those rules. The comments received on the Chapter 115 and Chapter 117 rule revisions are included in this SIP revision through the adoption ofthose rules.



### Changes from Proposal

Substantive changes were made to the Chapter 115 rule revision in response to comments received. Changes made to that rule revision are noted in this SIP revision.

No changes were made to the Chapter 117 rule revision due to comment. Significant changes were made to the volatile organic compounds (VOC) RACT update element ofthis SIP revision as a result ofcomments and guidance received from the EPA.

No changes were made to the Demonstration of Noninterference from the Chapter 117 rule revision as a result ofcomments received.

No changes were made to the Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan element ofthis SIP revision due to comment.



### Incorporation ofthe Chapter 115 rule revision into the SIP

PIA MidAmerica commented thatthe Chapter 115 rule revision applicable to offset lithographic printing sources may have no significant impact on reducing emissions in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area. PIGC commented that the printing industry is not a significant contributor to the overall air emissions in the DFW area.


### The commission is aware that printing sources do not constitute a large proportion ofthe emissions in the DFW area. However, revisions to the Chapter 115 offset lithographic printing rules are necessary to fulfill Federal Clean AirAct (FCAA) RACT requirements.

1

### In accordance with FCAA, §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2), the state is required to revise the DFW SIP to include RACT determinations for VOC emission sources addressed in a control techniques guidelines (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990, and the area's attainment date. On OctoberS, 2006, the EPA published a CTG document in lieu of national regulations for VOC emissions from Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing (71 FR 58745). The purpose of the offset lithographic printing rule revision is to implementRACT for this CTG emission source category.
No changes were made to this SIP revision due to these comments received from PIA MidAmerica and PIGC. The preambletothe Chapter 115 rule revision addresses changes madeto the rule revision as a result ofcomments received on that rule revision.

DFW VOCRACT Update



### The EPA commented that the commission did not propose a RACT determination for the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG and Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG. The EPA further commented that in orderfor the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area to meet the requirements of40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) §51.912, the commission will need to complete RACT determinations and take appropriate action for these CTG categories. The EPA indicated that its approval of the VOC RACT update would only be considered for thoroughly addressed CTG categories.

As 

### noted in the EPA's comment, the commission did not make a determination whether the Industrial Cleaning Solvents and Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations represent RACT for Texas. The commission maintains the EPA substantially underestimated the scope and potential impact of these CTG recommendations, especially the impacts to small businesses. The commission is conducting research to determine the quantity ofaffected sources in the DFW 1997 eighthour ozone nonattainment area and plans to provide small business outreach to engage potentially impacted stakeholders. As 

### a result ofthe comments received by the EPA, the Executive Director will proceed with RACT analyses of these CTG documents and will initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, to submitRACT determinations to theEPA in a timely manner.


### The EPA commented that the commission did not propose any RACT determination for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG. The EPA further commented that the commission needs to complete RACT determinations and take appropriate action for these three CTG categories in order for the DFW
area to meet the requirements for RACT (40 CFR §51.912). The EPA indicated that approval for any RACT determinations contained in the VOC RACT update would only be 

### considered for CTG categories thoroughly addressed. The EPA recognized that it had not yet responded to the commission's request for clarification on potential backsliding issues regarding the CTG. The commission had previously requested clarification on implementing CTG recommendations for these specialty coatings that are less stringent than general-use coating RACT recommendations from the 1970s. The EPA comments identified options for moving forward with RACT analyses for these CTG categories, to: (1) 

### implement only CTGrecommended specialty coating content limits more stringent than existing state Jimits; or (2) relax existing coating content limits consistent with the later CTG recommendations and

2

### provide additional analyses demonstrating compliance with non-interference provisions under the Federal Clean AirAct, §II0(1).



### As noted, the commission did not make RACT determinations for the Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG recommendations. As 

### discussed in Appendix A: 

### Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update, the CTG documents for these emission
source categories did not contain sufficient information for the commission to determine RACT for Texas. On December 8, 2008, the commission asked theEPAto clarifywhy the VOC content limits recommended for these categories are less stringent than previous EPA recommendations. While the EPA has not formally responded to the December 2008 letter,the commission appreciates theEPA's suggestions regarding the issues raised by the commission. The commission intends to proceed with a RACT analysis of this CTG recommendation based on the guidance provided in the EPA's comments. As 

### a result of the comments received by the EPA, the Executive Director will proceed with RACT analyses of these three CTG documents based on the guidance provided in the EPA's comments and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in order to submit RACT determinations to the EPA in a timely manner.
The EPA commented that the commission needs to address the VOC RACT requirements for the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG source category. The EPA disagreed with the commission's interpretation of its 1988 guidance for determining alternative applicability thresholds for RACT ("Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D ofNovember 24, 1987 

### Federal Register" issued May 25, 1988) since the calculation was not specifically based on emission sources in the DFW area. The EPA further commented that the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTGrecommended controls that are cost-effective, and RACT for this emission source category should be addressed.



### The 2008 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG document did not identify any sources in Texas that would be subject to the CTG-recommended controls. However, as of the September 23, 2009, agenda for proposal of this SIP revision, the commission could not make a definitive negative declaration for this source category. Since that time the commission has conducted extensive additional review of sources identified in the point
source emissions inventory, Title V permits, and central registry databases. No sources meeting the applicability criteria recommended in the CTG document were identified in theDFW area. Therefore, the commission provides a negative declaration for this emission sourcecategorywith regard to RACT for theDFW area.
The EPA commented that RACT for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings should be federally enforceable. The EPA requested additional information to explain how the
use ofpermit conditions is reasonable to implement RACT and requested a copy ofthe final permit(s) used in this analysis, including permit information for General Motors Corporation Arlington Assembly Plant. The EPA further commented that work practice requirements for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings provide reasonable, cost-effective controls and are an important way to reduce emissions. The EPA stated that in order to meet RACT requirements, the commission should either adopt rules implementing the work practice requirements or provide analyses demonstrating that the requirements are satisfied by existing**ru~** 

### .



### 3

### Because oftbe comments received by the EPA, the commission has decided to reevaluate the RACT determination for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG recommendations. Tbe Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis of this CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration as appropriate, if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to tbe EPA in a timely manner. As a result, the commission has not included copies oftbe requested permit information atthis time.

The EPA commented that RACT for Flexible Packaging Printing Materials should be federally enforceable. The EPA also requested additional explanation as to why it is reasonable to use permit conditions to implement RACT and requested a copy ofthe final permit(s) used in this analysis, including permit information for Printpak Incorporated. The EPA further commented that work practice requirements for Flexible Packaging Printing Materials provide reasonable, cost-effective controls and are an important way to reduce emissions. The EPA stated that in order to meet RACT requirements, the commission should either adopt rules implementing the work practice requirements or provide an analysis demonstrating that the requirements are satisfied by existing rules.

Because oftbe comments received by the EPA, tbe commission has decided to reevaluate the RACT determination for the Flexible Packaging Printing Materials CTG recommendations. Tbe Executive Director will proceed witb the RACT analysis oftbis CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration as appropriate, if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner. As 

### a result, tbe commission has not included copies ofthe requested permit information at this time.
The EPA commented that RACT for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings should be 

### federally enforceable. The EPA requested additional explanation as to why it is reasonable to use permit conditions to implement RACT and requested a copy ofthe final permit(s) used in this analysis, including permit information for Rock Tenn Converting Company and Printpak Incorporated. The EPA commented that work practice requirements for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings provide reasonable, cost effective controls and are an important way to reduce emissions. The EPA stated that in order to meet RACT requirements, the commission should either adopt rules implementing the work practice requirements or provide analyses demonstrating that the requirements are satisfied by existing rules.

Because ofthe comments received by the EPA, the commission has decided to reevaluate the RACT determination for tbe Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG recommendations. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis oftbis CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in orderto submit a RACT determination to theEPA in a timely manner. As 

### a result, the commission has not included copies ofthe requested permit information at this time.

The EPA commented that RACT for heatset offset lithographic printing presses should be federally enforceable. The EPA requested additional explanation as to why it is reasonable to use permit conditions to implement RACT and requested a copy ofthe final permit(s) used in this RACT analysis. The EPA requested copies ofthe documentation used to determine that all heatset offset lithographic presses in the DFW area meet RACT including copies of facilityspecific information for each heatset press identified with uncontrolled emissions greater than 25 tons peryear (tpy) located on a site with total emissions less than 50 tpy when uncontrolled,

4

### copies of the final permit(s) used in this analysis, and copies of any other applicable documentation.
The overall VOC control level in the adopted Chapter 115, SubchapterE, Division 4 rules is equivalent to or more stringent than the EPA's 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendations and sufficient to fulfill RACT for offset lithographic printing operations in the DFW area. The commission must balance implementing the 2006 CTG recommendations with the potential for backsliding, enforceability considerations, and the possible impacts to sources that have already complied with the existing rules.
The commission notes that in several instances the adopted Chapter 115 content limits are more stringent than EPA's 2006 CTG recommendations. The 2006 CTG recommendations include limiting the VOC content of cleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations to 70 percent VOC by weight in conjunction with work practice standards. The adopted Chapter 115 rules retain the more stringent cleaning solution content limit of 70 percent VOC by volume in conjunction with work practice standards. Assuming theVOC in the cleaning solvent used is kerosene, which is the VOC referenced in the 2006 CTG, the adopted Chapter 115 content limit of70 percentVOC by volume for cleaning solutions is 

### equivalent to 66 percentVOC by weight. The EPA's 2006 CTG also recommends limiting the fountain solution content to 5 percent alcohol substitutes or less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution. To prevent potential backsliding for sources already required to comply with these state regulations, the adopted Chapter 115 rules retain the more stringent fountain solution content limit of 3 percent alcohol substitutes orless by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution.
The adopted Chapter 115 rules for heatset offset lithographic presses are at least as stringent as the EPA's 2006 CTG-recommended controls. The EPA's CTG recommends
an add-on air pollution control device be required on each individual heatset offset lithographic presswith the uncontrolled potential to emit 25 tpy ofVOC or morefrom the dryer. The rules in Chapter 115, Subchapter E,Division 4, require control devices, with a control efficiency of at least 90 percent, to be installed on heatset offset lithographic presses on a property in the DFW area with total uncontrolled VOC emissions ofat least 50 tpy, which includes VOC emissions from ink oils evaporated by the press dryer and VOC in fountain and cleaning solutions. In Table 5-1: 

### Model Plant Product Use and Baseline (Uncontrolled) Volatile Organic Compounds (Average Tons Per Year), ofthe 1993 draft Offset Lithographic Printing CTG, the EPA estimates that 26 percent of the total uncontrolled VOC emissions from heatset offset lithographic printing operations are emitted from the press dryer. Based on theEPA's assumption, an individual heatset press located on a property with total uncontrolled VOC emissions of 50 tpy would emit less than 13 tpy ofVOC from the press dryer. Therefore, the Chapter 115 rules are effectively
more stringent than the EPA's 2006 CTG RACT recommendations with regard to the applicability threshold for this control requirement. Additionally, the EPA's 2006 CTG recommended exempting heatset presses used for book printing and heatset presses with a maximum web width of 22 inches or Jess from the add-on control device requirements. The existing Chapter 115 regulations do not exempt these sources from the control requirements, and the commission has not adopted these exemptions into the revised rule.
The EPA's CTG recommends requiring control equipment first installed before the effective date of rules implementing the CTG to have an overall control efficiency of 90 percent and control equipmentfirst installed after the effective date ofrules implementing



### 5

### the CTG to have an overall control efficiency of 95 percent. The commission disagrees with the EPA's CTG recommendation to tie control device efficiency requirements with the first installation date of the control device regardless of where the equipment is installed. Thecommission contends imposing this policy may encourage the installation of older, less efficient equipment because facilities purchasing used equipmentwould be held to a less stringent standard. The policy could also create significant practical enforceability issues for commission investigators with regard to verifying the first installation date ofthe controlequipment. Regardless ofthe first installation date ofthe device, the EPA recommends providing the alternative option to reduce the control device outlet concentration to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as hexane on a dry basis to accommodate situations where the inlet VOC concentration is 

### too low to demonstrate the 90 or 95 percent control efficiency. The Chapter 115 rules provide affected owners or operators of a heatset offset lithographic printing press the option to operate a control device to reduce VOC emissions from the press dryer exhaust vent by 90 percent by weight or maintain a maximum dryer exhaust outlet VOC concentration of20 ppmv. TheChapter 115 alternative concentration limit is 

### substantially preferable because itencourages VOC emission reductions without requiring add-on controls and implementing the EPA's recommended approach would penalize operations that were able to achieve the 20 ppmv limit without the installation of expensive add-on control devices.

Based on this analysis, the commission determined that the adopted Chapter 115 rules for offset lithographic printingoperations provide an overall VOC control level that is atleast equivalent to the 2006 CTG recommendations and are more effective and enforceable. Therefore, the revised Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4 rules are sufficient to fulfill RACT for offset lithographic printing operations in theDFW area.


### The EPA disagreed with the statement in the preamble to the offset lithographic printing rule revision that the commission does not agree that applying RACT standards to future equipment installations is necessary to meet the mandates of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) under §172(c)(l) and §182(bX2) and (f). 

### The EPA stated that RACT should apply to both existing and new sources. The EPA added that such statements may have implications for RACT approvability and requested the commission remove this language as well as any similar statements included elsewhere in the revisions.

The commission bas removed this statement from the preamble to the offset lithographic printing rule revision (2008-019-115-EN).



### The EPA commented that work practice requirements for cleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations provide reasonable, cost-effective controls and are an important way to reduce emissions. The EPA stated that in order to meet· RACT requirements, the commission should either adopt rules implementing the work practice requirements or provide analyses demonstrating that the requirements are satisfied by existing rules.

The EPA's 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommends mandating a towel handling program in conjunction with reduced VOC cleaning solution limits. Existing Chapter 115 rules include these work practice requirements for facilities choosing the 70 percent VOC cleaning solution limit; however, these work practice requirements were not proposed with cleaning solutions containing VOC vapor pressure less than 10 millimeters ofmercury, because the commission expected most facilities were

6

### voluntarily following -similar practices for safety reasons or have required work practices
as part oftheir permit authorization.
However, in response to comments received regarding the offset lithographic printing rule revisions, the commission is revising the rule to include the CTG-recommended work practice requirements for offset lithographic printing operations using cleaning solutions with VOC vaporpressureless than 10 millimeters ofmercury.
Demonstration ofNoninterference (§1100> 

### demonstration)

The EPA commented that to be able to approve expansion ofan existing exemption clause in a SIP revision, it must be shown that the rule revision will comply with §110(1) ofthe FCAA and has properly accounted for the corresponding SIP credit changes. The EPA agreed with the state's calculations showing that estimated surplus emission reductions from fleet turnover sufficiently substitute for the shortfall left by the Chapter 117 rule revision and adequately demonstrate noninterference with attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hourozone standard.


### The commission appreciates the EPA's agreement with the state's calculations showing the substitution ofthe vehicle fleet turnover reductions to replace the shortfall caused by the Chapter 117 

### rule revision and the §110(1) 

### demonstration ofnoninterference.

Modified Failure-to-Attain ContingencyPlan

The EPA commented that Table 4.2: 

### Calculations Showing 3 PercentRequiredReductions, of the proposed DFW RACT, Rule and Contingency SIP revision includes reference to a 1999 adjusted base-year emissions inventory (EQ; however, the numbers shown are the same as those used in the federally approved 2007 DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision (Appendix B), which does not characterize the 1999 emissions inventory as being an adjusted inventory. The EPA requested clarification ofwhether the EI used to calculate the contingency reductions is adjusted ornot.


### The proposed SIP revision incorrectly identified the base-year emissions inventory used to calculate contingency reductions as an adjusted base-year inventory. All references in this SIP revision to the inventory used for contingency plan reduction requirement calculations have been corrected to more accurately reflect the unadjusted emission inventory used, and tbe word "adjusted" have been removed in those instances. The commission appreciates the EPA pointing out this needed correction. Tbe modified failure-to-attain contingency plan provides the required 3 percentcontingency reduction.

Comments from the EPA noted that the offset lithographic printing rule and the associated 0.24 tons per day predicted in emission reductions for VOC are removed as a contingency measure. The EPA agreed with the state's calculations that estimated surplus emission reductions from fleet turnover sufficiently substitute for the shortfall left by removal ofthe offset lithographic printing measure.


### Tbe commission appreciates tbe EPA's agreement with the state's calculations and the substitution of the vehicle fleet turnover reductions for the removal of the offset lithographicprinting measure in the modified failure-to-attain contingency plan.

7

# STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

### STATE OF TEXAS AIR QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF OZONE AIR POLLUTION

DALLAS/FORT WORTH 1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD NONATTAINMENT AREA

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY P.O. BOX 13087 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087

Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Update, 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan State Implementation Plan Revision

TCEQ PROJECT NO. 2009-021-SIP-NR

Adopted March 10, 2010

### This page is intentionally left blank.DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Reasonably Availa ble Control Technology (RACT) Update, 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision (DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision) revises the State of Texas Air Quality Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution. The SIP revision incorporates several actions adopted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and supplements the attainment demonstration for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone standard nonattainment area (Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Collin, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties). The DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision includes RACT determinations for certain volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission sources in the DFW area, as required by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) Amendments under §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). The VOC RACT update was developed to address the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issuance of 11 control techniques guidelines (CTG) documents between 2006 and 2008. Two adopted state rule revisions are incorporated into the SIP, one of which is a 30 TAC Chapter 115 rule revision for offset lithographic printing emission sources that was adopted concurrently with the SIP revision. The revised Chapter 115 rule resulted from the state’s analysis of the CTG document for that emission source category and a subsequent RACT determination for offset lithographic printing emission sources. Also incorporated into the SIP revision is a 30 TAC Chapter 117 rule revision adopted by the commission on January 13, 2010. That rule revision, which resulted from the commission’s approval of a rulemaking petition filed by the Elk Corporation, exempts from Chapter 117 regulation low temperature drying and curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing and wet-laid, non-woven fiber mat manufacturing where nitrogen-containing resins or other similar additives are used. The DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision demonstrates that the revised Chapter 117 rule does not interfere with the DFW area’s attainment demonstration for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. This demonstration is accomplished by offsetting a small potential emission reduction loss to the Chapter 117 control strategy that could result from the rule revision. This SIP revision allocates surplus nitrogen oxides (NOX

### ) emission reductions from vehicle fleet turnover to occur between 2009 and 2010 to the control strategy to replace any loss of reductions resulting from the Chapter 117 rule revision. Replacing the control strategy emission reductions serves to maintain the integrity of the attainment demonstration and demonstrates that the revised Chapter 117 rule does not interfere with attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in the DFW area.
As a final action, the DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision modifies the contingency plan for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone standard attainment demonstration. An earlier version of the Chapter 115 rule for offset lithographic printing sources was identified as a measure in previous failure-to-attain contingency plans for the DFW area. However, the measure is not contained in the modified plan because the Chapter 115 offset lithographic printing source rule as revised is no longer eligible for contingency use. The modified plan allocates a portion of surplus emission reductions that will result from vehicle fleet turnover to offset removal of the offset lithographic measure from the contingency plan. The modified plan provides emission reductions sufficient to meet the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) contingency requirement for a 3 percent reduction to the 1999 base year emissions inventory used for development of the attainment

Adopted March 10, 2010 iiiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### demonstration. A portion of surplus fleet turnover emissions reductions were previously allocated to the contingency plan; however, this revision allocates a greater portion of those reductions for contingency, to offset contingency reductions lost with removal of the offset lithographic printing rule measure. Because replacement reductions are identified, the contingency plan modification does not adversely affect the DFW area’s demonstration of attainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. The modified contingency plan retains two previously identified state Chapter 115 VOC rules applicable in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties for degassing or cleaning processes of stationary, marine, and transport vessels, and petroleum-based dry cleaning as contingency measures in addition to the vehicle fleet turnover emission reductions committed for contingency.

Adopted March 10, 2010 ivDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### SECTION V: LEGAL AUTHORITY

A. General The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to control the quality of the state’s air, includingmaintaining adequate visibility. The first air pollution control act, known as the Clean Air Act of Texas, was passed by the Texas Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean Air Act of Texas was superseded by a more comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAA in 1969, 1971, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. In 1989, the TCAA was codified as Chapter 382 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. Originally, the TCAA stated thatthe Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the state air pollution control agency and is principal authority in the state on matters relating to the quality of air resources. In 1991, the legislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993, and its powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions weretransferred to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation of the TNRCC, the authority over air quality is found in both the Texas Water Code and the TCAA. Specifically, the authority of the TNRCC is found in Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subchapters A - F, H - J, and L, include the general provisions, organization, and general powers and duties of the TNRCC, and the responsibilities and authority of the executive director. This chapter also authorizes the TNRCC to implement action when emergency conditions arise, and to conduct hearings. Chapter 7 gives the TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77th

### Texas Legislature continued the existence of the TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and changed the name of the TNRCC to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 2009, the 81 st

### Texas Legislature, during a special session, amended section 5.014 of the Texas Water Code, changing the expiration date of the TCEQ to September 1, 2011, unless continued in existence by the Texas Sunset Act. The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level of quality to be maintained in the state’s air and to control the quality of the state’s air by preparing and developing a general, comprehensive plan. The TCAA, Subchapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect information to enable the commission to develop an inventory of emissions; to conduct research and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to prescribe monitoring requirements; to institute enforcement proceedings; to enter intocontracts and execute instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon health, welfare, social and economic factors, and practicability and reasona bleness; to conduct hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens’ groups and other agencies and political subdivisions of the state as well as with industries and the federal government; and to establish and operate a system of permits for construction or modification of facilities. Local government authority is found in Subchapter E of the TCAA. Local governments have the same power as the TCEQ to enter property and make inspections. They also may make recommendations to the commission concerning any action of the TCEQ that affects their territorial jurisdiction, may bring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements with the TCEQ or other local governments. In addition, a city or town may enact and enforce ordinances for the control and abatement of air pollution not inconsistent with the provisions of the TCAA and the rules or orders of the commission.

Adopted March 10, 2010 vDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### Subchapters G and H of the TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establish vehicle inspection and maintenance programs in certain areas of the state, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act; coordinate with federal, state, and local transportation planning agencies to develop and implement transportation programs and measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS; establish gasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund and authorize participating counties to implement vehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and accelerated vehicle retirement programs.

B. Applicable Law The following statutes and rules provide necessary authority to adopt and implement the state implementation plan (SIP). The rules listed below have previously been submitted as part of the SIP.

Statutes All sections of each subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted. TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, Chapter 382 September 1, 2009 TEXAS WATER CODE September 1, 2009 Chapter 5: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter A: General Provisions Subchapter B: Organization of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter D: General Powers and Duties of the Commission Subchapter E: Administrative Provisions for Commission Subchapter F: Executive Director (except §§ 5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275, 5.231, 5.232, and 5.236) Subchapter H: Delegation of Hearings Subchapter I: Judicial Review Subchapter J: Consolidated Permit Processing Subchapter L: Emergency and Tem porary Orders (§§ 5.514, 5.5145, and 5.515 only) Subchapter M: Environmental Permitting Procedures (§ 5.558 only)

Chapter 7: Enforcement Subchapter A: General Provisions (§§ 7.001, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, and 7.005 only) Subchapter B: Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief (§ 7.032 only) Subchapter C: Administrative Penalties Subchapter D: Civil Penalties (except § 7.109) Subchapter E: Criminal Offenses and Penalties: §§ 7.177, 7.179-7.183

Rules All of the following rules are found in 30, Texas Administrative Code, as of the following effective dates: Chapter 7: Memoranda of Understanding, §§ 7.110 and 7.119 May 2, 2002 Chapter 19: Electronic Reporting March 1, 2007

Adopted March 10, 2010 viDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### Chapter 35: Subchapters A-C, K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and Permits; Temporary Suspension or Amendment of Permit Conditions July 20, 2006 Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§ 39.201; 39.401; 39.403(a) and (b)(8)-(10); 39.405(f)(1) and (g); 39.409; 39.411 (a), (b)(1)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(1)-(6) and (d); 39.413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39.418(a) and (b)(3) and (4); 39.419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39.420(a), (b) and (c)(3) and (4); 39.423 (a) and (b); 39.601-39.605 March 29, 2006 Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings; Public Comment, §§ 55.1; 55.21(a) - (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (f) and (g); 55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6) - (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(1), (2), and (6) and (b); 55.154; 55.156; 55.200; 55.201(a) - (h); 55.203; 55.205; 55.209, and 55.211 March 29, 2006 Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules January 1, 2009 Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, Subchapter A June 30, 2004 Chapter 111: Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter July 19, 2006 Chapter 112: Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds July 16, 1997 Chapter 113: Standards of Performance for Hazardous Air Pollutants and for Designated Facilities and Pollutants May 14, 2009 Chapter 114: Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles June 26, 2008 Chapter 115: Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds July 19, 2007 Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction or Modification May 29, 2008 Chapter 117: Control of Air Pollution by Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds March 4, 2009 Chapter 118: Control of Air Pollution Episodes March 5, 2000 Chapter 122: § 122.122: Potential to Emit December 11, 2002 Chapter 122: § 122.215: Minor Permit Revisions June 3, 2001 Chapter 122: § 122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions June 3, 2001 Chapter 122: § 122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions December 11, 2002 Chapter 122: § 122.218 Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit Revisions Involving the Use of Economic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and Emissions Trading June 3, 2001

Adopted March 10, 2010 viiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### SECTION VI. CONTROL STRATEGY

A. Introduction (No revision)

B. Ozone

1. Dallas-Fort Worth 2. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria(No revision) 3. Beaumont-Port Arthur (No revision) 4. El Paso(No revision) 5. Regional Strategies(No revision) 6. Northeast Texas (No revision) 7.Austin Area (No revision) 8. San Antonio Area (No revision) 9. Victoria Area(No revision) C. Particulate Matter (No revision) D. Carbon Monoxide (No revision) E. Lead (No revision) F. Oxides of Nitrogen (No revision) G. Sulfur Dioxide (No revision) H. Conformity with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No revision) I. Site Specific (No revision) J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No revision) K. Clean Air Interstate Rule (No revision) L. Transport (No revision) M. Regional Haze (No revision)

Adopted March 10, 2010 viiiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACT -- Alternative Control Techniques AD -- Attainment Demonstration AF -- Air-to-Fuel APU -- Auxiliary Power Units ARPDB -- Acid Rain Program Data Base ATCM -- Airborne Toxic Control Measure auto-GC -- Automated Gas Chromatograph BACT -- Best Available Control Technology BCCA-AG -- Business Coalition for Clean Air-Appeal Group BMP -- Best Management Practices BPA -- Beaumont-Port Arthur Btu/hr -- British Thermal Units per Hour Btu/scf -- British Thermal Units per Standard Cubic Feet CAE -- Cetane Additive Enhanced Diesel Fuel CAIR -- Clean Air Interstate Rule CAMx -- Comprehensive Air Model with Extensions CARB -- California Air Resources Board CBD -- Houston's Central Business District CFR -- Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ -- Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CO -- Carbon Monoxide CTG -- Control Techniques Guidelines DECS -- Diesel Emission Control Strategy DERC -- Discrete Emission Reduction Credits DFW -- Dallas-Fort Worth DFW AD SIP – DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP revision DPM -- Diesel Particulate Matter DRRP -- Diesel Risk Reduction Program DV -- Design Value DVc -- Current Design Value DVf -- Future Design Value EAC -- Early Action Compact EDMS -- Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System E-GRID-2007 -- Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database EE/RE -- Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy EGAS -- Economic Growth Analysis System EGF -- Electric Generating Facilities EGU -- Electric Generating Units EI -- Emissions Inventory EPA -- United States Environmental Protection Agency EPS3 -- Emissions Processing System, version 3 ERC -- Emission Reduction Credits ERCOT -- Electric Reliability Council of Texas ESAD -- Emission Specification for Attainment Demonstration ESL -- Energy Systems Laboratory, the Texas A&M University System F -- Fahrenheit FAA -- Federal Aviation Administration FCAA -- Federal Clean Air Act

Adopted March 10, 2010 ixDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### FCV -- Fuel Cell Vehicle FGR -- Flue Gas Recirculation FHWA -- Federal Highway Administration FR -- Federal Register FT -- Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel GIS -- Geographic Information System GloBEIS -- Global Biosphere Emissions and Interactions System gpm -- Gallons per Minute GTM -- Gross Ton Mile HAP -- Hazardous Air Pollutant HARC -- Houston Advanced Research Center HDT -- Heavy-Duty Truck HECT -- Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program HGB -- Houston-Galveston-Brazoria H-GAC -- Houston-Galveston Area Council HOV -- High Occupancy Vehicle hp -- Horsepower HPMS -- Highway Performance Monitoring System HRVOC – Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound HSC -- Houston Ship Channel IC -- Internal Combustion ICI -- Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional IECC -- International Energy Conservation Code I/M -- Inspection and Maintenance km -- Kilometer KV

### s -- Vertical Exchange Coefficient LAER -- Lowest Achievable Emission Rate lb/MMBtu -- Pound per Million British Thermal Units LDAR -- Leak Detection and Repair LIDIR -- Light Detection and Ranging LDEQ -- Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality LDGV -- Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicle LDT -- Light-Duty Truck LDV -- Light-Duty Vehicle LED -- Low Emission Diesel LEV -- Low Emission Vehicle LEV II -- California's Low Emission Vehicle II Program LIRAP -- Low Income Repair and Assistance Program LNB -- Low Nitrogen Oxides (NOX

### ) Burners LNC -- Low Nitrogen Oxides (NOX

### ) Combustors LNG -- Liquefied Natural Gas LTO -- Landing and Take-Off MACT -- Maximum Achievable Control Technology Mcf -- Thousand Cubic Feet MCR -- Mid-Course Review MDPV -- Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle MECT -- Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program MM5 -- Fifth Generation Meteorological Model MMBtu/hr -- Million British Thermal Units per Hour MMcf -- Million Cubic Feet MMS -- Minerals Management Service

Adopted March 10, 2010 xDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### MOA -- Memorandum of Agreement MON -- Miscellaneous Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) mph -- miles per hour MVEB -- Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget MW -- Megawatts MY -- Model Year NAAQS -- National Ambient Air Quality Standard NCTCOG – North Central Texas Council of Governments NEGF -- Non-Electric Generating Facility NEI -- National Emissions Inventory NESHAP -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ng/J -- Nanogram per Joule NMIM -- National Mobile Inventory Model NOAA -- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Non-EGU -- non-Electric Generating Unit NOX

### -- Nitrogen Oxides NOy

### -- Nitrogen Species NSCR -- Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction NTRD -- New Technology Research and Development Program O3

### -- Ozone OGV -- Ocean-Going Vessel PAYD -- Pay As You Drive PBL -- Planetary Boundary Layer PEI -- Periodic Emissions Inventory PERP -- Portable Engine Registration Program PiG -- Plume-in-Grid PM -- Particulate Matter PM2.5

### -- Particulate Matter 2.5 microns and less ppb -- Parts Per Billion ppbC -- Parts Per Billion Carbon ppbv -- Parts Per Billion by Volume ppm -- Parts Per Million PSCF -- Potential Source Contribution Factors PSDB -- Point Source Database psia -- Pounds per Square Inch Absolute PUC -- Public Utility Commission RACT -- Reasonably Available Control Technology RACM -- Reasonably Available Control Measure RFP -- Reasonable Further Progress RMSE -- Root Mean Square Error ROP -- Rate-of-Progress RRF -- Relative Reduction Factor SB -- Senate Bill SCAQMD -- South Coast Air Quality Management District scfm -- Standard Cubic Feet per Minute SCR -- Selective Catalytic Reduction SEP -- Supplemental Environmental Programs SETPMTC -- Southeast Texas Photochemical Modeling Technical Committee SIC -- Standard Industrial Classification SIP -- State Implementation Plan

Adopted March 10, 2010 xiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Adopted March 10, 2010 xii 

### SNCR -- Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction SOV -- Single Occupancy Vehicle STP -- Surface Transportation Program SWCV -- Solid Waste Collection Vehicle TAC -- Texas Administrative Code TACB -- Texas Air Control Board TCAA -- Texas Clean Air Act TCEQ -- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) TCM -- Transportation Control Measure TDM -- Travel Demand Model TERP -- Texas Emission Reduction Plan TexAQS 2000 -- Texas Air Quality Study 2000 TexAQS II -- Texas Air Quality Study 2006 TKE -- Turbulent Kinetic Energy TNMHC -- Total Non-methane Hydrocarbon TNRCC -- Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission tpd -- tons per day tpy -- tons per year TSE -- Truck Stop Electrification TTI -- Texas Transportation Institute TUC -- Texas Utility Code TxDOT -- Texas Department of Transportation TxLED -- Texas Low Emission Diesel USC -- United States Code VMEP -- Voluntary Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Program VMT -- Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC -- Volatile Organic Compound VRU -- Vapor Recovery Unit ZEB -- Zero Emission Bus ZEV -- Zero Emissions VehicleDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### IDENTIFICATION OF REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

This document references SIP revisions and SIP-related documents. The following list provides clarification and additional information for those references. Direct access links to the documents are also provided.

May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, andDFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, both refer to the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Ozone Nonattainment Area Attainment Demonstration (AD) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard, (TCEQ Project No. 2006-013-SIP-NR, adopted May 2007). April 2008 supplement to the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision refers to a TCEQ letter to the EPA of April 23, 2008, that provides clarification and supplemental information regarding the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision. Related document: A March 7, 2008, letter from the EPA to the TCEQrequesting supplemental information for clarification of the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision. DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revisionrefers to the DFW AD SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (Contingency Measures Plan), (TCEQ Project No. 2008-016- SIP-NR, adopted November 2008). DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revisionrefers to the DFW AD SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERC) Program), (TCEQ Project No. 2008-016-SIP-NR, adopted December 2008). DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revisionrefers to this DFW Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update, 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration,and Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan SIP Revision, (TCEQ Project No. 2009-021-SIP-NR, adopted March 10, 2010). DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone standard attainment demonstrationand attainment demonstrationboth refer to Texas SIP revisions applicable to the DFW nine-county nonattainment area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties) demonstration of attainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, comprised (to date) of the following documents: the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision; the April 2008 supplement to the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision; the DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision; the DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision; and this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP.
The Texas SIP(in this document) refers to SIP revisions that make up the State of Texas Air Quality Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution.

Adopted March 10, 2010 xiiiDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary List of Acronyms Identification of Referenced Documents Table of Contents List of Tables Chapter 1. Background and Introduction 1.1.General

1.1.1. Background 1.1.2. Current SIP Action 1.2. Health Effects 1.3. Public/Stakeholder Participation 1.4. Social and Economic Considerations 1.5. Fiscal and Manpower Resources (No revision) Chapter 2. Photochemical Modeling (No revision) Chapter 3. Corroborative Analysis (No revision) Chapter 4. Required Control Strategy Elements 4.1. Overview of Existing Control Strategies (No revision) 4.2. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX

### ) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Control Measures 4.2.1. VOC Control Measures 4.2.1.1. Background 4.2.1.2. 30 TAC Chapter 115 VOC Rule Revision (Rule Project 2008-019-115-EN) 4.2.2. NOX

### Control Measures 4.2.2.1. Major Source NOX

### Reductions Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Sources 30 TAC Chapter 117 Rule Revision (Rule Project 2009-023-117-EN) Demonstration of Noninterference under FCAA §110(l) 4.2.2.2. - 4.2.2.4. (No revision) 4.2.3. - 4.2.7. (No revision) 4.3. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis 4.3.1. DFW VOC RACT Analysis Update 4.3.1.1. CTG Documents Not Applicable to the DFW Area 4.3.1.2. CTG Documents for which RACT Determinations are Not Being Made 4.3.1.3. CTG Documents that Represent RACT for the DFW Area 4.4. - 4.5. (No revision) 4.6. Contingency Measures 4.6.1. Background 4.6.2. Modified DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan 4.6.3. Allocations from Surplus 2009 through 2010 Fleet Turnover Reductions Response to Comments Section Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

Adopted March 10, 2010 xivDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Adopted March 10, 2010 xv 

### LIST OF TABLES

Number Table Name

Table 4.1 Emission Reductions Provided by Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan

Table 4.2 Calculations Showing Required 3 Percent Contingency Reductions

Table 4.3 Allocation of Surplus EmissionsReductions from 2009 through 2010 Fleet TurnoverDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

1.1.GENERAL The “History of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP),” a comprehensive overview of SIP revisions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the State of Texas, is accessible from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) Web Site, at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/miscdocs/SIPHistory_updated.pdf

. 

### The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Ozone Nonattainment Area Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard, also called the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP or May 2007 DFW AD SIP, was adopted by the TCEQ and submitted to the EPA in May 2007. The DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area includes Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties.

1.1.1. Background During the EPA’s review of the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision submittal, a March 7, 2008, letter from the EPA to the TCEQrequested clarification and additional information applicable to the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision. A TCEQ letter to the EPA of April 23, 2008, (referred to as the April 2008 Supplement to the DFW 1997 EightHour Ozone AD SIP Revision) provided the EPA with additional information to clarify and support the submittal. Upon review of the April 2008 Supplement to the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, the EPA requestedthat the TCEQ implement an enforceable mechanism to limit the use of Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCs) in the nine-county DFW eight-hour ozone nonattainment area, consistent with attainment and maintenance of the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).The EPA asked the state to revise the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision to provideadditional emissions reductions sufficient to meet contingency plan mandates of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and to implement a rule limiting DERC use in the DFW area. In June 2008, the TCEQ informed the EPA of itsintention to propose a revised contingency plan as well as DERC SIP and rule revisions to satisfy the EPA requests. The following month (July 2008) the EPA proposed a conditional approval of the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision. The DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision, adopted by the commission and submitted to the EPA in November 2008, revisedthe contingency plan for the DFW 1997 eighthour ozone standard attainment demonstration. The revised plan identified four measures to provide reductions in the event offailure to meet the June 15, 2010, deadline for attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard for the DFW area. Three previously identified volatile organic compounds (VOC) rule contingency measures (applicable to offset lithographic printing, petroleum-based dry cleaning, and degassing or cleaning processes of stationary, marine, and transport vessels), along with an allocation of a portion of the surplus emission reductions to result from 2009 through 2010 vehicle fleet turnover, completed the revised failure-to-attain contingency plan. Effective February 13, 2009, the EPA published a final conditional approval of the DFW nonattainment area’s 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration, as submitted in the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision and April 2008 Supplement, and as revised in the DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision. The published notice deemed the failure-to-attain contingency plan

Adopted March 10, 2010 1-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### and the VOC reasonably available control technology (RACT) analysis elements of the attainment demonstration to be adequate and both were given final approval by the EPA. A final full approval of the attainment demonstration was withheld by the EPA, pending approval of SIP and rule revisions needed to provide an enforceable mechanism to limit DERC use in the DFW area consistent with the 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. The DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision was adopted by the commission and submitted to the EPA in December 2008. That SIP revision and the corresponding DERC rule revision addressed the EPA’s requirement for final approval of the DFW attainment demonstration by limiting DERC use in the DFW area consistent with attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. The DERC rule in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 101 was revised to include requirements for the review and determination of annual DERC use limitations and apportionments for DERC use within the nine-county DFW area. At the time of the commission’s adoption of this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision, the DFW AD SIP DERC Program Revision and the Chapter 101 DERC rule revision had not yet been acted upon by the EPA.

1.1.2. Current SIP Action This DFW RACT Update, 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan SIP Revision (DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision) revises the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration, and as a result, the Texas Air Quality Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution. Several actions required by the FCAA are finalized in this SIP revision, including: (1) an update to DFW VOC RACT analysis determinations; (2) incorporation of adopted 30 TAC Chapter 115 and 30 TAC Chapter 117 rule revisions into the Texas SIP; (3) demonstration that the Chapter 117 rule revision will not interfere with attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in the DFW area; and (4) modification of the contingency plan for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Additional information about each of these SIP actions is provided in Chapter 4: Required Control Strategy Elementsof this document. This SIP revision updates the VOC RACT determination element of the DFW attainment demonstration by including analyses of control techniques guidelines (CTG) documents issued by the EPA in 2006, 2007, and 2008, as required by the FCAA. Documentation of the state’s determinations regarding those CTG recommendations is provided in Chapter 4, Required Control Strategy Elements, of this SIP revision and in Appendix A:Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update. A concurrently adopted 30 TAC Chapter 115 rule revision is incorporated into the Texas SIP via this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision. The Chapter 115 rule was revised based on new VOC RACT determinations made for the DFW area for offset lithographic and letterpress printing sources, based on CTG recommendations issued by the EPA in 2006 for those sources. The adopted rule revision (TCEQ Rule Project 2008-019-115-EN) implements the CTG recommendation to reduce the VOC content in fountain and cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing operations. Applicability of the rule to smaller sources previously exempt is also expanded by the rule revision. Additional information concerning RACT determinations for heatset press and letterpress printing sources is provided in Chapter 4: Required Control Strategy Elementsand in Appendix A:Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

.

Adopted March 10, 2010 1-2DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### This SIP revision also incorporates a 30 TAC Chapter 117 rule revision that was adopted by the commission on January 13, 2010. The Chapter 117 rule was revised in response to a rulemaking petition filed by the Elk Corporation of Texas that was approved by the commission on January 28, 2009. The rule revision exempts from Chapter 117 regulation low temperature drying and curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing and wet-laid, non-woven fiber mat manufacturing where nitrogen-containing resins or other additives are used. The Chapter 117 rule exemption creates a potential nitrogen oxides (NOX

### ) emission reduction loss to the DFW area ozone control strategy of up to 0.1 tons per day (tpd) from Chapter 117 control measures included in the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision. To offset the potential loss of this NOX

### reduction that could result from the new exemption, this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision allocates to the DFW control strategy a replacement 0.1 tpd NOX

### reduction out of surplus emission reductions to result from turnover of the vehicle fleet from 2009 to 2010 in the DFW area. This action maintains integrity of the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration, and provides the required demonstration of noninterference from Chapter 117 rule revisions.
Prior to this SIP revision, the DFW failure-to-attain contingency plan identified three state VOC rule contingency measures along with an allocation from surplus fleet turnover emission reductions. The VOC rule measures were Chapter 115 rules applicable to (1) offset lithographic printing, (2) petroleum-based dry cleaning, and (3) degassing or cleaning processes of stationary, marine, and transport vessels. Because the offset lithographic printing rule was revised for RACT purposes in this SIP revision, it may no longer be used as a contingency measure. This DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision modifies the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone standard failure-to-attain contingency plan to no longer contain the offset lithographic printing measure. The modified plan retains the two state VOC rules applicable to petroleum-based dry cleaning and degassing or cleaning processes of stationary, marine, and transport vessels, along with the fleet turnover emission reductions previously allocated for contingency purposes. The modified plan also contains an additional allocation of the surplus emission reductions predicted to result from vehicle fleet turnover for the one-year period beginning June 15, 2009. The additional reductions are allocated for contingency purposes to offset and replace reductions removed fromthe plan with removal of the offset lithographic printing rule measure. The modified failure-toattain contingency plan provides the required 3 percent reduction to the attainment demonstration’s 1999 base year emissions inventory with the reductions from the two remaining state VOC rule contingency measures together with the revised fleet turnover reduction allocations for contingency. Surplus fleet turnover emission reduction allocations are provided in Table 4.3: Allocation of Surplus Emissions Reductions from2009 through 2010 Fleet Turnover. After surplus fleet turnover emission reductions are allocated to offset the possible 0.1 tpd NOX

### emission increase from Chapter 117 rule exemption expansion as well as the offset lithographic printing rule contingency measure reductions, a 7.42 tpd NOX

### emission reduction from 2009 through 2010 vehicle fleet turnover remains surplus and available for future SIP purposes. Additional information is provided in Chapter 4: Required Control Strategy Elements

. There are no outstanding SIP requirements for the DFW area under the one-hour ozone NAAQS. A final rule published in the Federal Register by the EPA on October 16, 2008, (73 FR 61357) describes an EPA determination, effective November 17, 2008, that the DFW one-hour ozone nonattainment area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties) has attained the one-hour ozone standard. The EPA based this determination upon its review of certified ambient air monitoring data showing attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2004 through 2006

Adopted March 10, 2010 1-3DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### period. The one-hour ozone standard attainment determination was further supported by EPA review of quality-controlled, quality-assured ozone data for 2007 and 2008. The EPA determination also provided that due to the area’s one-hour ozone standard attainment, all requirements to submit any demonstration of attainment, 5 Percent Increment of Progress (IOP) plan, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency plan, or other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS, are suspended for as long as the area continues to attain that standard.

1.2.HEALTH EFFECTS In 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone from a one-hour to an eight-hour standard. To support the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the EPA provided information indicating that health effects can occur at levels lower than the previous standard and at exposure times longer than one hour. Exposure to ambient ozone can aggravate asthma in some people. Repeated exposures to ozone can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation and can aggravate preexisting respiratory diseases, such as bronchitis and emphysema. Children are at a relatively higher risk from exposure to ozone when compared to adults, since they breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults and because children's respiratory systems are still developing. Children also spend a considerable amount of time outdoors during summer and during the start of the school year (August - October) when high ozone levels are typically recorded. Adults most at risk to ozone exposure are people working or exercising outdoors and individuals with preexisting respiratory diseases.

1.3.PUBLIC/STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION The commission held two public hearings to receiveoral comments on the proposal of this SIP revision, as follows.

CITY DATE TIME LOCATION
Austin October 29, 2009 1:00 P.M. (CST) TCEQ Headquarters 12100 Park 35 Circle

Austin, TX 78753 Building E, Room 201S Fort Worth November 2, 2009 2:00 P.M. (CST) TCEQ Region 4 Offices 2309 Gravel Road Fort Worth, TX 76118 Public Meeting Room

The comment period opened on October 9, 2009, and closed on November 9, 2009. Written comments were accepted via mail, fax, and through the eComments system. Prior to and following each of the public hearings, TCEQ staff answered questions and provided information to interested persons. The October 29, 2009, hearing in Austin was not officially opened because no party indicated a desire to provide comment. Comments were received at the November 2, 2009, hearing in Fort Worth. Comments were received via the eComments system that are applicable to the 30 TAC Chapter 115 and Chapter 117 rule revisions associated with this SIP revision, which are addressed in the preambles applicable to each of those rules. Only comments applicable to this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision are addressed in the Response to Comments Section of this SIP revision.

Adopted March 10, 2010 1-4DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Adopted March 10, 2010 1-5 

### 1.4.SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS There are no social or economic issues of concern attributable to this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision. For a detailed explanation of any social and economic issues involved with the associated Chapter 115 and 117 rulemaking, please refer to the preamble of each of those rules, accessed from the TCEQ public Web site at http://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/. TCEQ rules may also be accessed from the Texas Register index located on the Secretary of the State of Texas Web site, at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/index.shtml

.
1.5.FISCAL AND MANPOWER RESOURCES (No revision)DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### CHAPTER 2. PHOTOCHEMICAL MODELING

(No revision)

Adopted March 10, 2010 2-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### CHAPTER 3. CORROBORATIVE ANALYSIS

(No revision)

Adopted March 10, 2010 3-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### CHAPTER 4. REQUIRED CONTROL STRATEGY ELEMENTS

4.1. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONTROL STRATEGIES (No revision)

4.2. NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX

### ) AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) CONTROL MEASURES

4.2.1. VOC Control Measures
4.2.1.1. Background The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) eight-hour ozone nonattainment area is currently classified moderate nonattainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Under the standard, the DFW area is required to meet the mandates of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) under §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Final Rule to Implement the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR §51.912), states containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher must submit state implementation plan (SIP) revisions demonstrating that their current rules fulfill the reasonable available control technology (RACT) requirements for all control techniques guidelines (CTG) categories and all non-CTG major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX

### ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). The EPA previously approved the VOC RACT analysis submitted in the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revision (74 FR 1903; January 14, 2009). The analysis demonstrated that all CTG emission source categories addressed by CTG documents issued prior to 2006 and all major VOC emission sources in the DFW area were subject to rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 or other federally enforceable measures that meet or exceed applicable RACT requirements,or that further emission controls were not technologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA-approved 2007 VOC RACT analysis did not address 11 CTG documentsissued between 2006 and 2008 containing recommendations for VOC controls on a variety of consumer and commercial products. Information regarding TCEQ's RACT determinations for these 11 CTG documents is provided in Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4 to implement the EPA's 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendations that represent RACT in the DFW area (TCEQ Rule Project 2008-019-115-EN).
4.2.1.2. 30 TAC Chapter 115 VOC Rule Revision (Rule project 2008-019-115-EN) The TCEQ has adopted revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4 to implement the EPA's 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendations that represent RACT in the DFW area concurrent withthis SIP revision. The adopted Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces the VOC content of the fountain solutions and cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing operations and expands rule applicability to include smaller offset lithographic printing sources that were previously exempt from these rules. Additional information on the offset lithographic printing rule revision is contained in the preamble for TCEQ Rule project 2008-019-115-EN. Additional information on the RACT

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-1DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### analysis of the 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG can be found in Appendix A: DFW Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

. Because the commission revised Chapter 115 rules to include RACT requirements for offset lithographic printing sources, the state VOC rule for those sources is no longer available for use as a measure in the contingency plan for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Therefore, the offset lithographic printing rule is no longer identified as a measure in the modified failure-to-attain contingency plan adopted within this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision. To maintain integrity of the attainment demonstration, this SIP revision allocates emission reductions from fleet turnover to replace the contingency reduction removed with the offset lithographic printing rulemeasure, as more specifically described in Section 4.6: Contingency Measures, of this SIP revision.

4.2.2. NOX

### Control Measures
4.2.2.1. Major Source NOX

### Reductions Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Sources On Decem ber 11, 2008, a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Chapter 117, Subchapter B, Division 4, for certain DFW area sources, was filed with the commission. The petition (TCEQ Rule Project No. 2009-012-PET-NR), submitted by Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., on behalf of Elk Corporation of Texas, requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to revise 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter B, §117.403(a)(12). The request related to owners and operators of low-temperature drying and curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing and wet-laid, non-woven fiber mat manufacturing located at major sources in the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. Source categories affected by the petitioners request are currently required to comply with Chapter 117 rule requirements by March 1, 2010. Elk Corporation of Texas operates an asphalt shingle manufacturing plant in Ennis, Texas. In the petitioner’s manufacturing process, a urea-formaldehyde resin binder is used with other nitrogencontaining compounds on a fiberglass substrate thatis then passed through a drying and curing oven. This operation results in nitrogen-containing off-gas that is vented through incinerators and reacts with oxygen to form NOX

### . The petitioner asserts that emissions associated with the manufacturing process alone makes compliance with the applicable NOX

### emission specification in §117.410(b) of 0.036pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) infeasible. On January 28, 2009, the commission considered and approved the petition for rulemaking. The commission issued an order on February 2, 2009, directing the executive director to examine the issues in the petition and to initiate rulemaking. 30 TAC Chapter 117 Rule revision (Rule Project 2009-023-117-EN) On January 13, 2010, the TCEQ adopted an amendment to Chapter 117, Subchapter B, Division 4, §117.403 to implement the stationary source rule changes requested by Elk Corporation of Texas for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. The rule revision expands an exemption to §117.403(a)(12) to include low-temperature drying ovens and curing ovens used in wet-laid, non-woven fiber mat manufacturing, as well as in low-temperature drying ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing where nitrogen-containing resinsor other additives are used. The rule revision became effective on February 4, 2010. This DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision incorporates a revised §117.403 into the Texas SIP. In 2006, during Chapter 117 rulemaking development for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area, comments were received from Owens Corning pointing out technical

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-2DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### feasibility issues with controlling NOX

### emissions from curing ovens of this specific operation. In response to those comments, a provision was added under §117.403(a)(12) to exempt curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing in which nitrogen-bound chemical additives are used. While the type of manufacturing covered by the rule is different from that specified in the current rule exemption, the technical feasibility issue for Elk Corporation of Texas is similar to the Owens Corning issue and is the basis of the current exemption in §117.403(a)(12). The addition of nitrogen-bound chemical additives contributes to the creation of non-combustion related thermal NOX

### that cannot be controlled using control methodologies identified by the commission as appropriate for curing ovens used in mineral wool-type fiberglass manufacturing.

NOX

### emissions from curing ovens of this typeare small contributors to the total NOX

### emissions. Due to the expanded exemption from the Chapter 117 rule revision, up to 0.1 tons per day (tpd) of anticipated NOX

### emission reduction previously anticipated to support the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration will no longer beavailable. Therefore, a demonstration of noninterference submittal to the EPAis required under the FCAA §110(l). Demonstration of Noninterference under FCAA §110(l) The estimated 0.1 tpd NOX

### emission increase and potential loss to the DFW control strategy that could result from the Chapter 117 rule exemption expansion is insignificant and does not interfere with the DFW 1997 ozone attainment demonstration. However, the TCEQ provides this demonstration of noninterference to support the state’s assertion that expansion of the exemption in §117.403(a)(12) does not negatively impact the status of the area’s attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA issued draft guidance on June 8, 2005,titled “Demonstrating Noninterference under Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act When Revising a State Implementation Plan.” The guidance provides options available for states to demonstrate noninterference in nonattainment areas for affected pollutants. One option for demonstrating noninterference is through the substitution of measures that provide equivalent or greater emissions reduction/air quality benefits than the measure(s) being removed from the SIP. This SIP revision replaces the potential 0.1 tpd NOX

### control strategy reduction loss from the expanded §117.403 exemption with an equal 0.1 tpd NOX

### allotment from surplus vehicle fleet turnover emission reductions predicted to occur inthe one-year period beginning June 15, 2009. Allocating 0.1 tpd NOX

### reduction from fleet turnover surplus emissions ensures that adoption of the Chapter 117 rulemaking associated with this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision will not interfere with the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration.

4.2.2.2. – 4.2.2.4. (No revision)

4.2.3. – 4.2.7. (No revision)
4.3. REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS 4.3.1. DFW VOC RACT Analysis Update The DFW eight-hour ozone nonattainment area is currently classified moderate nonattainment for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the DFW area is required to meet the mandates of the FCAA under §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). According to the EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR §51.912), states containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher must submit a SIP revision

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-3DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### demonstrating that their current rules fulfill the RACT requirements for all CTG categories and all non-CTG major sources of NOX

### and VOC. In the September 17, 1979, issue of the Federal Register (44 FR 53762) RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. RACT requirements for nonattainment areas classified as moderate and higher are included in the FCAA to assure that significant source categories at major sources of ozone precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available control technology levels expected of new sources or to maximum achievable control technology levels required for major sources of hazardous air pollutants. Advancing attainment of the area is not a factor of consideration when evaluating RACT because the benefit of implementing RACT is presumed under the FCAA. The EPA previously approved the VOC RACT analysis as submitted in the May 2007 DFW Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision (74 FR1903; January 14, 2009). The analysis demonstrated all CTG emission source categories addressed by CTG documents issued prior to 2006 and all major VOC emission sources in the DFW area were subject to rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115, or other federally enforceable measures, that meet or exceed the applicable RACT requirements, or that further emission controls on the sources were either not technologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA-approved 2007 VOC RACT analysis did not address 11 CTG documents issued between 2006 and 2008 with recommendations for VOC controls on a variety of consumer and commercial products. Some of the new CTG recommendations are updates to previously issued CTG documents and some are recommendations for new emission source categories. This RACT analysis update addresses the evaluation of these 11 new CTG documents to determine if additional VOC controls are necessary to fulf ill RACT requirements for the DFW area. The following is a list of the CTG documents:

 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Group II Issued in 2006

 Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Group II Issued in 2006

 Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II Issued in 2006

 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II Issued in 2006

 Large Appliance Coatings, Group III Issued in 2007

 Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III Issued in 2007

 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III Issued in 2007

 Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Group IV Issued in 2008

 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV Issued in 2008

 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV Issued in 2008

 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV Issued in 2008 A brief summary of the TCEQ's RACT determinations regarding these 11 CTG documents follows. Additional details regarding the evaluation of the 11 CTG documents are provided in Appendix A: Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

.

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-4DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### 4.3.1.1. CTG Documents Not Applicable to the DFW Area The TCEQ provides a negative declaration for the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG and the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing CTG. The TCEQ determined that no sources meeting the applicability criteria recommended in these CTG documents are located in the DFW area. 4.3.1.2. CTG Documents for which RACT Determinations are Not Being Made The TCEQ is not making a determination at this time of whether the recommendations in the following eight CTG documents represent RACT for Texas: Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, and Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings. The TCEQ's initial assessment of Industrial Cleaning Solvents and the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG documents indicates that the EPAsubstantially underestimated the scope and potential impact of implementing the CTG recommendations, as they would have widespread and potentially adverse impacts to small businesses and micro-businesses. The TCEQ will continue to evaluate these CTG documents and will providesmall business outreach to engage potentially impacted stakeholders. Research to determine the quantity of sources affected by the recommendations has been initiated.The Executive Director will proceed with RACT analyses of these CTGs and will initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in order to submit RACT determinations to the EPA in a timely
manner. By letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding several issues related to recommendations in the CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. A number of the VOC content limits recommended for specific coatingscategories are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the EPA's original CTG recommendations. The TCEQ requested clarification to assure that implementation of the new recommendations would not be backsliding and to be certain that the TCEQ has appropriate information to determine if the CTG recommendations actually represent RACT for Texas.As of the September 23, 2009, TCEQ's agenda for proposal of this SIP revision, the EPAhad not formally responded to the request for clarification; therefore, the TCEQ did not propose RACT determinations for these CTG document categories. However, in comments submitted for this SIP revision, the EPA provided suggestions and guidance regarding the issues raised by the TCEQ in the December 2008 letter. The Executive Director will proceed with RACTanalyses of these three CTG documents based on guidance provided in the EPA's comments and will initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in order to submit RACT determinations to the EPA in a timely manner. At the September 23, 2009, agenda for proposal of this SIP revision, the TCEQ determined that emission sources affected by recommendations in the Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, and Paper, Film, and Foil CTG documents have enforceable permit limitations in place that restrict VOC emissions to levels consistent with the recommendations and that additional controls were not necessary. However, in response to the EPA's comments on this SIP revision, the TCEQ has decided to reevaluate these CTGs for RACT determination. The Executive Director will proceed with these analyses and will initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in order to submit RACT determinations to the EPA in a timely manner.

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-5DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### 4.3.1.3. CTG Documents that Represent RACT for the DFW Area Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ adopted revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4 to implement the EPA's 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendations that represent RACT in the DFW area (TCEQ Rule Project 2008-019-115-EN). The adopted Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces the VOC content of the fountain solutions and cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing operations and expands the rule applicability to include smaller offset lithographic printing sources that were previously exempt from these rules. The overall VOC control level in the adopted Chapter 115 rules is equivalent to or more stringent than the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendations and sufficient to fulfill RACT for offset lithographic printing operations in the DFW area.

4.4. - 4.5. (No revision)

4.6. CONTINGENCY MEASURES 4.6.1. Background FCAA (42 USC §7502(c)(9) and §7511a(c)(9)) and the EPA’s final Phase 2 1997 eight-hour ozone implementation rule require that the SIPs for all 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas include contingency measures as additional cont rols needed to further reduce emissions in the event an area fails toattain by its attainment date. The FCAA requires that states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above include contingency measures in their SIP (sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). Per the FCAA, the failure-to-attain contingency plan must identify control measures sufficient to secure an additional 3 percent reduction (from the base year emissions inventory used for development of the attainment demonstration) in ozone precursor emissions should a moderate nonattainment area fail to attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2010, required attainment date. The May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, Appendix B: Emissions Inventory Development identifies 520.08 tpd of VOC and 754.56 tpd of NOX

### in the 1999 base year emissions inventory from all anthropogenic sources in the DFW nine-county nonattainment area. As part of its January 14 2009, final conditional approval of the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone AD SIP Revision, as supplemented and revised (74 FR 1903), the EPA deemed the failure-toattain contingency plan (as submitted in the May 2007 DFW AD SIP Revision, supplemented in April 2008, and revised in the November 2008 DFW AD SIP Contingency Plan Revision) to be complete and fully approved. That contingency plan identified emissions reductions from three state VOC rules along with emission reductions from the 2009 through 2010 mobile source fleet turnover as the contingency measures. At the time these VOC rules were identified for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone failure-to-attain contingency plan, they were not required to meet VOC RACT requirements. The three rules, applicable to (1) Offset Lithographic Printing, as in 30 TAC § 115.449(c); (2) Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels, as in 30 TAC §115.549(b); and (3) Petroleum Dry Cleaning, as in 30 TAC §115.559(a), were determined to provide a cumulative 1.80 tpd VOC emission reduction from sources in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties. Surplus emission reductions predicted to result from the fleet turnover to occur over a one-year period beginning June 15, 2009, were identified to provide the remainder of emission reductions needed for the 3 percent contingency requirement.
The turnover of the on-road fleet of cars and trucks will result in additional VOC and NOX 

### emission benefits in 2009 and beyond because newer vehicles have significantly lower emission standards than vehicles they are replacing. New vehicle emission standards are lower primarily

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-6DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### due to a number of federal rules such as the Tier2 standards for automobiles and light trucks, and the 2007 heavy-duty diesel standards for large diesel highway trucks. Emission reductions predicted to occur from the fleet turnover during the one-year period beginning June 15, 2009, are estimated to total 4.86 tpd VOC and 20.78 tpd NOX

### . 4.6.2. Modified DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan This DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision revises the contingency plan for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. Removal of the contingency measure for offset lithographic printing and a modification of the allotment of fleet turnover reductions dedicated to the failure-to-attain contingency planare both included in this SIP revision. This DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision dedicates 13.36 tpd of the NOX

### emission reductions, and 4.86 tpd of the VOC emission reductions predicted from the June 2009 through 2010 fleet turnover to provide reductions for the contingency plan. Due to the associated Chapter 115 rule applicable to the same sources, the offset lithographic printing rule contingency measure (and the associated 0.24 tpd predicted VOC reduction) is being removed as a contingency measure. However, the two other state VOC rules identified in the SIP revision will remain as contingency measures. Those two VOC rule contingency measures provide controls applicable to the degassing or cleaning process of stationary, marine, and transport vessels, and to petroleum-based dry cleaning. The three contingency measures identified in Table 4.1: Emission Reductions Provided by Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan,and further described below, are measures identified for the DFW 1997 eight-hour ozone failure-to-attain contingency plan, for implementation in the event the contingency plan is triggered.

1. A VOC reduction of 0.18 tpd will be made through controls on the degassing or cleaning process of stationary, marine, and transport vessels. All affected persons in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties must be in compliance with 30 TAC, Chapter 115, Subchapter F, Division 3 (relating to Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels)as soon as practicable, but no later than one year, after notification is published in the Texas Register of the commission’s determination that this contingency rule is necessary as a result of failure to attain the 1997 NAAQS for ozone by the attainment deadline as set forth in the 1990 Amendments to the FCAA, § 172(c)(9). The commission will submit notification to the Texas Register for publication within 60 days after the EPA notifies the state of its failurethrough publication of a final action in the Federal Register

. 2. A VOC reduction of 1.38 tpd will be made through controls on petroleum-based dry cleaning businesses. All affected petroleum solvent dry cleaning facilities in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties must be in compliance with 30 TAC, Chapter 115, Subchapter F, Division 4 (relating to Petroleum Dry Cleaning Systems)as soon as practicable, but no later than one year, after notification is published in the Texas Register of the commission’s determination that this contingency rule is necessary as a result of failure to attain the 1997 NAAQS for ozone by the attainment deadline as set forth in the 1990 Amendments to FCAA, §172(c)(9). The commission will submit notification to the Texas Register for publication within 60 days after the EPA notifies the state of its failure through publication of a final action in the Federal Register

.

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-7DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### 3. Emission reductions to provide 4.86 tpd VOC and 13.36 tpd NOX

### , allotted to the DFW contingency plan from and out of surplus emission reductions that will result from the motor vehicle fleet turnover to occur during a one-year period beginning June 15, 2009.

Table 4.1: Emission Reductions Provided by Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan Contingency Plan Emission Reductions (tpd) VOC NOX 

### State VOC rule contingency measure applicable to the Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels* 0.18 00.00 State VOC rule contingency measure applicable to Petroleum Dry Cleaning* 1.38 00.00 Mobile source fleet turnover emission reductions** (portion allocated for contingency) 4.86 13.36 Total Contingency Plan Reductions 6.42 13.36 *applicable in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties only **attributable to DFW nine-county area

The method used to calculate the DFW 3 percent contingency emission reduction requirement is represented in the following equation: RV

### /VOCBASE + RN

### /NOX

### BASE >= 0.03 where; RV

### = typical summer day VOC reductions in mass units RN

### = typical summer day NOX

### reductions in mass units VOCBASE = the mass of anthropogenic VOC emissions in the 1999 base year inventory, and NOX

### BASE = the mass of anthropogenic NOX

### emissions in the 1999 base year inventory, and was calculated as follows: [(6.42/520.08) + (13.36/754.56)] = 3%

Table 4.2: Calculations Showing Required 3 Percent Contingency Reductions, shows that the DFW contingency plan will provide a 1.23 percent reduction from the DFW area 1999 base year VOC emissions inventory, and a 1.77 percent reduction from the corresponding NOX

### emissions inventory. Following the EPA’s NOX

### substitution guidance to calculate the contingency plan reductions, the 1.23 (percent VOC reduction) is added to the 1.77 (percent NOX

### reduction) to equal the required 3.00 (percent total VOC and/or NOX

### emissions reductions). This modified contingency plan identifies measures to provide the required reductions, totaling 6.42 tpd VOC and 13.36 tpd NOX

### .
Table 4.2: Calculations Showing Required 3 Percent Contingency Reductions Contingency Plan Reduction Calculations VOC NOX 

### 1999 base year EI, DFW 9-county area (tpd weekday) 520.08 754.56 tpd emissions reductions from the two state VOC rule measures 1.56 0.00 tpd emissions reductions from the surplus fleet turnover emissions reductions allotted for the contingency plan 4.86 13.36 (Total tpd reductions to be provided by the modified contingency plan) (6.42) (13.36) Percentage of inventory reduction for each precursor 1.23% 1.77% Total percentage of reductions provided by the plan 3.00% total

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-8DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Adopted March 10, 2010 4-9 

### 4.6.3. Allocations from Surplus 2009 through 2010 Fleet Turnover Reductions Table 4.3: Allocation of Surplus Emissions Reductions from 2009-2010 Fleet Turnover consolidates emissions reductions allocations in this DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP. Out of the total 4.86 tpd VOC and 20.78 tpd NOX

### emission reductions predicted to occur from the fleet turnover expected during the one-year period beginning June 15, 2009, all of the 4.86 tpd VOC and 13.36 tpd of the NOX

### reductions are allotted to provide reductions for the DFW contingency plan. The remaining 7.32 tpd surplus NOX

### emissions reduction from fleet-turnover is surplus and usable for other future SIP purposes.

Table 4.3: Allocation of Surplus Emissions Reductions from 2009 - 2010 Fleet Turnover Vehicle Fleet Turnover Emission Reductions* (tpd) VOC NOX 

### Total emissions reductions from June 2009 through 2010 fleet turnover 4.86 20.78 Allocation to replace NOX

### reduction lost from control strategy upon adoption of Chap. 117 rulemaking (see section 4.2.2.1) -0.00 - 0.10 Allocation to the DFW contingency plan -4.86 - 13.36 Remaining surplus emission reductions available for future SIP use 0.00 7.32 * from the nine-county DFW eight-hour ozone nonattainment areaDFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### APPENDIX A:

DALLAS-FORT WORTH REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS UPDATE

Adopted March 10, 2010DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### INDEX:
Description Page
Section 1.0. Introduction A-2 Section 2.0. RACT Evaluation Approach A-3 2.1. General Discussion A-3 2.2. Identification of CTG Emission Source Categories A-3 2.3. Determining if State Regulations Fulfill RACT Requirements A-3

Section 3.0. RACT Determination and Discussion A-4 3.1. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group II, Issued in 2006 A-4 3.2. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group III, Issued in 2007 A-6 3.3. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group IV, Issued in 2008 A-7

Attachment 1 December 8, 2008, Letter to Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency on Issues related to Control Techniques Guidelines documents A-10

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-2DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### DALLAS-FORT WORTH REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS UPDATE

1.0.Introduction The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) eight-hour ozonenonattainment area (Dallas, Denton, Collin, Tarrant, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, and Rockwall Counties) is currently classified moderate nonattainment for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the area is required to meet the mandates of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) under §§172(c)(1), 182(b)(2) and 182(f). According to the EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §51.912, November 29, 2005), states containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher must submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating that their current rules fulfill the reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for all control technique guidelines (CTG) categories and all non-CTG major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX

### ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that isreasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). RACT requirements for moderate and higher classification nonattainment areas are included in the FCAA to assure that significant source categories at major sources of ozone precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available control technology levels expected of new sources or to maximum achievable control technology levels required for major sources of hazardous air pollutants. Advancing attainment of the area isnot a factor of consideration when evaluating RACT because the benefit of implementing RACT is presumed under the FCAA. The EPA previously approved the VOC RACT analysis as submitted in the May 2007 DFW Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision (74 FR1903; January 14, 2009). The analysis demonstrated all CTG emission source categories addressed by CTG documents issued prior to 2006 and all major VOC emission sources in the DFW area were subject to rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115, or other federally enforceable measures, that meet or exceed the applicable RACT requirements, or that further emission controls on the sources were either not technologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA-approved 2007 VOC RACT analysis did not address 11 CTG documents issued between 2006 and 2008 with recommendations for VOC controls on a variety of consumer and commercial products. Some of the new CTG recommendations are updates to previously issued CTG documents and some are recommendations for new emission source categories. This RACT analysis update addresses the evaluation of these 11 new CTG documents to determine if additional VOC controls are necessary to fulf ill RACT requirements for the DFW area.

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-3DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### The following is a list of the CTG documents:

 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Group II Issued in 2006

 Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Group II Issued in 2006

 Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II Issued in 2006

 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II Issued in 2006

 Large Appliance Coatings, Group III Issued in 2007

 Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III Issued in 2007

 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III Issued in 2007

 Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Group IV Issued in 2008

 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV Issued in 2008

 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV Issued in 2008

 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV Issued in 2008

2.0.RACT Evaluation Approach
2.1. General Discussion The TCEQ demonstrates that RACT requirements are fulfilled by: (1) identifying all CTG source categories of VOC and NOX

### emissions and submitting negative declarations for categories where no major emission sources exist; (2) identif ying all non-CTG major sources of VOC and NOX 

### emissions; (3) identifying the state regulation implementing or exceeding RACT for each applicable CTG source category or non-CTG major emission source; and (4) describing the basis for conclusion that the regulations fulfill RACT. Specifically, this SIP revision updates the DFW VOC RACT analysis to address the 11 consumer and commercial products CTG documents issued by the EPA from 2006 through 2008. 2.2. Identification of CTG Emission Source Categories The EPA has issued CTG documents defining RACT for existing facilities. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reviewed the 11 consumer and commercial products CTG documents issued by the EPA from 2006 through 2008 to identify all source categories of VOC emissions that require RACT. RACT determinations are not required if there are no facilities in the DFW area that are subject to the CTG document. A negative declaration is provided for source categories described within the EPA guidance documents that do not exist in the DFW area. 2.3. Determining if State Regulations Fulfill RACT Requirements The EPA previously approved the DFW area VOC rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 as meeting FCAA RACT requirements for CTG documents issued prior to 2006. RACT determinations regarding the 11 CTG documents issued in 2006 and later were made by comparing the CTG recommendations to TCEQ rules to determine if the existing rules satisfy RACT. Although CTG documents provide the EPA's RACT recommendations for controlling emissions from specific sources, EPA guidance onRACT indicates that states can choose to implement the CTG recommendations, implement an alternative approach, or demonstrate that additional control for the CTG emission source category is not technologically or economically feasible in the area. Additional discussion regarding the evaluation of the CTG recommendations

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-4DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### is provided in Sections 3.3.2: Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, through 3.3.4: Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.

3.0.RACT Determination and Discussion
3.1. The EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group II Issued in 2006 3.1.1. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings No facilities meeting the applicability of the 2006 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG document were identified in the DFW area. Therefore, the TCEQ provides a negative declaration for this source category with regard to RACT for the DFW area. The EPA indicated in Appendix B: State and Local Regulations for Flat Wood Panelingof the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG that two facilities in Texas ozone nonattainment areas are potentially subject to the recommendations. Based on a review of the 2005 point source emissions inventory, the TCEQ determined that only one facility in the DFW area, Buell Door Company, TCEQ Account Number DB-0128-U, may fit the source category description in the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG. However, that facility ceased all operations in 2006 and to date has not reported any emissions for the site for subsequent years. The TCEQ does not expect that the company will resume business operations at this facility. 3.1.2. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials At the September 23, 2009, agenda for proposal of this SIP revision, the TCEQ did not propose to revise the flexographic and rotogravure printing rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 3 to implement the 2006 Flexible Packaging Printing Materials CTG recommendations. Flexible package printing sources in the DFW area affected by the CTG recommendations were determined to have enforceable permit limitations in place that restrict VOC emissions to levels consistent with the CTG recommendations. Therefore, the commission proposed that additional controls were not necessary for this CTG category. At the September 23, 2009, agenda for proposal of this SIP revision the commission proposed that additional controls were not necessary for this CTG category. Because of EPA's comments on this SIP revision, the TCEQ has decided toreevaluate the RACT determination for the Flexible Packaging Printing Materials CTG recommendations. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis of this CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, as appropriate, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner. 3.1.3. Industrial Cleaning Solvents The TCEQ is not making a RACT determination at this time regarding the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations. The TCEQ's assessment indicates that the EPA substantially underestimated the scope and potential impact of the CTG recommendations. In Appendix D of the CTG document: Number of nonattainment facilities organized by State that are estimated to meet the applicability criteria recommended in the CTG, the EPA estimated 92 facilities in Texas nonattainment areas would be subject to the recommendations. However, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes provided in Appendix C of the CTG document:

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-5DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### Summary of NAICS Codes for nonattainment facilities estimated to meet the applicability criteria recommended in the CTGsuggests a much broader applicability. Based on the EPA's suggested exemption threshold of 15 pounds per day of VOC and the listed NAICS codes, the TCEQ estimates that implementing the CTG would have widespread and potentially adverse impacts to small business and micro-business in Texas. An integral part of determining whether a control technology or measure represents RACT is evaluating the technological and economic feasibility of the proposed controls. Determining technological and economic feasibility is not possible when the applicability of the control measure is ambiguous. The TCEQ will continue to evaluate this CTG and intends to provide small business outreach to engage stakeholders that could be potentially impacted by the EPA's suggested control measures. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis of this CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration,if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner. 3.1.4. Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing
Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ adopted revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4 to implement the EPA's 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendations that represent RACT in the DFW area. The adopted Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces the VOC content of the fountain solutions and cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing operations, and expands rule applicability to include smaller offset lithographic printing sources that were previously exempt from these rules. The TCEQ determined that no letterpress printing operationsmeeting the applicability criteria recommended in the CTG document are located in the DFW area. Therefore, the TCEQ provides a negative declaration for the Letterpress Printing CTG source category. In its analysis of the EPA's 2006 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendations, the TCEQ must balance the VOC control level in the adopted Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4 rules and potential for backsliding from implementing the 2006 CTG recommendations, along with enforceability considerations, and possible impacts to sources that have already complied with the existing rules. In several instances the adopted Chapter 115 content limits are more stringent than EPA's 2006 CTG recommendations. The 2006 CTG recommends include limiting the VOC content of cleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations to 70 percent VOC by weight in conjunction with work practice standards. The adopted Chapter 115 rules retain the more stringent cleaning solution content limit of 70 percent VOC by volume in conjunction with work practice standards. Assuming the VOC in the cleaning solvent used is kerosene, the VOC referenced in the 2006 CTG, the adopted Chapter 115 content limit of 70 percent VOC by volume for cleaning solutions is equivalent to 66 percent VOC by weight. EPA's 2006 CTG also recommends limiting the fountain solution content to 5 percent alcohol substitutes or less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution.To prevent potential backsliding for sources already required to comply with these state regulations, the adopted Chapter 115 rules retain the more stringent fountain solution content limit of 3 percent alcohol substitutes or less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution. The adopted Chapter 115 rules for heatset offsetlithographic presses are at least as stringent as the EPA's 2006 CTG recommended controls. The EPA's CTG recommends an add-on air pollution control device be required on each individual heatset offset lithographic press with the uncontrolled potential to emit 25 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or more from the dryer. The rules in Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4, require control devices, with a control efficiency of at

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-6DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### least 90 percent, to be installed on heatset offset lithographic presses on a property in the DFW area with total uncontrolled VOC emissions of at least 50 tpy, which includes VOC emissions from ink oils evaporated by the press dryer and VOC in fountain and cleaning solutions. In Table Table 5-1: Model Plant Product Use and Baseline (U ncontrolled) Volatile Organic Compounds (Average Tons Per Year), of the 1993 draft Offset Lithographic Printing CTG, the EPA estimates that 26 percent of the total uncontrolled VOC emissions from heatset offset lithographic printing operations are emitted from the press dryer. Based on EPA's assumption, an individual heatset press located on a property with total uncontrolled VOCemissions of 50 tpy would emit less than 13 tpy of VOC from the press dryer. Therefore, the Chapter 115 rules are effectively more stringent than the EPA's 2006 CTG RACT recommendations with regard to the applicability threshold for this control requirement. Additionally, the EPA's 2006 CTG recommended exempting heatset presses used for book printing and heatset presses with a maximum web width of 22 inches or less from the add-on control device requirements. The existing Chapter 115 regulations do not exempt these sources from the control requirements and the TCEQ has not adopted these exemptions into the revised rule. The EPA's CTG recommends requiring control equipment first installed before the effective date of rules implementing the CTG to have an overall control efficiency of 90 percent and control equipment first installed after the effective date of rules implementing the CTG to have an overall control efficiency of 95 percent. The TCEQdisagrees with the EPA's CTG recommendation to correlate control device efficiency requirements with the first installation date of the control device regardless of where the equipment was installed. Imposing this policy may encourage the installation of older, less efficient equipment and may create potential backsliding issues. The policy may also create significant practical enforceability issues for TCEQ investigators with regard to verifying the first installation date of the control equipment. Regardless of the first installation date of the device, the EPA recommends providing the alternative option to reduce the control device outlet concentration to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as hexane on a dry basis to accommodate situations where the inlet VOC concentration is too low to demonstrate the 90 or 95 percent control efficiency. The Chapter 115 rules provide affected owners or operators of a heatset offset lithographic printing press the option to operate a control device to reduce VOC emissions from the press dryer exhaust vent by 90 percent by weight or maintain a maximum dryer exhaust outlet VOC concentration of 20 ppmv. The Chapter 115 alternative concentration limit is substantially preferable because it encourages VOC emission reductions without requiring add-on controls and implementing the EPA's recommended approach would penalize operations who were able to achieve the 20 ppmv limit without the installation of expensive add-on control devices. Based on this analysis, the TCEQ determined that the adopted Chapter 115 rules for offset lithographic printing operations provide an overall VOC control level that is at least equivalent to the 2006 CTG recommendations and are more effective and enforceable. Therefore, the revised Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 4 rules are sufficient to fulfill RACT for offset lithographic printing operations in the DFW area.

3.2. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group III Issued in 2007 3.2.1. Large Appliance Coatings By letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding several issues related to the Large Appliance Coatings CTG recommendations. Current TCEQ

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-7DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### rules in Chapter 115 for large appliance coating operations are based on the original Large Appliance Coatings CTG issued by the EPA in 1977. A number of the recommended VOC content limits for specific coatings categories listed in the 2007 CTG document are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the EPA's original CTG recommendations for the Large Appliance Coatings category. Since the 2007 Large Appliance Coatings CTG document does not specifically address this issue, the TCEQ requested clarification to ensure that implementing the CTG recommendations would not beconsidered backsliding and to be certain that the TCEQ has the appropriate information to determine whether the 2007 CTG recommendations actually represent RACT for Texas. See Attachment 1 for the TCEQ letter to the EPA requesting clarification on these issues. The EPA did not formally respond to the TCEQ's request for clarification on the CTG document. Therefore, the TCEQ did not propose a RACT determination for the Large Appliance Coatings CTG source category. However, in the comments submitted for this SIP revision, the EPA did provide suggestions and guidance regarding the issues raised by the TCEQ in the December 2008 letter. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis of this CTG document based on the guidance provided in the EPA's comments and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration,if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner. 3.2.2. Metal Furniture Coatings In the previously mentioned letter to the EPA of December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification regarding several issues related to the Metal Furniture Coatings CTG recommendations. Current TCEQ rules in Chapter 115 for metal furniture coating operations are based on the original Metal Furniture Coatings CTG document issued by the EPA in 1977. A number of the VOC content limits for specific coatings categories recommended in the 2007 CTG document are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the original recommendations for the Metal Furniture Coatings category. Since the 2007 Metal Furniture Coatings CTG document does not specifically address this issue, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA to ensure that im plementing the 2007 CTG recommendations would not be considered backsliding and to be certain that the TCEQ has the appropriate information to determine whether the 2007 CTG recommendations actually represent RACT for Texas. See Attachment 1 for the TCEQ letter to the EPA requesting clarification on these issues. The EPA did not formally respond to the TCEQ's request for clarification on the CTG document. Therefore, the TCEQ did not propose a RACT determination for the Metal Furniture Coatings CTG source category. However, in the comments submitted for this SIP revision, the EPA did provide suggestions and guidance regarding the issues raised by the TCEQ in the December 2008 letter. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis of this CTG document based on the guidance provided in the EPA's comments and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration as appropriate, if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner. 3.2.3. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings At the September 23, 2009, agenda for proposal of this SIP revision, the TCEQ did not propose to revise the surface coating rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 to implement the 2007 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG recommendations. Paper, film, and foil coating operations in the DFW area affected by the CTG recommendations were determined to have

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-8DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### enforceable permit limitations in place that restrict VOC emissions to levels consistent with the CTG recommendations.. Therefore, the commission proposed that additional controls were not necessary for this CTG category. However, in response to EPA's comments on this SIP revision, the TCEQ has decided to reevaluate the RACT determination for the Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG recommendations. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis of this CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration as appropriate, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner.

3.3. EPA Consumer and Commercial Products CTG Documents, Group IV Issued in 2008 3.3.1. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings One site identified in the DFW area is subject to the Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG document: General Motors Corporation's Arlington Assembly Plant, TCEQ Account Number TA-0157-I. On page 23 of the 2008 Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG, the EPA indicates that VOC emission reductions will not result from implementing the CTG recommendations because these facilities have previously reduced coating operation VOC emissions in compliance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Subpart MM, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations; 40 CFR Part 63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), Subpart IIII, Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; and existing state rules. At the September 23, 2009, agenda for proposal of this SIP revision the commission proposed that additional controls were not necessary for this CTG category. However, in response to EPA's comments on this SIP revision, the commission has decided to reevaluate the RACT determination for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG recommendations. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysis of this CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner. 3.3.2. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials The 2008 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG document did not identify any sources in Texas that would be subject to the CTG recommended controls. However,as of the September 23, 2009, TCEQ's agenda for proposal of this SIP revision, the TCEQ could not make a definitive negative declaration for this source category. Since that time the TCEQ has conducted extensive additional review of sources identified in the point source emissions inventory, Title V permits, and central registry databases. No facilities meeting the applicability of the 2008 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG document were identif ied in the DFW area. Therefore, the TCEQ provides a negative declaration for this source category with regard to RACT for the DFW area.
3.3.3. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives The TCEQ is not making a RACT determination at this time regarding the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations. Similar to the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG, the TCEQ's initial assessment indicates that the EPA substantially underestimated the scope and potential impact of the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations. An integral

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-9DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision

Adopted March 10, 2010 A-10 

### part of determining whether a control technology or measure represents RACT is evaluating the technological and economic feasibility of the proposed controls. Determining technological and economic feasibility is not possible when the applicability of the control measure is ambiguous. The TCEQ will continue to evaluate this CTG and intends to provide small business outreach to engage stakeholders that could be potentially im pacted by the EPAs suggested control measures. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACTanalysis of this CTG document and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner. 3.3.4. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings In the previously mentioned letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding several issues related to the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG recommendations. The TCEQ rules in Chapter 115 for these coating operations are based on the original CTG recommendations issued by the EPA in 1978. Several of the recommended VOC content limits for specific coatings categories listed in the 2008 CTG are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the EPA's original CTG recommendations for these categories. Since the 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG document does not specifically address this issue, the TCEQ requested clarification to ensure that that implementing the 2008 CTG would not be considered backsliding and to be certain that the TCEQ has the appropriate information to appropriately determine whether the 2008 recommendations actually represent RACT for Texas. See Attachment 1 for the TCEQ letter to the EPA requesting clarification on these issues. The EPA did not formally respond to the TCEQ's request for clarification on these CTG documents as of the September 23, 2009, agenda; therefore, the TCEQ did not propose a RACT determination for the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG source category. However, in the comments submitted for this SIP revision, the EPA did provide suggestions and guidance regarding the issues raised by the TCEQ in the December 2008 letter. The Executive Director will proceed with the RACT analysisof this CTG document based on the guidance provided in the EPA's comments and initiate a future SIP revision and rulemaking for the commission's consideration, if necessary, in order to submit a RACT determination to the EPA in a timely manner.DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision



### APPENDIX A Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

Attachment 1 December 8, 2008, Letter to Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency on issues related to Control Techniques Guidelines documents

Adopted March 10, 2010Buddy Garcia, Chairman Larry R. Soward, Commissioner Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director 

## TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas byReducing andPreventing Pollution

.



### December 8, 2008

Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Organization United States Environmental Protection Agency Mail Drop C504-01 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

Dear Director Harnett:
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Air Quality Division is currently reviewing the Consumer and Commercial Products Group II, Group III, and Group IV Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2006 through 2008. Our evaluation of these CTG documents has prompted several questions regarding the CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The issues and questions related to these CTG documents are detailed below.

Texas' existing rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of large appliances', metal furniture2

, 

### and miscellaneous metal parts and products3 

### were based on the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) corresponding 1977 and 1978 Guideline Series4 

### (OS) recommendations. The existing emission standards for surface coating oflarge appliances and metal furniture are not specific to coating types; however, the 2007 CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings5 

### and Metal Furniture Coatings6 

### recommend setting coating type specific emission standards. Some of the recommended emissions standards are equivalent or more stringent than the existing generic standards while some recommended emission standards are less stringent than the existing standards. Similarly, the 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings7 

### also recommends emission standards for certain coating types that are less stringent than the existing 30 TAC Chapter 115 emission standards. Please see the enclosed table for a more detailed comparison ofthe existing VOC emission standards based on the 1977 and 1978 OS recommendations (and TCEQ rules) versus the 2007 and 2008 CTG documents for these categories.

Since some ofthe limits recommended for these specific coating types are less stringent than the existing emission standards based on the EPA's original GS recommendations, TCEQ's Air Quality Division has.

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us pnnlcd on recycled paj)Cr**u!iin~** soy-based inlo:

### Mr. William T. Harnett Page2 December 8, 2008

concerns that implementing the new CTG recommendations could be perceived as backsliding. In addition, these discrepancies may make it impossible for TCEQ staff to determine if actual VOC reduction benefit would occur from implementing the CTG recommendations. Given the limited explanation8 

### of how these differences should be considered in light of the original GS standards, the TCEQ Air Quality Division is requesting written guidance to clarify the intent of the EPA's new CTG recommendations with regard to the following issues.

1. Specific clarification is needed that implementing the recommendations in the new CTG would notbe considered backsliding.

2. Are the coating type categories in the new CTG considered by the EPA to be coating types that
were unregulated by the original GS recommendations or is this a situation where these specific coatings were covered under the original guidance, but the EPA has re-evaluated what is technically feasible for these specialty coating types? What data was used to make this determination?

3. In light of the varying stringency of the recommended coating standards in these new CTG documents, how did the EPA determine the overall reduction benefit? Additional information, beyond what ·is provided in the docket, is necessary for the state to determine whether implementing**th~** 

### CTG recommendations will result in a net VOC reduction in the specific nonattainment areas where these CTG recommendations would be. implemented.

The EPA's clarification regarding these issues is critical for the Air Quality Division to complete our evaluation of the CTG recommendations and proceed with any recommendation to TCEQ's executive management and the commission regarding the potential implementation of the EPA's CTG recommendations. Therefore, your expeditious response regarding these issues is greatly appreciated. You may contact me at 512-239-4696. 

### Sincerely, 

# ?JJCcL

psusanaM. Hildebrand, P.E. Director, Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality SMH/LA/sy

Enclosures: References Emission Limit Comparison Table

cc: Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6 Ms. Ellen Belk, EPA Region 6 Mr. Bruce Moore, EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Mr. Bill Johnson, EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards**~--~~~~~~~~~-.**Mr. William T. Harnett Page 3 December 8, 2008

bee: Theresa Pella Ashley Forbes VincentMeiller Lindley Anderson Amy Browning

### Enclosure: References

1: Title 30 TAC §115.421(a)(1), Emission Specifications for Large Appliance Coating (Amended January 17, 2003). 2: Title 30 TAC §115.421(a)(2), Emission Specifications for Metal Furniture Coating (Amended January 17, 2003). 3: Title 30 TAC §115.421(a)(9)(A), Emission Specifications for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating (Amended January 17, 2003). 4: Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources- Volume V: Surface Coating ofLarge Appliances, Publication number EPA-450/2-77-0.34. Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources- Volume III: Surface Coating ofMetal Furniture, Publication number EPA-450/2-77-032. Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

- Volume · VI: Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Publication number EPA-450/2-78- 015

.. 5: Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07- 004. 6: Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture. Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07- 005. 7: Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Publication number EPA453/R-08-003. 8: EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0334-0010.

### Enclosure: Emission Limit Comparison Table
Comparison of30 TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTG Recommended Emission Limits

Chapter 115 CTG Recommended Coating Type* Emission Limit** Emission Limit** · Baked Coatinf:! ·Air-Dried Coatinf:! Large Appliance Coating 

### General, One Com_Q_onent 

### 2.8 2.3 2.3 General, Multi-Component 

### 2.8 2.3 2.8 Extreme High Gloss 

### 2.8 3.0 2.8 Ext1:eme Performance 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Heat Resistant 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Metallic 

### 2.8 3.5 3.5 Preti·eatment Coatings 

### 2.8 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Metal Furniture Coating 

### General, One Component 

### 3.0 2.3 2.3· General, Multi-Component 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 Extreme High Gloss 

### 3.0 3.0 2.8 Extreme Performance 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Heat Resistant 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 ·Metallic 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Pretreatment Coatings 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating 

### General One Component 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 General Multi Com:R_onent 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 Camouflage 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Electric-lnsulating Varnish 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Etching Fillei· 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Extreme High-Gloss 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Extreme Performance 

### 3.5 3.0 3.5 Heat-Resistant 

### 3.5 3.0 3.5 High Performance Architectural 

### 3.0 6.2 6.2 High Temperature 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Metal.lic 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Military Specification 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 Mold-Seal 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Pan Backing 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Prefabricated Architectural 

### 3.0 2.3 3.5 Multi-Component Prefabricated Architectural One- 

### 3.0 2.3 3.5 Component Pretreatment Coatings 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Repair and Touchup 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Silicone Release ' 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Solar-Absorbent 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5**·~-- -~---------~~-----------** Comparison of30 TAC Chapter 115**Emissio~** Limits and 2006-2008 CTGRecommended Emission Limits

Chapter 115 CTG Recommended Coating Type* Emission Limit** Emission Limit** Baked Coating Air-Dried Coating Vacuum-Metalizing 3.0 3.5 3.5 Drum Coating, New, Exterior 3.0 2.8 2.8 Drum**Coating~** New, Interior 4.3 3.5 3.5 Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 3.0 3.5 3.5 Exterior Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 4.3 4.2 4.2 Interior 

## *The CTG recommended emission limits for coating types listed in red font are less stringent than existing Chapter 115 limits. 

## ** Limit expressed in pounds per gallon ofcoating (minus water and exempt solvent) delivered to the application system.

### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ORDER ADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Docket No. 2009-1127-SIP

On March 10, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission), during a public meeting, considered adoption of the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Update, 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 117 Rule Revision Noninterference Demonstration, and Modified Failure-to-Attain Contingency Plan State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision (DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision). The Commission adopts this SIP revision demonstrating
as required by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) Amendments under§§ 172(c)(l), 182(b)(2) and 182(f),
an updated RACT determination for the DFW area that documents the state's RACT analysis of 11 control technique guidelines (CTG) documents issued between 2006 and 2008 by the EPA. 

### In addition to the RACT update, this SIP revision incorporates associated 30 TAC Chapter 115 and 30 TAC Chapter 117 rule revisions adopted concurrently into the Texas SIP, demonstrates noninterference ofthe Chapter 117 rule revision with the SIP, and includes a modified failure-to-attain contingency plan.

Under Tex. Health & 

### Safety Code Ann. §§ 382.011, 382.012, and 382.023 (Vernon 2008), the Commission has the authority to control the quality of the state's air and to issue orders consistent with the policies and purposes ofthe Texas Clean AirAct, Chapter 382 ofthe Tex. Health & 

### Safety Code. Notice ofthe proposed SIP revision was published for comment in the October 9, 2009 issue of the 

### Texas Register (34 TexReg 7133).

Pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 51.102 and after proper notice, the Commission conducted public hearings to consider the revision to the SIP. Proper notice included prominent advertisement in the areas affected at least 30 days prior to the dates of the hearings. Public hearings were held in Austin, Texas on October 29, 2009 and in Fort Worth, Texas on November 2, 2009.

The Commission circulated hearing notices of its intended action to the public, including interested persons, the Regional Administrator of the EPA, and all applicable local air pollution control agencies. The public was invited to submit data, views, and recommendations on the proposed SIP revision, either orally or in writing, at the hearings or during the comment period. Prior to the scheduled hearings, copies ofthe proposed SIP revision were available for public inspection at the Commission's central office and on the Commission's Web site.
Data, views, and recommendations of interested persons regarding the proposed SIP revision were submitted to the Commission during the comment period, and were considered by the Commission as reflected in the analysis oftestimony incorporated by reference to this Order. The Commission finds that the analysis of testimony includes the names of all interested groups or associations offering comment on the proposed SIP revision and their position concerning the same.

### IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that the DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision incorporated by reference to this Order is hereby adopted. The adopted revision to the SIP is incorporated by reference in this Order as if set forth at length verbatim in this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that on behalfofthe Commission, the Chairman should transmit a copy of this Order, together with the adopted revision to the SIP, to the Regional Administrator ofEPA as aproposed revision to the Texas SIP pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, codified at 42 U.S. Code Ann.§§ 7401- 767lq, as amended.

If

### any portion ofthis Order is for any reason held to be invalid by a court ofcompetentjurisdiction, the invalidity ofany portion shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions.

Dateissued: 

# MAR 1 5 2010 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY