[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74818-74892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28930]



[[Page 74817]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 241

December 16, 2014

Part II





 Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 52





 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and Oklahoma; 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan to Address Pollution Affecting Visibility and 
Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze and 
Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 74818]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0754; FRL-9920-11-Region-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and 
Oklahoma; Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate 
Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting 
Visibility and Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional 
Haze and Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Texas 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) received from the State of Texas on 
March 31, 2009, that addresses regional haze for the first planning 
period from 2008 through 2018. This SIP revision was submitted to 
address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules 
that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any existing, 
manmade impairment of visibility to assure reasonable progress toward 
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. The EPA is proposing to partially approve this SIP revision as 
meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program, including 
the majority of the requirement to procure and install the Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) at certain categories of existing 
major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977. The EPA is also 
proposing to partially disapprove the SIP revision for not adequately 
addressing other requirements of the regional haze program related to 
reasonable progress, the long-term strategy, and the calculation of 
natural visibility conditions. The EPA is also proposing to disapprove 
SIP revisions submitted by Texas for the purpose of addressing the 
requirements of the CAA regarding interference with other states' 
programs for visibility protection for the 1997 fine particulate matter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 
1997 ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS, the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>) NAAQS, and the 2010 
Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) NAAQS.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing to partially disapprove a revision to 
the Oklahoma SIP submitted in February 19, 2010, that addresses 
regional haze for the first planning period. Specifically, EPA is 
proposing to disapprove Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for 
the Wichita Mountains Class I area.
    The EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for each 
Texas and Oklahoma to remedy certain deficiencies in the SIP. The 
proposed FIP would implement SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits on fifteen 
Texas sources as part of a long-term strategy for making reasonable 
progress at three Class I areas in Texas and Oklahoma, sets new RPGs 
for the Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, and Wichita Mountains Class 
I areas, and substitutes Texas' reliance on the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR) to satisfy BART requirements at its EGUs with reliance on 
CAIR's successor, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Our 
proposed FIP for Oklahoma does not establish any additional 
requirements on sources within Oklahoma. The EPA is taking this action 
under the CAA.
    Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2015.
    Public Hearings. EPA is holding open houses--for the purpose of 
providing additional information and informal discussion for our 
proposal, and public hearings--to accept oral comments into the record, 
as follows:

    Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015.
    Time: Open House: 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Public hearing: 4:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. (including short break).
    Location: Eastview Campus, Austin Community College, Building 
8500, Room 8500, 3401 Webberville Road, Austin, Texas 78702.

    Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015.
    Time: Open House: 2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.
    Public hearing: 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
    Location: Metro Technology Centers, Springlake Campus, Business 
Conference Center Meeting, Room H, 1900 Springlake Drive, Oklahoma 
City, Oklahoma 73111.

    The public hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity 
to present information and opinions to EPA concerning our proposal. 
Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in 
the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted 
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as 
any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public 
hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearings. 
When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to 
all significant oral and written comments received on our proposal. To 
provide opportunities for questions and discussion, we will hold an 
open house prior to each public hearing. During the open house, EPA 
staff will be available to informally answer questions on our proposed 
action. Any comments made to EPA staff during an open house must still 
be provided orally during one of the public hearings, or formally in 
writing within 30 days after completion of the hearings, in order to be 
considered in the record.
    At the public hearings, the hearing officer may limit the time 
available for each commenter to address the proposal to three minutes 
or less if the hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will 
not be providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or 
make computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written 
or oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public 
hearings. Verbatim English language transcripts of the hearing and 
written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2014-0754, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85d7b3dad1ddcaced7e0e2eceaebe4e9cde4ffe0c5e0f5e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c496f29b909c8b8f96a1a3adabaaa5a88ca5bea184a1b4a5eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    <bullet> Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not 
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
    <bullet> Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-
0754. Our policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an

[[Page 74819]]

``anonymous access'' system, which means we will not know your identity 
or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 
comment. If you send an email comment directly to us without going 
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be 
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects 
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an 
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two 
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page 
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, 
please check in at our Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The Texas regional haze SIP is available online at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/bart/haze_sip.html. It is also 
available for public inspection during official business hours, by 
appointment, at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office 
of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
    The Oklahoma regional haze SIP is available online at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/SIP/index.htm. It is also available for public inspection during official 
business hours, by appointment, at the Oklahoma Department of 
Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, 707 North Robinson Avenue, 
Oklahoma City, OK 73102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-7186; fax number 214-
665-7263; email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88c3e7faecf2e1a6e2e7edc8edf8e9a6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4902263b2d33206723262c092c3928672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Interstate Transport of Air Pollutants and Visibility 
Protection
    C. Our Prior Limited Disapproval of Texas' Regional Haze 
Concerning CAIR
II. Why are we acting on the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs 
simultaneously?
III. Summary of Our Proposed Actions
    A. Texas
    B. Oklahoma
IV. Discussion of the Regional Haze Rule Requirements as They Relate 
to Visibility Transport
    A. Introduction
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    C. Our Interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3)
V. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Texas Regional Haze 
SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
    3. Natural Visibility Impairment
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
    C. Evaluation of Texas' Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
    2. Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor Analysis
    3. Our Analysis of Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor 
Analysis
    4. Texas' Assertion that Its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
    5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
    D. Evaluation of Texas' BART Determinations
    1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    3. Texas' BART Rule
    E. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Texas' Long-Term Strategy Consultation
    2. Texas' Share of Reductions in Other States' Progress Goals
    3. Texas' Technical Basis for Its Long-Term Strategy
    4. Texas' Consideration of the Long-Term Strategy Factors
    F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    H. Federal Land Manager Consultation
    I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
    J. Future Determination of the Adequacy of the Existing 
Implementation Plan
VI. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Remaining Parts of 
the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP
    A. Previous Rulemakings on the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP
    B. Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
    2. Reasonable Progress Consultation
    3. The Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress ``Four Factor'' Analysis
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
    6. Oklahoma's Assertion That Its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
    7. Our Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals for 
the Wichita Mountains
VII. Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas Regional Haze FIPs
    A. Summary of Our Proposed Texas FIP
    B. Summary of Our Proposed Oklahoma FIP
    C. Technical Overview of Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas FIPs
    D. Approach to Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
    1. Time Necessary for Compliance, and the Oklahoma and Texas 
RPGs
    2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of 
Compliance
    3. Remaining Useful Life
    4. Analysis of the PPG Flat Glass Plant
    E. Use of Confidential Business Information
    F. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber and DSI 
Cost Results
    G. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber Upgrade 
Cost Results
    H. Summary of the Modeled Benefits of Emission Controls
    1. Visibility Benefits of DSI, SDA, and Wet FGD
    2. Visibility Benefits of Scrubber Upgrades
    I. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy 
Determinations
    1. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy 
Determination for San Miguel
    2. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy 
Determination for Units Other Than San Miguel
    3. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy 
Determination for Scrubber Upgrades
    4. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy 
Determination for Scrubber Retrofits
    J. Treatment of Potential Error in Scrubber Upgrade Efficiency 
Calculations
    K. Proposed Natural Conditions for the Texas Class I Areas
    L. Calculation of Visibility Impairment for the Texas Class I 
Areas
    M. Uniform Rates of Progress and the Emission Reductions Needed 
To Achieve Them

[[Page 74820]]

    N. Reasonable Progress Goals and Demonstration
VIII. Our Evaluation of the Texas Infrastructure SIP Submittals for 
Interstate Transport and Visibility Protection
IX. Proposed Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect
X. Proposed Action
    A. Texas Regional Haze
    B. Oklahoma Regional Haze
    C. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution and Visibility 
Protection
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) 
and their precursors. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere 
to form PM<INF>2.5</INF>, which also impair visibility by scattering 
and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, 
and visible distance that one can see. PM<INF>2.5</INF> also can cause 
serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to 
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I Federal 
areas \2\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, 
and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air 
pollution.\3\ In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United 
States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about 
one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural 
conditions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas (or 
Class I areas for short) consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 
acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 
7, 1977. See CAA section 162(a) below. In accordance with section 
169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is 
identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 
1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent 
changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA section 162(a). 
Although States and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 
which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the 
requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of 
the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each 
mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a ``Federal 
Land Manager'' (FLM). See CAA section 302(i).
    We use the term, ``Class I Federal Area'' and ``Class I Area'' 
interchangeably throughout this document.
    \3\ 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from man-made air pollution.'' \5\ The terms 
``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment'' are defined 
in the CAA to include a reduction in visual range and atmospheric 
discoloration.\6\ Section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we promulgated 
regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is 
``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of 
sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' 
(RAVI).\7\ These regulations represented the first phase in addressing 
visibility impairment. We deferred action on regional haze that 
emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and 
scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and 
visibility impairment improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA section 169A(a)(1).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added Section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 
1999.\8\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulations provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in our visibility 
protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. For a detailed description 
of those requirements, please refer to Section IV of our previous 
action on the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.\9\ The requirement to submit 
a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the first SIP 
addressing regional haze visibility impairment for the first ten year 
planning period no later than December 17, 2007.\10\ States are 
required to submit subsequent SIPs every ten years leading up to 2064, 
when the national goal of a return to natural visibility at all Class I 
areas is scheduled to be realized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart P.
    \9\ 76 FR 16168, 16172-75 (Mar. 22, 2011).
    \10\ 40 CFR 51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have acted on all of the states' regional haze SIPs for the 
first planning period except for the Texas regional haze SIP and 
certain portions of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP. Previously, we 
proposed a partial approval and partial disapproval of, and a FIP for 
portions of the Oklahoma SIP on March 22, 2011. We finalized that 
action on December 28, 2011.\11\ However, for the reasons we explain 
below, we did not complete our review of Oklahoma's regional haze SIP. 
Due to the special interrelationship of the visibility impairing 
transport of pollution between Texas and Oklahoma, we are proposing 
action on the remaining portions of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP and 
all portions of the Texas regional haze SIP simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Proposal: 76 FR 16168 (March 22, 2011). Final: 76 FR 81728 
(December 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Interstate Transport of Air Pollutants and Visibility Protection

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires that states have a 
SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing provisions prohibiting 
emissions from within a state from interfering with measures required 
to be included in the implementation plan for any other state under the 
provisions of Part C of the CAA protecting visibility. Because of the 
impacts on visibility from the interstate transport of pollutants, we 
interpret this ``good neighbor'' provision in Section 110 of CAA as 
requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit 
emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set 
to protect Class I areas in other states. This is consistent with the 
requirements in the regional haze program which explicitly require each 
state to address its share of the emission reductions needed to meet 
the reasonable progress goals for surrounding Class I areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 64 FR 35714, 35735 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIPs addressing the good neighbor provisions of Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA are due to us within three years after 
the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or within such shorter 
period as we may prescribe).\13\ In this action, we propose to take 
action on SIP

[[Page 74821]]

revisions addressing these good neighbor requirements that were 
submitted by Texas following promulgation of the following new or 
revised NAAQS: (1) 1997 8-hour ozone, (2) 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> (annual 
and 24 hour), (3) 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> (24-hour), (4) 2008 8-hour 
ozone, (5) 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> and (6) 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CAA Section 110(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, we made a finding that a number of states, including 
Texas, did not submit SIPs to address the interstate transport of air 
pollution and visibility protection for the 1997 ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\14\ Pursuant to Section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, 
this finding started a 24 month time period for us to promulgate a FIP 
to address interstate transport of air pollution and visibility 
protection, unless a SIP was approved during that time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 70 FR 21147 (April 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Texas did not make a timely SIP submittal to address the 
interstate transport of air pollution and visibility protection for the 
1997 ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, Texas later made SIP submittals 
for all new or revised NAAQS. Specifically, Texas made the following 
submittals for new or revised NAAQS that pertain to this action:
    <bullet> April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
(24-hour and annual)
    <bullet> May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> (24-
hour and annual)
    <bullet> November 23, 2009: 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
    <bullet> December 7, 2012: 2010 NO<INF>2</INF>
    <bullet> December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour Ozone
    <bullet> May 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> (Primary NAAQS)
    We previously acted on portions of the April 4, 2008, and November 
23, 2009, Texas SIP submittals that addressed other ``infrastructure'' 
elements specified in CAA Section 110(a)(2), necessary to implement, 
maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\15\ Texas' submittals addressing transport for 
the ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>2</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS 
may be accessed through the www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. 
EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0754). Texas indicated in the submittals that its 
regional haze SIP fulfilled its obligation for addressing emissions 
that would interfere with measures required to be included in the SIP 
for any other state to protect visibility. Because of our 2005 finding 
that Texas did not make a timely SIP submission for the 1997 ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and the expiration of the 24-month FIP clock, we 
are obligated to either approve the SIP or, disapprove the SIP and 
promulgate a FIP to address interstate transport of air pollution and 
visibility protection for Texas emissions for the 1997 ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. We believe our proposal addresses this 
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 76 FR 81371 (December 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Our Prior Limited Disapproval of Texas' Regional Haze SIP Concerning 
CAIR

    In 2005, we promulgated CAIR, which required 28 states and the 
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> that significantly contribute to, or interfere with 
maintenance of, the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\16\ Also 
in 2005, we determined that states could rely on CAIR to meet certain 
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.\17\ In particular, we amended 
our regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-
and-trade programs under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved 
CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 
need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate and 
maintain BART for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>.\18\ A 
number of states, including Texas, relied on CAIR in their regional 
haze SIPs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> and as an element of their long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \17\ 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
    \18\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (Aug. 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following our determination in 2005 that states could rely on CAIR 
in their regional haze SIPs, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on 
several petitions challenging CAIR and remanded CAIR to us.\19\ We 
issued a new rule in 2011 to replace CAIR.\20\ The Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which replaced CAIR, also requires a number of 
states to improve air quality by reducing SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions that cross state lines and significantly 
contribute to ozone and/or fine particulate pollution in other states. 
We amended our regulations in 2012 to allow CSAPR to serve as an 
alternative to SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> BART for EGUs in 
states in the CSAPR region.\21\ In that same rulemaking, we also 
finalized a limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 14 states, 
including Texas. Although at the time that we completed our limited 
disapproval of these SIPs, CAIR remained in place pursuant to an order 
of the D.C. Circuit, we explained that as CAIR had been remanded, it 
remained in place temporarily. We also finalized FIPs replacing 
reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR as an alternative to BART for 
several states but not for Texas.\22\ We more fully explained the basis 
for our limited disapproval in that rulemaking and are not taking 
comment on our limited disapproval of Texas' regional haze SIP in this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F3d 896; modified by 550 F.3d 
1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \20\ 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
    \21\ 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
    \22\ 77 FR 33642, 33643. (June 7, 2012)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why are we acting on the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs 
simultaneously?

    As we explained in our 2011 proposed rulemaking on the Oklahoma 
regional haze SIP,\23\ we did not take action on Oklahoma's RPGs for 
the Wichita Mountains at that time because we first had to evaluate and 
act upon the regional haze SIP submitted by Texas. To properly assess 
whether Oklahoma had satisfied the reasonable progress requirements of 
Section 51.308(d)(1), which include the requirement to set RPGs that 
take into account the visibility improvement that will result from 
reasonable controls in upwind states, we concluded that we had to 
review and evaluate Texas' regional haze SIP before proposing action on 
Oklahoma's RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 76 FR 16168 (March 22, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our Regional Haze Rule, we stated that ``successful 
implementation of the regional haze program will involve long-term 
regional coordination among States,'' and that ``States will need to 
develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into 
account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction to air quality in 
another.'' \24\ We also noted that RPGs and Long-Term Strategies (long-
term strategies) were intricately linked. The Regional Haze Rule 
requires each state submitting a long-term strategy to (1) consult with 
other states to develop coordinated emission strategies; (2) 
demonstrate that the SIP includes all measures necessary for the state 
to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs 
for the Class I areas it affects; (3) document the technical basis the 
state used to determine its apportionment of emission reduction 
obligations for the Class I areas it affects; (4) consider all 
anthropogenic sources of emissions; and (5) consider a list of seven 
other enumerated factors.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 64 FR 35714, 35728 (July 1, 1999).
    \25\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed within this proposal and within our Technical Support 
Documents (TSDs), the Texas and Oklahoma regional haze SIPs reveal that 
sources in Texas not only significantly impact visibility in the 
Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in

[[Page 74822]]

Oklahoma, but that the impacts from Texas point sources are shown to be 
several times greater than the impact from Oklahoma's own point 
sources. Additionally, information in the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP 
demonstrates that even if every source in Oklahoma were fully 
controlled, the Wichita Mountains would not meet the Uniform Rate of 
Progress (URP) in 2018 absent additional emission reductions from 
upwind sources, principally Texas. As detailed in the Texas SIP, 
however, Texas determined that no additional controls at its sources 
were warranted during the first planning period to help achieve 
reasonable progress at the Wichita Mountains, and Oklahoma did not 
request any additional reductions from Texas. As a result, Oklahoma set 
RPGs for the Wichita Mountains that do not reflect any reasonable 
emission reductions from Texas beyond those that will be achieved by 
compliance with other requirements of the CAA.
    This situation demonstrates the difficulties states face when 
working to address air pollution problems that do not respect state 
borders. It also highlights the respective roles and responsibilities 
of upwind and downwind states in addressing visibility impairment in 
national parks and wilderness areas. In order to address these 
intricately intertwined issues between Oklahoma and Texas, it is 
appropriate to review them simultaneously.

III. Summary of Our Proposed Actions

A. Texas

    We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove the 
regional haze SIP that Texas submitted to us on March 31, 2009, to meet 
the requirements of Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule. 
Specifically, we propose to take action on Texas' BART determinations, 
RPGs for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas, and long-
term strategy for making reasonable progress at all Class I areas 
impacted by emissions from Texas sources. We are also proposing to take 
action on the requirements that support these major components of the 
state's plan, including Texas' calculations of baseline and natural 
visibility conditions, calculation of the URP, identification of 
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment within the state, and 
Texas' monitoring strategy. We take very seriously a decision to 
propose disapproval of provisions in Texas' plan, as we believe that it 
is preferable that all emission control requirements needed to protect 
visibility be implemented through the Texas SIP. However, in order to 
approve the state's plan, we must be able to find that the state's plan 
is consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Our proposed actions 
are summarized as follows:
    BART: We propose to approve Texas' determination of which sources 
in the state are BART-eligible. We also propose to approve Texas' 
determination that none of the state's BART-eligible non-EGUs are 
subject to the BART requirements because they are not reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I areas. We propose to approve the provisions in Texas' BART 
rules at 30 Tex. Admin. Code (TAC) 116.1500--116.1540, with the 
exception of 30 TAC 116.1510(d), which relies on CAIR. With respect to 
EGUs, we previously issued a limited disapproval of the Texas regional 
haze SIP due to Texas' reliance on CAIR to satisfy the BART 
requirements. This action does not impact the limited disapproval.
    Reasonable Progress Goals: We propose to disapprove Texas' RPGs for 
2018 on the 20-percent least impaired and 20-percent most impaired days 
for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas. We propose to 
find that the state has not demonstrated that its RPGs provide for 
reasonable progress towards meeting the national visibility goal. 
Specifically, we propose to find that Texas did not satisfy several of 
the requirements at Section 51.308(d)(1) with regard to setting RPGs, 
most notably the requirement to reasonably consider the four statutory 
reasonable progress factors and the requirement to adequately justify 
RPGs that are less stringent than the URP.
    Calculations of Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions: We 
propose to approve Texas' calculation of baseline visibility conditions 
at the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas. We propose to 
disapprove Texas' calculation of natural visibility conditions at these 
Class I areas. Because we propose to disapprove Texas' calculation of 
natural visibility conditions, we must also propose to disapprove 
Texas' calculation of the URP.
    Long-Term Strategy: We propose to disapprove Texas' long-term 
strategy because it does not sufficiently address regional haze 
visibility impairment for all Class I areas impacted by Texas sources. 
Specifically, we propose to find that Texas did not satisfy several of 
the requirements of Section 51.308(d)(3) with regard to developing 
long-term strategies. We propose to find that Texas' long-term strategy 
does not include all measures necessary to obtain the state's share of 
emission reductions needed to make reasonable progress in the Wichita 
Mountains Class I area in Oklahoma. We also propose to find that the 
technical basis on which Texas relied to determine its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable 
progress in Wichita Mountains was inadequate. Finally, we propose to 
find that Texas did not adequately consider the emissions limitations 
and schedules for compliance needed to achieve reasonable progress in 
Big Bend, Guadalupe Mountains, or Wichita Mountains. We propose to find 
that Texas satisfied the remaining long-term strategy requirements, 
including the identification of anthropogenic sources of visibility 
impairment and the consideration of emission reductions due to ongoing 
air pollution control programs; measures to mitigate the impacts of 
construction activities; source retirement and replacement schedules; 
smoke management techniques; enforceability; and projected changes in 
emissions.
    Monitoring Strategy: We propose to approve Texas' monitoring 
strategy.
    To remedy the deficiencies identified above, we propose a FIP for 
Texas that consists of a long-term strategy with SO<INF>2</INF> 
emission limits for fifteen coal-fired EGUs that impact visibility in 
multiple Class I areas. We propose that these SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limits, listed below in Table 1, be met on a 30-boiler-operating-day 
rolling average.

      Table 1--Proposed 30-Boiler-Operating-Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed SO2
                          Unit                            emission limit
                                                            (lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades:                                        ..............
    Sandow 4............................................            0.20
    Martin Lake 1.......................................            0.12
    Martin Lake 2.......................................            0.12
    Martin Lake 3.......................................            0.11
    Monticello 3........................................            0.06
    Limestone 2.........................................            0.08
    Limestone 1.........................................            0.08
    San Miguel*.........................................            0.60
Scrubber Retrofits:                                       ..............
    Big Brown 1.........................................            0.04
    Big Brown 2.........................................            0.04
    Monticello 1........................................            0.04
    Monticello 2........................................            0.04
    Coleto Creek 1......................................            0.04
    Tolk 172B...........................................            0.06
    Tolk 171B...........................................            0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
  to install any additional control in order to comply with this
  emission limit.

    We propose to find that these emission limits will result in 
emission reductions that will achieve reasonable progress at Big Bend, 
the Guadalupe

[[Page 74823]]

Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains. These emission limits reflect the 
degree of emission reduction that can be achieved by seven 
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber retrofits and seven SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber 
upgrades,\26\ but we do not prescribe how the facilities must meet 
these emission limits. We determined that these emission limits are 
necessary to achieve reasonable progress based on our four-factor 
analysis, which demonstrates that the underlying controls are cost-
effective and result in significant visibility improvement. We propose 
that those sources whose proposed emission limits can be achieved by 
installing scrubber retrofits must comply with the emission limits 
within five years of the effective date of our final rule. We propose 
that those sources whose emission limits can be achieved by conducting 
scrubber upgrades must comply with the emission limits within three 
years of the effective date of our final rule, except for San Miguel, 
for which we propose compliance within one year because that unit has 
been recently meeting our proposed emission limit. Our proposed FIP 
also includes new RPGs for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains that we 
believe reflect the visibility improvement that will result from the 
aforementioned SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits, as well as new 
calculations of the natural visibility conditions for these Class I 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As we explain later in our notice, San Miguel has already 
upgraded its scrubber and we are proposing that it maintain an 
emission rate consistent with recent monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to replace Texas' reliance on CAIR to satisfy the BART 
requirement for EGUs with reliance on CSAPR.
    Finally, we are also proposing to disapprove the portions of the 
infrastructure SIP revisions submitted by Texas to address the 
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 
visibility. This provision of the CAA requires that each state's SIP 
have adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions from 
interfering with measures required to protect visibility in any other 
state. We refer to this and similar provisions pertaining to other 
states' air quality as the ``good-neighbor'' requirements. We propose 
to disapprove portions of the Texas' infrastructure SIP revisions 
addressing the ``good-neighbor'' visibility protection requirements for 
the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS, and the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. We propose to find that the 
controls in our proposed FIP address the deficiencies in Texas' 
regional haze SIP, in combination with the existing controls that Texas 
has relied upon in its regional haze SIP, will serve to prevent 
emissions from sources in Texas from interfering with measures required 
to protect visibility in other states.

B. Oklahoma

    We propose to partially disapprove the regional haze SIP that 
Oklahoma submitted to us on February 19, 2010, to meet the requirements 
of Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule. Specifically, we propose to 
disapprove Oklahoma's RPGs for 2018 on the 20-percent least impaired 
and 20-percent most impaired days for the Wichita Mountains Class I 
area. We propose to find that Oklahoma has not adequately demonstrated 
that its RPGs provide for reasonable progress towards meeting the 
national visibility goal. Specifically, we propose to find that 
Oklahoma did not satisfy several of the requirements at Section 
51.308(d)(1) with regard to setting RPGs, including the requirement to 
adequately consult with other states that may reasonably be anticipated 
to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita 
Mountains and the requirement to adequately justify RPGs that are less 
stringent than the URP.
    To remedy the deficiencies identified above, we propose a FIP for 
Oklahoma that includes revised RPGs for the Wichita Mountains that 
reflect the visibility improvement that will result from the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits in our long-term strategy for Texas 
included in our proposed FIP. Our proposed FIP for Oklahoma does not 
establish any additional requirements on sources within the state.

IV. Discussion of the Regional Haze Rule Requirements as They Relate to 
Visibility Transport

A. Introduction

    The Texas and Oklahoma regional haze SIPs reveal that sources in 
Texas not only impact visibility in the Wichita Mountains National 
Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, but that the impact from sources in Texas 
is several times greater than the impact from Oklahoma's own sources. 
Additionally, the Oklahoma regional haze SIP demonstrates that, even if 
every source in Oklahoma were fully controlled, the Wichita Mountains 
would not meet the URP in 2018 absent additional emission reductions 
from upwind sources. Oklahoma and Texas discussed the significant 
contribution of sources in Texas to visibility impairment in Wichita 
Mountains during the interstate consultation process required by the 
Regional Haze Rule. Ultimately, however, Texas determined that no 
additional controls at its sources were warranted during the first 
planning period to help achieve reasonable progress at the Wichita 
Mountains, and Oklahoma did not request any additional reductions from 
Texas. As a result, Oklahoma set a reasonable progress goal for Wichita 
Mountains that does not achieve the URP and which does not reflect any 
emission reductions from Texas beyond those that will be achieved by 
compliance with other requirements of the CAA. During the notice-and-
comment period on Oklahoma's proposed SIP, several commenters 
criticized Oklahoma for not requesting additional reductions from 
Texas. They argued that without such reductions, Oklahoma would not 
make reasonable progress toward the national goal at the Wichita 
Mountains. In responding to these comments, Oklahoma acknowledged that 
sources in Texas had significant impacts on visibility in Wichita 
Mountains, but maintained that it did not have the regulatory authority 
to require emission reductions in other states. Oklahoma asserted that 
only Texas and the EPA could require such reductions.
    This situation demonstrates the difficulties states face when 
working to address air pollution problems that do not respect state 
borders. It also shows that some uncertainty exists as to the 
respective roles and responsibilities of upwind and downwind states in 
addressing visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness 
areas. Consequently, we believe that it is necessary at this time to 
provide clarification to the states on this issue, which hereafter will 
be referred to generally as the issue of ``visibility transport.'' 
Specifically, this section describes the regulatory requirements found 
at 40 CFR Sections 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3), which pertain to RPGs, 
interstate consultation, and long-term strategies, and explains how 
these requirements apply in the visibility-transport context. This 
section also explains how our interpretation of these requirements is 
consistent with the provisions of the CAA that seek to prevent 
interstate transport of visibility-impairing pollutants,\27\ achieve 
reasonable progress toward the national goal,\28\ and address regional 
haze.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    \28\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2).
    \29\ Id. Section 7492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Congress enacted Section 169A as part of the 1977 CAA Amendments,

[[Page 74824]]

declaring as a national goal ``the prevention of any future, and the 
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class 
I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \30\ The 
term ``mandatory Class I Federal areas'' refers to international parks, 
national wilderness areas and memorial parks that exceed 5,000 acres in 
size, and national parks that exceed 6,000 acres in size, which were in 
existence on August 7, 1977.\31\ Congress directed the Secretary of the 
Interior, in consultation with the federal land managers to review all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas in the country and to identify those 
where visibility was an important value.\32\ Congress then directed us 
to confer with the Secretary of the Interior regarding the results of 
his review and to promulgate a final list of mandatory Class I Federal 
areas that would become subject to the protections of Section 169A.\33\ 
On November 30, 1979, we finalized a list of 156 mandatory Class I 
Federal areas deserving of such protection.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. Section 7491(a)(1).
    \31\ Id. Section 7472(a). Although we often use the term, 
``Class I area'' within this document, we mean, ``Mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.''
    \32\ Id. Section 7491(a)(2).
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ ``National Visibility Goal for Federal Class I Areas; 
Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas Where Visibility 
Is an Important Value,'' 44 FR 69,122 (Nov. 30, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress also required us to issue regulations that would provide 
guidelines to the states on appropriate techniques and methods for 
identifying and measuring visibility impairment; modeling the extent to 
which manmade air pollution causes or contributes to such impairment; 
and preventing and remedying such pollution and impairment.\35\ In 
addition, Congress required our regulations to direct both states that 
contained mandatory Class I Federal areas, and states ``the emissions 
from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
impairment of visibility in any such area,'' to include three specific 
components in their SIPs.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(b)(1).
    \36\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first component consists of ``emission limitations, schedules 
of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable 
progress toward meeting the national goal.'' \37\ In determining what 
constitutes ``reasonable progress,'' Congress directed states to take 
into consideration four statutory factors: (1) The costs of compliance, 
(2) the time necessary for compliance, (3) the energy and non-air 
quality impacts of compliance, and (4) the remaining useful life of any 
existing source subject to such requirements.\38\ The second component 
is a requirement that a specified group of older major stationary 
sources ``procure, install, and operate, as expeditiously as 
practicable . . . the best available retrofit technology,'' more 
commonly referred to as BART.\39\ Like the emission limitations 
required to make reasonable progress, the emission limitations 
representing BART must be determined by taking into consideration a 
list of statutory factors.\40\ Lastly, the third component consists of 
``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable 
progress toward the national goal.'' \41\ This section focuses 
specifically on the first and third components: Reasonable progress and 
long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id. Section 7491(g)(1).
    \39\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2)(A).
    \40\ Id. Section 7491(g)(2).
    \41\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to enacting Section 169A, Congress also amended Section 
110 of the CAA to require that all SIPs ``contain adequate provisions 
prohibiting . . . any source or other type of emissions activity within 
the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will . . . 
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 
implementation plan for any other State . . . to protect visibility.'' 
\42\ A Senate Committee Report described this provision and similar 
requirements as being ``intended to equalize the positions of the 
States with respect to interstate pollution by making a source at least 
as responsible for polluting another State as it would be for polluting 
its own State.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    \43\ S. Rep. No. 95-127, at 41 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with Congress's mandate, we issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking titled, ``Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas,'' 
on May 22, 1980.\44\ In that notice, we proposed a phased approach to 
combating visibility impairment.\45\ In the first phase, we intended to 
address visibility impairment attributable to ``a single source or 
small group of sources,'' such as plume blight, which could be 
identified using visual observation or other simple monitoring 
techniques.\46\ We referred to this type of visibility impairment as 
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment,'' or RAVI.\47\ Then, 
once modeling and monitoring techniques had improved sufficiently, we 
intended to engage in a second phase of rulemaking to address the more 
complex problem of regional haze,\48\ which we defined as ``visibility 
impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from 
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ ``Visibility Protection for Class I Areas,'' 45 FR 34762 
(May 22, 1980).
    \45\ 45 FR 34763/3.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ 40 CFRCFR Section 51.301.
    \48\ 45 FR 34763/3.
    \49\ 40 CFRCFR Section 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We finalized our first phase of rulemaking on December 2, 1980.\50\ 
These regulations, hereafter referred to as the ``RAVI Rule,'' applied 
only to the 36 states that contain mandatory Class I Federal areas.\51\ 
Notably, the RAVI Rule did not apply to upwind states, i.e., those 
states, ``the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to 
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area,'' 
as required by Section 169A.\52\ Among other things, the RAVI Rule 
authorized the federal land managers to determine whether visibility 
impairment existed in any mandatory Class I Federal area.\53\ The RAVI 
Rule also required states to revise their SIPs to assure reasonable 
progress toward the national goal, to determine whether BART should be 
installed at sources causing visibility impairment certified by the 
federal land managers, and to implement long-term strategies for making 
reasonable progress.\54\ Ultimately, however, we concluded that 
``[p]reliminary indications are that few, if any, existing stationary 
facilities will have to retrofit controls,'' and that ``many of the 
basic elements of an acceptable [long-term] strategy already exist 
within the framework of other air pollution programs.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ ``Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas,'' 45 FR 
80084 (Dec. 2, 1980) (codified at 40 CFR Sections 51.300-307).
    \51\ Id. at 80086/1.
    \52\ See Id. at 80086/1 n.2 (``We did not identify, nor did any 
commenters identify any State that did not contain a mandatory Class 
I Federal area, but which could contain a source the emissions from 
which could reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class 1 Federal area.'').
    \53\ Id. at 80086/3.
    \54\ Id. at 80086/1.
    \55\ Id. at 80088/3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most states did not submit the SIP revisions required by the RAVI 
Rule. To resolve a lawsuit brought by environmental litigants, we 
promulgated FIPs for these states on November 24, 1987.\56\ Despite the 
fact that the federal land managers had certified that visibility 
impairment existed in nearly all mandatory Class I Federal areas, we 
ultimately determined

[[Page 74825]]

that neither BART nor any other controls were necessary to address the 
impairment because it was primarily in the form of regional haze and 
could not be attributed to a single source or small group of sources at 
that time.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ ``State Implementation Plans for Visibility Long-Term 
Strategies, Integral Vistas, and Control Strategies,'' 52 FR 45132 
(Nov. 24, 1987).
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following year, two decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeal 
placed further emphasis on the fact that visibility impairment was 
largely a regional problem. The first case, Vermont v. Thomas,\58\ 
involved the State of Vermont's challenge to our decision not to take 
action on aspects of Vermont's SIP revision that were intended to 
address regional haze. In its SIP revision, Vermont had concluded that 
visibility impairment at the Lye Brook Wilderness Area was not caused 
by plume blight, but rather was comprised of regional haze caused 
primarily by sulfur dioxide emissions from out-of-state sources.\59\ As 
such, only a reduction program that targeted those out-of-state sources 
could assure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. 
Vermont therefore proposed a long-term strategy that included a 
summertime ambient sulfate standard and a 48-state emission reduction 
plan.\60\ Vermont also requested that we disapprove and revise the SIPs 
of the upwind states that were contributing to regional haze in Lye 
Brook and require SIP revisions from those upwind states not currently 
subject to the RAVI Rule.\61\ We agreed with Vermont's assessment of 
the visibility impairment at Lye Brook, but took no action on those 
parts of Vermont's SIP revision aimed at controlling regional haze, 
explaining that they were outside the scope of the RAVI Rule.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Vermont v. Thomas, 850 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1988).
    \59\ Id. at 101.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 
Vermont; Visibility in Federal Class I Areas; Lye Brook 
Wilderness,'' 52 FR 26973 (July 17, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition for review, Vermont argued that our decision not to 
act on the SIP revision in its entirety violated the CAA and the RAVI 
Rule.\63\ The Second Circuit upheld our interpretation, holding that 
Vermont's proposed interstate measures were outside the scope of the 
RAVI Rule and thus were not subject to federal enforcement under the 
CAA. While the court sympathized with Vermont, recognizing ``that 
without federal enforcement of Vermont's plan, little, if any, progress 
will be made on regional haze at Lye Brook,'' the court determined 
that, ``until such time as a federal regional haze program is in place, 
Vermont may not impose its standards on upwind States.'' \64\ The court 
concluded its opinion by stating that it hoped EPA would act quickly to 
create a national program to address regional haze.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Vermont, 850 F.2d at 103-04.
    \64\ Id. at 104.
    \65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second case, Maine v. Thomas,\66\ involved a citizen suit 
brought by seven Northeastern states \67\ and six environmental groups 
in which they sought to compel us to promulgate regulations addressing 
regional haze. The plaintiffs alleged that we had a nondiscretionary 
duty to issue regulations to achieve the national visibility goal by 
August 7, 1979,\68\ and that we had violated that duty because the RAVI 
Rule did not address regional haze and was therefore not a full 
response to the CAA's directive.\69\ The district court rejected that 
argument, explaining that we had affirmatively chosen to take a phased 
approach to issuing visibility regulations when we promulgated the RAVI 
Rule.\70\ The district court therefore viewed the plaintiffs' claim as 
a challenge to the RAVI Rule, which was not cognizable under the CAA's 
citizen-suit provision. Therefore, the court dismissed the suit for 
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\71\ On appeal, the First Circuit 
affirmed the district court's judgment under largely the same 
reasoning.\72\ Like the Second Circuit, however, the court noted that 
EPA had long delayed in promulgating the promised rulemaking to address 
regional haze.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Maine v. Thomas, 690 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Maine 1988).
    \67\ The States were Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
    \68\ See 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(a)(4).
    \69\ Id. at 1108.
    \70\ Id. at 1109.
    \71\ Id. at 1112.
    \72\ Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1989).
    \73\ Id. at 885-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reacting to our delay in promulgating regulations to address 
regional haze and the courts' decisions in Vermont and Maine,\74\ 
Congress enacted Section 169B of the CAA as part of the 1990 CAA 
Amendments.\75\ Congress designed Section 169B to provide regional 
solutions to what was, by definition, a regional problem. To address 
the technical limitations identified by us in the RAVI Rule, Congress 
required us to ``conduct research to identify and evaluate sources and 
source regions of both visibility impairment and regions that provide 
predominantly clean air in Class I areas.'' \76\ This research had to 
include an expansion of visibility monitoring in Class I areas, an 
assessment of the current sources of visibility-impairing pollution, 
the adaptation of regional air quality models for the assessment of 
visibility, and studies of the atmospheric chemistry and physics of 
visibility.\77\ Congress also provided us with the authority to 
establish visibility transport regions and commissions whenever we had 
reason to believe that ``current or projected interstate transport of 
air pollutants from one or more States contributes significantly to 
visibility impairment in Class I areas located in the affected 
States.'' \78\ Once established, the visibility transport commissions 
and their member states were required to assess the available 
scientific and technical data regarding visibility impairment and to 
report back to us with recommendations regarding how existing statutory 
requirements for clean air corridors, new source review, and long-term 
strategies could be employed to reduce such impairment.\79\ Finally, 
Congress required us to carry out our overdue regulatory 
responsibilities under Section 169A, which had to include ``criteria 
for measuring `reasonable progress' toward the national goal'' and a 
requirement that states revise their SIPs within 12 months.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. 2608 (1990) (statement of Sen. 
Tim Wirth); 136 Cong. Rec. 2771 (1990) (statement of Rep. Ron 
Wyden); 136 Cong. Rec. 2875 (statement of Sen. Brock Adams).
    \75\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7492.
    \76\ Id. Section 7492(a)(1).
    \77\ Id.
    \78\ Id. Section 7492(c)(1).
    \79\ Id. Section 7492(d).
    \80\ Id. Section 7492(e)(1) & (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 1997, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
revise the existing visibility regulations to address regional haze, 
commonly referred to as the ``Regional Haze Rule.'' \81\ In that 
notice, we explained that ``[t]he role of regional transport of fine 
particles in contributing to . . . regional haze impairment has been 
well documented by many researchers and recognized as a significant 
issue by many policy makers.'' \82\ Furthermore, we discussed how the 
studies required by the 1990 CAA Amendments had revealed that, ``to 
varying degrees, emissions from each of the contiguous 48 States 
contribute to . . . visibility impairment in at least one mandatory 
Class I Federal area.'' \83\ Consequently, we proposed to expand the 
applicability of the visibility program to all states for the purpose 
of

[[Page 74826]]

addressing regional haze.\84\ We explained that this expansion of 
applicability was consistent with Section 169A(b)(2), which ``requires 
States containing mandatory Class I Federal areas or having emissions 
which `may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
impairment of visibility in any such area' to revise their visibility 
SIPs in order to make reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal.'' \85\ We noted, however, that the expanded 
applicability of the visibility program should not be interpreted to 
mean that control strategies would be necessary in all cases. Instead, 
states should participate in regional air quality planning groups to 
establish and refine their relative contributions to regional haze, 
develop regional recommendations on state apportionment of emission 
reductions and control measure responsibilities, and identify existing 
SIP authorities or other proposed planning requirements necessary to 
address states' contributions to visibility problems in other 
states.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ ``Regional Haze Regulations,'' 62 FR 41138 (July 31, 1997).
    \82\ Id. at 41139.
    \83\ Id. at 41144-45.
    \84\ Id. at 41144.
    \85\ Id.
    \86\ Id. at 41145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To satisfy Congress's mandate that we establish criteria for 
measuring reasonable progress, we proposed to set presumptive 
``reasonable progress targets'' for each Class I area.\87\ Under this 
framework, the reasonable progress targets would provide for 
perceptible improvement of at least 1.0 deciview \88\ over a 10-year or 
15-year period on the 20-percent haziest days and allow no degradation 
from the baseline on the 20-percent clearest days.\89\ States could 
satisfy their reasonable progress obligations under Section 169A for a 
given Class I area by meeting the reasonable progress target for that 
area.\90\ States could also develop alternative targets so long as they 
justified those targets based on the four statutory factors.\91\ 
Finally, states would be required to provide a demonstration of 
reasonable progress every three years and revise their SIPs as 
necessary.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Id. at 41145-47.
    \88\ As we note in the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35725, July 1, 
1999), the ``deciview'' or ``dv'' is an atmospheric haze index that 
expresses changes in visibility. This visibility metric expresses 
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the 
entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely 
hazy conditions.
    \89\ ``Regional Haze Regulations,'' 62 FR 41138 (July 31, 1997) 
at 41446.
    \90\ Id.
    \91\ Id.
    \92\ Id. at 41147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To satisfy the CAA's long-term strategy requirement, we proposed 
that states develop a procedure to determine natural and current 
visibility conditions for each Class I area for the 20-percent haziest 
and 20-percent clearest days.\93\ For Class I areas with existing 
anthropogenic impairment greater than 1.0 deciview, states would be 
required to adopt measures, including BART and a combination of local 
and regional measures from non-BART sources, that would meet the 
reasonable progress targets over a three-year period.\94\ We also 
proposed that the long-term strategies explicitly address the 
contribution by each state needed to meet reasonable progress targets, 
explaining that ``each State is ultimately responsible for determining 
its contribution to ensure reasonable progress in mandatory Class I 
areas affected by its emissions sources and implementing appropriate 
emissions control strategies.'' \95\ We further explained that it would 
consider this information, as well as any relevant regional planning 
analyses, in evaluating a state's long-term strategy.\96\ Finally, we 
proposed requirements that would apply if a state did not meet its 
reasonable progress targets within a three-year period or when a state 
wished to develop alternative progress targets.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Id. at 41153.
    \94\ Id.
    \95\ Id.
    \96\ Id.
    \97\ Id. at 41153-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We finalized the Regional Haze Rule on July 1, 1999.\98\ In the 
final rule, we reiterated that ``[s]uccessful implementation of the 
regional haze program will involve long-term regional coordination 
among States,'' and that ``States will need to develop strategies in 
coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of 
emissions from one jurisdiction to air quality in another.'' \99\ 
Consistent with the proposal, we concluded that all states had sources 
whose emissions were reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
regional haze in at least one Class I area and therefore required all 
states to submit regional haze SIPs.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ ``Regional Haze Regulations,'' 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
    \99\ Id. at 35728.
    \100\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to adverse comments, however, we also made significant 
changes to the proposal. We eliminated the requirement for presumptive 
reasonable progress targets of 1.0 deciview.\101\ Instead, the final 
rule called upon states to establish ``reasonable progress goals,'' or 
RPGs, for each Class I area.\102\ Like the reasonable progress targets, 
the RPGs had to be expressed in deciviews, provide for improvement on 
the 20-percent haziest days, and provide for no degradation on the 20-
percent clearest days.\103\ Unlike the reasonable progress targets, 
however, the RPGs were to be set on a more flexible basis after 
consideration of the statutory factors.\104\ To provide greater equity 
between the RPGs set for the more impaired eastern states and the less 
impaired western states, we also introduced a new analytical 
requirement in the final rule.\105\ This requirement mandated that, for 
each Class I area, states (1) determine the amount of progress needed 
to reach natural background conditions in 60 years; (2) identify the 
URP, over that 60-year period; (3) identify the amount of progress that 
would result if the URP were achieved during the planning period; and 
(4) identify the emissions measures that would be needed to achieve 
that amount of progress and analyze whether the measures were 
reasonable based on the statutory factors.\106\ If a state found that 
the amount of progress necessary to achieve the URP (or some greater 
amount) was reasonable, then the final rule required the state to adopt 
that amount of progress as its RPG.\107\ If a state found that the 
amount of progress necessary to achieve the URP was unreasonable, 
however, then the state could set a less ambitious goal, but only after 
providing an analysis and rationale supporting its determination based 
on the statutory factors.\108\ Additionally, the final rule included a 
new requirement whereby states establishing RPGs had to consult with 
other states that were anticipated to contribute to visibility 
impairment in the Class I area under consideration and describe in 
their SIPs any actions taken to resolve disagreements over the 
apportionment of emission measures necessary to achieve the RPGs.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Id. at 35731.
    \102\ Id.; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    \103\ 64 FR 35731 (July 1, 1999).
    \104\ 64 FR 35731 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
    \105\ 64 FR 35731 (July 1, 1999).
    \106\ Id. at 35732; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
    \107\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999).
    \108\ Id.; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
    \109\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regard to the long-term strategy requirement, we explained that 
the RPGs and the long-term strategies were intricately linked. We 
interpreted the term ``long-term strategy'' as ``the control measures 
that are needed to ensure reasonable progress, together with a 
demonstration that those

[[Page 74827]]

measures will provide for reasonable progress during the 10 to 15 year 
period.'' \110\ We abandoned our proposal to require states to update 
their long-term strategies every three years, providing instead for 
longer ten-year revisions.\111\ We also modified the requirements 
components of the long-term strategy. In brief, the final rule required 
each state submitting a long-term strategy to (1) consult with other 
states to develop coordinated emission management strategies,\112\ (2) 
demonstrate that the SIP includes all measures necessary for the state 
to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs 
for the Class I areas it affects,\113\ (3) document the technical basis 
the state used to determine its apportionment of emission reduction 
obligations for the Class I areas it affects,\114\ (4) consider all 
anthropogenic sources of emissions,\115\ and (5) consider a list of 
seven other enumerated factors.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ 64 FR 35734 (July 1, 1999).
    \111\ Id.; 40 CFR Section 51.308(f).
    \112\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i).
    \113\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    \114\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    \115\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
    \116\ 64 FR 35736-37 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1999, the Regional Haze Rule has been the subject of several 
revisions and legal challenges. Because none of these revisions or 
challenges impacted the regulatory provisions that are the focus of 
this section, each is discussed only in brief. In American Corn Growers 
v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit invalidated the Regional Haze Rule's BART 
provisions because they required states to consider the visibility 
benefits of controls on a group-basis, rather than a source-basis.\117\ 
In 2003, we revised the Regional Haze Rule to incorporate provisions 
that would allow certain Western states and eligible Indian Tribes to 
implement alternative measures in lieu of BART.\118\ Shortly 
thereafter, in Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) v. 
EPA, the D.C. Circuit invalidated aspects of our 2003 revisions for 
using the same type of ``group BART'' approach that the court had 
forbade in American Corn Growers.\119\ In 2005, we revised the Regional 
Haze Rule a second time in order to remedy the defects with the Rule's 
BART provisions that had been identified by the D.C. Circuit in 
American Corn Growers.\120\ In that same rulemaking, we promulgated the 
BART Guidelines to assist states in determining which sources are 
subject to BART and the appropriate level of control for such 
sources.\121\ Moreover, as noted above, we added a provision to the 
Regional Haze Rule that allowed certain Eastern states to rely on the 
CAIR in lieu of requiring BART at fossil fuel-fired EGUs.\122\ Then, in 
2006, we revised the Regional Haze Rule a third time in order to remedy 
the defects with the Rule's BART-alternative provisions that had been 
identified by the D.C. Circuit in CEED.\123\ A few months later, the 
D.C. Circuit upheld the 2005 revisions in their entirety in Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. EPA.\124\ The 2006 revisions were never challenged. 
Finally, in 2012, we revised the Regional Haze Rule for a fourth time 
to replace the provision allowing Eastern states to rely on CAIR in 
lieu of BART with a provision allowing for reliance on CAIR's 
successor, CSAPR.\125\ Challenges to the 2012 revisions are currently 
stayed and remain pending before the D.C. Circuit.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Am. Corn Growers v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
    \118\ ``Revisions to Regional Haze Rule to Incorporate Sulfur 
Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Emissions Trading Program for Nine 
Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes Within That Geographic 
Area,'' 68 FR 33764 (June 5, 2003).
    \119\ Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 298 F.3d 653 (D.C. 
Cir. 2005).
    \120\ ``Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations,'' 70 FR 39104 
(July 6, 2005).
    \121\ See Id. at 39156-72 (codified at 40 CFR pt. 51, app. Y).
    \122\ See Id. at 39156 (codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)).
    \123\ ``Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions 
Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) Determinations,'' 71 FR 60612 (Oct. 13, 2006).
    \124\ Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 
2006).
    \125\ ``Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing 
Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal 
Implementation Plans,'' 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012).
    \126\ See, e.g., Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 12-
1480 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During this same period, we also released several guidance 
documents pertaining to regional haze and visibility transport, some of 
which are helpful to the issues discussed in this section. In an August 
3, 2006, document titled, ``Additional Regional Haze Questions,'' we 
responded to questions submitted by states as they were developing 
their initial regional haze SIP submissions.\127\ Several states had 
questions regarding the interstate consultation process and the 
respective obligations of upwind and downwind states in setting RPGs 
and developing long-term strategies. For example, one state asked 
whether there was a protocol for resolving disputes between upwind and 
downwind states on apportionment and controls.\128\ In response, we 
encouraged the early identification of any potential disputes to allow 
all parties ample opportunity to address and document any 
disagreements.\129\ One state asked what would happen if a downwind 
state set a RPG that required an upwind state to make reductions that 
it would not make.\130\ We responded by stating, ``If a State with a 
Class I area determines that a contributing State is not doing what is 
reasonable to meet the [RPG] set for the area, and has attempted to 
resolve this issue, the State with the Class I area should notify EPA 
and document this issue in its initial [regional haze] SIP.'' \131\ We 
explained that such problems should be brought to our attention as 
early in the process as possible.\132\ Finally, a third state asked 
whether a downwind state's regional haze SIP could be disapproved 
because an upwind state was not doing all it could to meet the RPG for 
a downwind Class I area.\133\ We responded by reiterating the 
regulatory requirements and noting that, ``If there is a disagreement 
among States as to what constitutes reasonable progress, the question 
of whether [a downwind State's] or [an upwind State's regional haze] 
SIP could be disapproved will depend on the specific[s] of the 
situation.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Additional Regional Haze 
Questions (Aug. 3, 2006).
    \128\ Id. at 10.
    \129\ Id.
    \130\ Id. at 11.
    \131\ Id. at 11-12.
    \132\ Id. at 12.
    \133\ Id.
    \134\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2007, we released a second document to provide guidance 
to states on how to set their RPGs and how to decide those measures 
necessary to meet the goals.\135\ In the guidance, we provided a 
definition for the term ``reasonable progress goal,'' explaining that 
RPGs are ``interim goals that represent incremental visibility 
improvement over time toward the goal of natural background conditions 
and are developed in consultation with other affected States and 
Federal Land Managers.'' \136\ The guidance also reiterates that the 
long-term strategy and BART emission limitations are inherently linked 
to the RPGs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl. 
Protection Agency, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 
Under the Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007).
    \136\ Id. at 1-3.

    The long-term strategy is the compilation of ``enforceable 
emissions limitations,

[[Page 74828]]

compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
[RPGs],'' and is the means through which the State ensures that its 
RPG will be met. BART emissions limits . . . are one set of measures 
that must be included in the SIP to ensure that an area makes 
reasonable progress toward the national goal, and the visibility 
improvement resulting from BART (or a BART alternative) is included 
in the development of the RPG.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Id. at 1-4 (citing to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)).

    The majority of the guidance focuses on providing an overview of 
the process for developing RPGs, potential methods for identifying 
which source categories should be evaluated for controls, and 
suggestions for evaluating the four statutory factors with respect to 
potentially affected stationary sources.\138\ The guidance reiterates 
that the development of the RPG for each Class I area should be a 
collaborative process, but acknowledges that the Regional Haze Rule 
anticipated that states may not always agree on what measures would be 
reasonable or on the appropriateness of a given goal.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See generally id. at 3-1 to 5-3.
    \139\ Id. at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in a series of three memoranda released in 2006, 2009, and 
2013, we provided guidance to the states regarding their obligations 
under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility transport, 
hereafter referred to as ``prong 4.'' \140\ In the 2006 memo, we 
informed states that they could satisfy prong 4 for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by making a simple SIP submission 
confirming that it was not possible at the time to assess whether there 
was any interference with measures in the SIPs of other states designed 
to protect visibility until the states submitted their regional haze 
SIPs the following year.\141\ In the 2009 memo, we more plainly stated 
that states could satisfy prong 4 for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS so long as they had fully approved regional haze SIPs.\142\ Most 
recently, in the 2013 memo, we clarified states' prong 4 obligations 
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\143\ There, we 
reiterated that states could satisfy prong 4 by confirming that they 
had fully approved regional haze SIPs.\144\ We reasoned that a fully 
approved regional haze SIP necessarily would ensure that emissions from 
a state's sources were not interfering with measures required to be 
included in other states' SIPs to protect visibility.\145\ 
Alternatively, we explained that a state could satisfy its prong 4 
obligations by including in its infrastructure SIP a demonstration that 
emissions within its jurisdiction do not cause interference.\146\ We 
clarified that such a submission would need to include measures to 
limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions 
were sufficient to comply with any mutually agreed upon RPGs for 
downwind Class I areas.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) has four separate 
requirements or ``prongs,'' the last of which is that SIPs must 
address emissions that interfere with another State's measures to 
protect visibility.
    \141\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl. 
Protection Agency, Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, at 9-10 (Aug. 15, 2006).
    \142\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl. 
Protection Agency, Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 
at 5 (Sept. 25, 2009).
    \143\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl. 
Protection Agency, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013).
    \144\ Id. at 33.
    \145\ Id.
    \146\ Id. at 34.
    \147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Our Interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3)

    With this background in mind, we turn now to the provisions of the 
Regional Haze Rule that implement the CAA's reasonable progress and 
long-term strategy requirements in the visibility-transport context. 
Section 51.308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule requires states with 
Class I areas, i.e., downwind states, to ``establish goals (expressed 
in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving 
natural visibility conditions.'' \148\ In establishing a RPG, a 
downwind state must consider the four statutory factors outlined in 
Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA--``the costs of compliance, the time 
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources.'' \149\ This requirement is commonly referred to as a 
four-factor analysis. States analyze the four factors to determine a 
reasonable set of control measures that will reduce visibility-
impairing emissions. The visibility improvement that will result from 
these emission reductions is then factored into the state's RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    \149\ Id. 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to conducting a four-factor analysis to determine what 
control measures are reasonable for a downwind state's own sources, the 
downwind state ``must consult with those States which may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the 
mandatory Class I Federal area,'' \150\ i.e., upwind states. The 
purpose of the consultation requirement is to ensure that the upwind 
states adopt control measures sufficient to address their apportionment 
of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable progress and 
that the downwind state's RPGs properly account for the visibility 
improvement that will result from the reasonable control measures 
identified and included in the upwind state's long-term strategy. Where 
a downwind state and an upwind state cannot agree on the proper 
apportionment of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable 
progress, however, the downwind state ``must describe in its [SIP] 
submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement.'' \151\ This 
documentation is necessary so that we have sufficient information to 
evaluate the downwind state's RPGs. Ultimately, we must decide, among 
other things, ``whether the State's goal provides for reasonable 
progress towards natural visibility conditions,'' \152\ or whether the 
goal is inadequate due to an upwind state's failure to include 
reasonable control measures in its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Id. n 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
    \151\ Id.
    \152\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule requires all states 
(both downwind and upwind) to ``submit a long-term strategy that 
addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class 
I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal 
area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from 
the State.'' \153\ As explained previously, a state's long-term 
strategy is inextricably linked to the RPGs because it ``must include 
enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other 
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals 
established by states having mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Id. 51.308(d)(3).
    \154\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing its long-term strategy, a state must meet a number 
of requirements, three of which pertain to visibility transport. First, 
as a corollary to Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), upwind states ``must 
consult with [downwind] State(s) in order to develop coordinated

[[Page 74829]]

management strategies.'' \155\ Second, where multiple states cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, each state 
``must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all 
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the progress goal for the area.'' \156\ This requirement 
directly addresses situations where an upwind state agrees to achieve 
certain emission reductions during the consultation process, and 
downwind states rely upon those reductions when setting their RPGs, but 
the upwind state ultimately fails to include sufficient control 
measures in its long-term strategy to ensure that the emission 
reductions will be achieved. In such a situation, we must disapprove 
the upwind state's long-term strategy. However, the regulations do not 
explicitly address situations where the control measures in an upwind 
state's long-term strategy are sufficient to obtain its share of 
reductions needed to meet a RPG included in a downwind state's SIP, but 
the goal itself is flawed precisely because the upwind state never 
proposed sufficient control measures to ensure reasonable progress in 
the first place. To prevent such situations, we interpret the term 
``progress goal'' in Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) as an approved or 
approvable progress goal. Consequently, where a RPG in a downwind 
state's SIP does not account for adequate visibility improvement from 
an upwind state for this reason, we must disapprove both the downwind 
state's goal and the upwind state's long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ Id. 51.308(d)(3)(i).
    \156\ Id. 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Similarly, ``[i]f the State has 
participated in a regional planning process, the State must ensure 
it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, each state ``must document the technical basis, including 
modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is 
relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction 
obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.'' \157\ To reiterate, 
Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA requires states to determine ``reasonable 
progress'' by considering the four statutory factors.\158\ Therefore, 
this provision requires states to consider both their own Class I areas 
and downwind Class I areas when they develop the technical basis 
underlying their four-factor analyses. This documentation is necessary 
so that the interstate consultation process can proceed on an informed 
basis and so that downwind states can properly assess whether any 
additional upwind emission reductions are necessary to achieve 
reasonable progress at their Class I areas. The regulations further 
provide that, ``States may meet this requirement by relying on 
technical analyses developed by the regional planning organization and 
approved by all State participants.'' \159\ Thus, states have the 
option of meeting this requirement by relying on four-factor analyses 
and associated technical documentation prepared by a regional planning 
organization on behalf of its member states,\160\ to the extent that 
such analyses and documentation were conducted. In situations where a 
regional planning organization's analyses are limited, incomplete or do 
not adequately assess the four factors, however, then states must fill 
in any remaining gaps to meet this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Id. 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    \158\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(g)(1).
    \159\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    \160\ See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 
20145, at *55 (10th Cir. Oct. 21, 2014) (explaining that 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(iii) ``permits a State conducting a reasonable-progress 
determination'' ``to rely on [a regional planning organization's] 
four-factor analysis.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997), an administrative 
agency is entitled to interpret its own regulations, and that 
interpretation will be entitled to judicial deference as long as the 
interpretation is not ``plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the 
regulation.'' \161\ Moreover, as the D.C. Circuit has explained, ``a 
regulation must be interpreted as to harmonize with and further and not 
to conflict with the objective of the statute it implements.'' \162\ We 
believe that our clarification of the requirements of Sections 
51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3), as provided above, is reasonable, consistent 
with the overall framework of the Regional Haze Rule, and in harmony 
with the objectives of the CAA's visibility provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997).
    \162\ Sec'y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Admin. v. W. Fuels-
Utah, 900 F.2d 318, 320 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we believe that our interpretation is consistent with the 
Regional Haze Rule as a whole. Section 51.308(d) of the Regional Haze 
Rule, which subsumes all of the provisions discussed above, provides 
that states ``must address regional haze in each mandatory Class I 
Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I 
Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by 
emissions from within the State.'' \163\ Our interpretation gives this 
``core requirement'' \164\ force by ensuring that downwind states 
account for all reasonable emission reductions when setting their RPGs 
and by ensuring that upwind states thoughtfully consider their impacts 
on neighboring Class I areas when conducting their four-factor 
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ 40 CFR 51.308(d).
    \164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, our interpretation harmonizes and furthers the goals of 
the CAA. Congress declared as a national goal ``the prevention of any 
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility'' 
in all Class I areas.\165\ We believe it would be impossible to achieve 
this goal if upwind states did not have the same responsibility to 
address their visibility-impairing emissions and achieve reasonable 
progress in downwind Class I areas as the downwind states themselves. 
Indeed, Section 169A(b)(2) explicitly required our implementing 
regulations to ``require each applicable implementation plan . . . for 
a State the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause 
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area [i.e., 
upwind States] to contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance 
and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress 
toward meeting the national goal.'' \166\ As explained previously, the 
CAA requires states to determine what emission limits and other 
measures are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the 
four statutory factors.\167\ Therefore, our interpretation of Section 
51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (iii) ensures that the Regional Haze Rule requires 
what the CAA requires--that upwind states consider impacts at downwind 
Class I areas in their four-factor analyses and, where appropriate, 
include emission limits and other measures to make reasonable progress 
at those Class I areas in their long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(a)(1).
    \166\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2).
    \167\ Id. Section 7491(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consistent with our guidance,\168\ our interpretation 
ensures that regional haze SIPs will be able to satisfy the CAA's 
requirement that SIPs ``contain adequate provisions prohibiting . . . 
any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from 
emitting any air pollutant in

[[Page 74830]]

amounts which will interfere with measures required to be included in 
the applicable implementation plan for any other State . . . to protect 
visibility.'' \169\ Congress intended this provision of the CAA to 
``equalize the positions of the States with respect to interstate 
pollution,'' \170\ and our interpretation accomplishes this goal by 
ensuring that downwind states can seek recourse from us if upwind 
states are not doing enough to address visibility transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See, e.g., Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, 
U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013).
    \169\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    \170\ S. Rep. No. 95-127, at 41 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we believe that our interpretation is consistent with the 
long-standing recognition of Congress, the states, the courts, and us 
that regional haze is a regional problem that requires regional 
solutions. In 1987, the State of Vermont first envisioned a framework 
similar to the one ultimately adopted in the Regional Haze Rule by 
setting a goal sufficient to ensure reasonable progress (in that case, 
a summertime ambient sulfate standard) and requesting that we require 
upwind states to revise their SIPs to include measures that would 
provide the emission reductions necessary to meet that goal.\171\ The 
Second Circuit sympathized with Vermont's plight despite upholding our 
inaction on Vermont's SIP.\172\ Consequently, Congress enacted Section 
169B of the CAA in 1990, which required us to issue new regulations to 
address regional haze.\173\ The Congressional record indicates that 
Congress was motivated in part by the dilemma of Vermont and other 
downwind states.\174\ After we promulgated the Regional Haze Rule in 
1999, states were acutely aware of the complexities of the visibility-
transport problem, inquiring as to how disputes regarding the proper 
appropriation of emission reductions between downwind states and upwind 
states would be resolved.\175\ While we encouraged early collaboration 
among states in the hopes that such disputes would be minimized, we 
ultimately acknowledged that we might have to step in and disapprove 
either a downwind state or an upwind state's SIP because it did not 
adequately address interstate visibility impacts.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See Vermont v. Thomas, 850 F.2d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1988).
    \172\ Id. at 104.
    \173\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7492(e)(1).
    \174\ See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. 2608 (1990) (statement of Sen. 
Tim Wirth); 136 Cong. Rec. 2771 (1990) (statement of Rep. Ron 
Wyden); 136 Cong. Rec. 2875 (statement of Sen. Brock Adams).
    \175\ See U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Additional Regional 
Haze Questions, 10-12 (Aug. 3, 2006).
    \176\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Texas Regional Haze SIP

    On March 31, 2009, we received a regional haze SIP revision from 
Texas. Prior to receiving Texas' submittal, we reviewed a draft of the 
Texas regional haze SIP and submitted comments to the TCEQ in February 
2008. Many of the issues we discuss below were originally identified in 
that document. This includes comments relating to ensuring that Texas 
include in its SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of the 
emission reductions needed to meet the progress goals of Class I areas. 
Additionally, we met with the TCEQ on July 24, 2013, to further discuss 
Texas' regional haze program and impacts from Texas sources on Class I 
areas. Provided below is a summary of our analysis of the various 
elements of Texas' submission. For a more comprehensive analysis, 
please see our TX TSD, which is located in our docket to this 
rulemaking action.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    In accordance with Section 51.308(d) of the Regional Haze Rule, the 
TCEQ identified two Class I areas within Texas: Big Bend National Park, 
in Brewster County, which borders the Rio Grande and Mexico, and the 
Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson County, which borders 
New Mexico. The TCEQ is responsible for developing RPGs for these two 
Class I areas. The TCEQ also determined that emissions from sources in 
Texas impact visibility at a number of Class I areas outside of Texas. 
The Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) source 
apportionment modeling results, part of the state's SIP, indicate that 
Texas emissions impact the visibility at a number of Class I areas in 
other states, including the Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana, the 
Great Sand Dunes in Colorado, Caney Creek and the Upper Buffalo in 
Arkansas, the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma, and several Class I areas 
in New Mexico. See the TX TSD for a summary of source apportionment 
modeling results for Class I areas in other states impacted by 
emissions from sources in Texas.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    As required by Sections 51.308(d)(2)(i) and 51.308(d)(2)(iii) of 
the Regional Haze Rule, and in accordance with our 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance,\177\ the TCEQ calculated baseline/current \178\ 
and natural visibility conditions for its two Class I areas, Big Bend 
and the Guadalupe Mountains, on the most impaired and least impaired 
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 
Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003.
    \178\ Because this is the first regional haze planning period, 
baseline visibility conditions and current visibility conditions are 
the same. In future planning periods, we expect that baseline and 
current visibility conditions will be different due to reasonable 
progress being made and other changes in conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in our 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). This equation sums the light extinction \179\ resulting from 
individual pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. Our guidance 
provides default natural conditions for the 20% worst and 20% best days 
for each Class I area based on the IMPROVE equation. As documented in 
our guidance, we allow states to use a ``refined'' approach or 
alternative approaches to the guidance defaults to estimate the values 
that characterize the natural visibility conditions of their Class I 
areas. Our guidance also states that states may wish to use a more 
refined approach to reduce uncertainty when baseline visibility is 
already near natural conditions or when there is marked seasonality. 
These alternative approaches can be implemented via alternative 
estimates of natural concentrations. One alternative approach is to 
develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another option open to 
states is to use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use 
by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\180\ The purpose of 
this

[[Page 74831]]

refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' was to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ Light extinction, in units of inverse megameters 
(Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>), is the amount of light lost as it travels over 
one million meters. The haze index, in units of deciviews (dv), is 
calculated directly from the total light extinction, 
b<INF>ext</INF>, as follows: HI = 10 ln(b<INF>ext</INF>/10).
    \180\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the federal 
land managers) and regional planning organizations. The IMPROVE 
monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of 
Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of 
visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to 
identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for 
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The IMPROVE program 
has also been a key participant in visibility-related research, 
including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, analysis 
techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source 
attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science,\181\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate 
(SO<INF>4</INF>), nitrate (NO<INF>3</INF>), and organic carbon. It also 
adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic 
matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the 
equation to account for light extinction by sea salt and light 
absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific values are used 
for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) 
to account for the site-specific effects of elevation and temperature. 
Separate relative humidity enhancement factors are used for small and 
large size distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and 
for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental 
carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass, do not 
change between the original and new IMPROVE equations. The default 
natural conditions in our 2003 guidance were updated by the Natural 
Haze Levels II Committee utilizing the new IMPROVE equation and 
included some refinements to the estimates for the PM 
components.<SUP>182 183</SUP> These estimates are referred to as the 
``NCII'' default natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in Appendix 5-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and in 
numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, 
W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient 
Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. Prepared 
for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, available at: 
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 
Workgroup. September 2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
    \182\ Pitchford, Marc, 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application 
of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species Concentrations 
Estimates. Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to 
the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006, 
available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
    \183\ The second version of the natural haze level II estimates 
based on the work of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee is 
available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Docs/IMPROVE/Aerosol/NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_v2.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ chose to derive a ``refined'' estimate of natural 
visibility conditions rather than using the default NCII values. In 
calculating natural visibility conditions, the TCEQ used the new 
IMPROVE equation and PM concentration estimates (i.e., the NCII values) 
for most components, but assumed that 100% of the fine soil and coarse 
mass concentrations in the baseline period should be attributed to 
natural causes and that the corresponding estimates in the NCII values 
should be replaced. The TCEQ noted there is some uncertainty with these 
calculations in the amount of natural fine and coarse mass assumption. 
The TCEQ also stated that, to the extent its assumption that 100% of 
coarse mass and fine soil is natural is an overestimate, it expects 
that its low organic carbon estimate will more than compensate for any 
errors in this assumption at this time. This issue is discussed in more 
detail in our TX TSD.
    For the 20% worst days, the TCEQ calculated natural visibility 
conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains of 10.09 dv and 
12.26 dv, respectively. For the 20% best days, the TCEQ calculated that 
natural visibility conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains 
of 2.19 dv, and 2.10 dv, respectively.
    In response to FLM comments, the TCEQ also performed an additional 
calculation for the 20% worst days, assuming only 80% of fine soil and 
course mass as natural, in order to demonstrate the sensitivity of its 
approach to this assumption. Under this approach, the TCEQ estimated 
natural conditions to be 9.2 dv for the 20% worst days at Big Bend, 
compared to 10.09 dv using the assumption that 100% of fine soil and 
course mass is natural, and 7.16 dv using the NCII method. For the 
Guadalupe Mountains, the TCEQ's estimate was 11.0 dv under the 80% 
assumption, compared with 12.26 dv under the 100% assumption and 6.65 
dv using the NCII method. These values are summarized below:

                                  Table 2--TCEQ Natural Visibility Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Guadalupe Mountains                  Big Bend
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  20% Worst days   20% Best days  20% Worst days   20% Best days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% fine soil and coarse mass..................           12.26            2.10           10.09            2.19
80% fine soil and coarse mass...................            11.0           (\1\)             9.2           (\1\)
NCII default....................................            6.65            0.99            7.16            1.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not calculated.

    Ultimately, the TCEQ stated that it was including the 80% 
assumption for illustration purposes only and based its calculations of 
natural conditions on assuming that 100% coarse mass and fine soil 
assumption are due to natural sources.
    We agree that dust storms and other blown dust from deserts are a 
significant contributor to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I 
areas that may not be captured accurately by our default method. 
However, we propose to find that the TCEQ has not adequately 
demonstrated that all coarse mass and fine soil measured in the 
baseline period can be attributed to 100% natural sources. 
Anthropogenic sources of coarse mass and fine soil in the baseline 
period could have included emissions associated with paved and unpaved 
roads, agricultural activity, and construction activities. We also note 
that the impact from dust at Big Bend is less certain than at Guadalupe 
Mountains and a different assumption may be appropriate in estimating 
natural conditions there. Given the significant uncertainty in the 
assumptions used in the Texas methodology and the demonstrated 
sensitivity to the assumption of 100% natural versus 80% soil and 
coarse mass

[[Page 74832]]

from natural sources, we propose to disapprove Texas' calculation of 
the natural visibility conditions for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Class 
I areas.
    In its regional haze SIP, the TCEQ stated that it will continue to 
evaluate data, modeling, and any other sources of information in order 
to further improve its estimates. Furthermore, the TCEQ plans to work 
with us and the federal land managers to improve natural conditions 
estimates for future regional haze SIP revisions. We encourage these 
efforts.
    As discussed elsewhere in this notice, we propose to rely on the 
NCII default values that were used for every other Class I area in the 
country for our proposed FIP to address this deficiency in the Texas 
regional haze SIP, but we solicit comment on the acceptability of 
alternate estimates in the range between the EPA default estimates and 
Texas' estimates. The federal land managers commented during the 
development of the Texas regional haze SIP that an assumption of 80% 
would be more reasonable than an assumption of 100%. We note that with 
any of the methodologies for calculating natural conditions discussed 
above, Texas' Class I areas are not projected to meet the URP in 2018 
according to the CENRAP modeling and are not projected to meet the goal 
of natural visibility conditions by 2064.
2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
    As required by Section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule, 
the TCEQ calculated baseline visibility conditions for Big Bend and the 
Guadalupe Mountains. The baseline condition calculation begins with the 
calculation of light extinction for each day with monitoring data, 
using the IMPROVE equation. As with the natural visibility conditions 
calculation, the TCEQ chose to use the new IMPROVE equation, as 
described above.
    The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000-
2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using available 
monitoring data, as required under Section 51.308(d)(2). The TCEQ 
averaged the data from 2001 through 2004 for Big Bend \184\ and 
calculated the baseline conditions at Big Bend to be 17.30 dv on the 
20% worst days, and 5.78 dv on the 20% best days. In calculating the 
baseline conditions at the Guadalupe Mountains, the TCEQ averaged the 
visibility data for 2000-2004, and calculated the baseline conditions 
at the Guadalupe Mountains to be 17.19 dv on the 20% worst days, and 
5.95 dv on the 20% best days. We have reviewed the TCEQ's estimation of 
baseline visibility conditions at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains 
and are proposing to find that the TCEQ has satisfied the requirements 
of Section 51.308(d)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ The TCEQ determined that the fourth quarter of 2000 for 
Big Bend was not sufficiently complete for use in calculating a 
baseline average for regulatory purposes, as it had only ten 
complete days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Natural Visibility Impairment
    To address Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), the TCEQ also calculated 
the number of dv by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility 
conditions for the best and worst days at Big Bend and the Guadalupe 
Mountains. The natural visibility impairment is calculated by 
subtracting the natural visibility calculation from the baseline 
visibility calculation. This information is summarized below:

                                     Table 3--Natural Visibility Impairment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Natural
                                              Class I area           Baseline         Natural       visibility
                                                                    visibility      visibility      impairment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days........................  Big Bend................           17.30           10.09            7.21
                                        Guadalupe Mts...........           17.19           12.26            4.93
20% Best Days.........................  Big Bend................            5.78            2.19            3.59
                                        Guadalupe Mts...........            5.95            2.10            3.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the TCEQ's estimates of the natural visibility 
impairment at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and we propose to 
disapprove these estimates because this calculation depends on the 
TCEQ's calculations for natural visibility conditions, which we also 
propose to disapprove for the reasons discussed in the previous 
section.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    Under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), as part of its RPGs 
determination, the TCEQ analyzed and determined the URP needed to reach 
natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. Also in establishing 
its RPGs, the TCEQ considered the uniform rate of improvement in 
visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve this 
rate for the period covered by the SIP. In so doing, the TCEQ compared 
the baseline visibility conditions to the natural visibility conditions 
for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, and determined the URP needed 
to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. The TCEQ constructed 
the URP consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and 
our 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance \185\ by plotting a straight 
graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment to the 
level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment 
in 2064 for both Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the baseline visibility values and natural visibility values 
discussed above, the TCEQ calculated the URP for Big Bend to be 0.12 
dv/year, and that for the Guadalupe Mountains to be 0.08 dv/yr. This 
information is summarized below:

              Table 4--Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Visibility metric              Big Bend         Guadalupe Mts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Conditions.............  17.30 dv..........  17.19 dv.
Natural Visibility..............  10.09 dv..........  12.26 dv.
Total Improvement by 2064.......  7.21 dv...........  4.93 dv.

[[Page 74833]]

 
Uniform Rate of Progress........  0.12 dv/year......  0.08 dv/year.
Improvement needed by 2018......  1.7 dv............  1.2 dv
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ notes that the URP calculations above have some degree of 
uncertainty due to its assumptions in calculating the natural 
visibility.
    Based on the estimated cost and visibility benefit from 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls identified during the TCEQ's 
four-factor analysis described below in Section V.C.2, the TCEQ 
estimated the costs and emission reduction measures of SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> required to enable the Guadalupe Mountains and Big 
Bend to achieve the URP. However, it appears that in estimating the 
emission reductions and costs to meet its URPs in Table 10-9 of the 
Texas Regional Haze SIP, the TCEQ used estimates of visibility benefits 
from an earlier draft of the Texas Regional Haze SIP. In that draft 
SIP, the TCEQ estimated the visibility benefit from a certain set of 
controls to be 0.05 dv at each Texas Class I area.\186\ Based on TCEQ's 
final estimation of the visibility benefit from the TCEQ control set, 
we have updated the TCEQ's calculations. See our TX TSD for more 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ ``SIP Narrative comparison of changes from proposal to 
adoption'' available at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/haze/4HazeSIPcompare_rev.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Errors in its calculation aside, we note that while the TCEQ has, 
in establishing its RPG, correctly followed the procedures for 
analyzing and determining the rate of progress needed to attain natural 
visibility conditions by the year 2064, we propose to find the TCEQ has 
calculated this rate of progress on the basis of, and compared baseline 
visibility conditions to, a flawed estimation of natural visibility 
conditions for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, as we describe 
above. Therefore, we propose to disapprove the TCEQs calculation of the 
URP needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. In 
addition, as we discuss in Section V.C, we identify problems with the 
TCEQ's reasonable progress four factor analysis, which the TCEQ 
partially relied upon in consideration of the emission reduction 
measures needed to achieve the natural visibility conditions. For these 
reasons, we must also propose disapproval of the TCEQ's estimation of 
the emission reduction measures needed to achieve the URP for the 
period covered by the SIP, under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
    Under Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Texas may not adopt a RPG that 
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from 
implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable 
planning period.
    The RPGs established by Texas are based on CENRAP 2018 modeling 
projections. The modeling projections conducted by CENRAP contain 
projections of the visibility conditions that are anticipated to be 
realized at each Class I area between the 2002 base year and the 2018 
future year. These projections are based on the emission reductions 
resulting from federal and state control programs that are either 
currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction 
schedules that predate 2018, including the long-term strategies of 
Texas, Oklahoma, and other states, and presumptive emission reductions 
expected to result from the submitted Oklahoma BART rule. Since 
CENRAP's 2018 modeling projections are based on local, state, and 
federal control programs that are either currently in effect or with 
mandated future-year emission reduction schedules, we believe that the 
TCEQ's RPGs represent at least as much visibility improvement as is 
expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA 
(i.e., requirements other than RH) during the applicable planning 
period. We therefore propose to approve Texas' submission as meeting 
Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi) because its RPGs for the Guadalupe Mountains 
and Big Bend do not represent less visibility improvement than is 
expected to result from the implementation of other requirements of the 
CAA during this planning period.

C. Evaluation of Texas' Reasonable Progress Goals

    As required by Section 51.308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule, the 
TCEQ has established RPGs for its two Class I areas, Big Bend and the 
Guadalupe Mountains. These RPGs must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the 
implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same planning period.
1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
    The TCEQ states that its RPGs are derived from the CENRAP modeling 
\187\ and reflect emission reductions programs already in place, 
including CAIR and additional refinery SO<INF>2</INF> reductions as a 
result of our refinery consent decrees. The TCEQ states that these RPGs 
assume that either CAIR will remain in place or will be replaced by a 
comparable program to reduce visibility impairing pollution from 
Electric Generating Units (EGUs) in Texas and in the eastern United 
States. The following tables \188\ summarize the TCEQ RPGs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ The TSD for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling To 
Support Regional Haze State Implementation is found in Appendix 8.1 
of the Texas regional haze SIP.
    \188\ Reproduced from Tables 10-2 and 10-3 of the Texas regional 
haze SIP.

                           Table 5--Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Improvement                    Date natural
                                     Baseline     Projected 2018   projected by   Improvement by    visibility
          Class I area              conditions      visibility    2018 using RPG    2018 at URP     attained at
                                       (dv)         (RPG) (dv)         (dv)            (dv)          RPG rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend........................           17.30            16.6             0.7             1.7            2155
Guadalupe Mountains.............           17.19            16.3             0.9             1.2            2081
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74834]]


                           Table 6--Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Baseline     Projected 2018
                          Class I area                              conditions      visibility    Improvement by
                                                                       (dv)         (RPG) (dv)       2018 (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend........................................................             5.8             5.6             0.2
Guadalupe Mountains.............................................             5.9             5.7             0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the results of Texas' required reasonable progress four-
factor analysis (described in the following section), and the results 
of the CENRAP modeling and additional information developed by CENRAP, 
the TCEQ adopted the CENRAP modeled 2018 visibility conditions as the 
RPGs for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas. The TCEQ 
established a RPG of 16.6 dv for Big Bend and 16.3 dv for Guadalupe 
Mountains for the 20% worst days for 2018. This represents a 0.7 dv and 
0.9 dv improvement in visibility over the baseline conditions at Big 
Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, respectively. Although Texas' RPGs do 
provide for some improvement in visibility for the most impaired days 
over the period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for 
the least impaired days over the same period, we believe the overall 
RPG goals that Texas established for its own Class I areas of Big Bend 
and Guadalupe Mountains do not provide for reasonable progress based on 
the four reasonable progress factors that a state is required to 
consider in selecting a RPG under (d)(1)(i)(A). For the reasons 
discussed below, we propose to find that the RPGs identified for the 
Texas Class I areas are not reasonable. We address our proposed finding 
regarding whether the Texas regional haze SIP satisfies the 
requirements under Section 51.308(d)(1) to set RPGs below.
2. Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor Analysis
    In establishing a RPG for a Class I area located within a state, 
Texas is required by CAA Section 169A(g)(1) and Section 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to ``[c]onsider the costs of compliance, the time 
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors 
were taken into consideration in selecting the goal.'' This requirement 
is often referred to as the reasonable progress ``four factor 
analysis.'' In addition to this explicit statutory and regulatory 
requirement, the Regional Haze Rule also establishes an analytical 
requirement to ensure that Texas carefully consider the suite of 
emission reduction measures necessary to attain the URP. Under Section 
51.308(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Haze Rule provides that we will 
consider both Texas' consideration of the four factors in Section 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and its analysis of the URP ``[i]n determining 
whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for 
reasonable progress.'' As explained in the preamble to the Regional 
Haze Rule, the URP analysis was adopted to ensure that states use a 
common analytical framework and to provide an informed and equitable 
decision making process to ensure a transparent process that would, 
among other things, guarantee that the public would be provided with 
the information necessary to understand the emission reductions needed, 
the costs of such measures, and other factors associated with 
improvements in visibility.\189\ The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule 
\190\ also states that the URP does not establish a ``safe harbor'' for 
the state in setting its progress goals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ 64 FR 35733 (July 1, 1999).
    \190\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999).

    If the State determines that the amount of progress identified 
through the [URP] analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory 
factors, the State should identify this amount of progress as its 
reasonable progress goal for the first long-term strategy, unless it 
determines that additional progress beyond this amount is also 
reasonable. If the State determines that additional progress is 
reasonable based on the statutory factors, the State should adopt 
that amount of progress as its goal for the first long-term 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
strategy.

    In establishing its RPGs for 2018 for the 20% worst days, the TCEQ 
relied on the improvements in visibility that are anticipated to result 
from federal, state, and local control programs. Based on the emission 
reductions from these measures, CENRAP modeled the projected visibility 
conditions anticipated at each Class I area in 2018 and the TCEQ used 
these results to establish its RPGs. The TCEQ states it developed its 
RPGs after considering the regulatory factors required under Section 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), discussed above. The TCEQ focused its control 
strategy analysis on point source emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>, as the sources of these pollutants are the main 
anthropogenic pollutants that affect visibility at Class I areas in 
Texas. It examined visibility impairment at the Texas Class I areas and 
Class I areas in nearby states. The TCEQ stated that source 
apportionment modeling results, summarized in Chapter 11 of the Texas 
regional haze SIP, demonstrate that NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
are the main anthropogenic pollutants that affect visibility at the 
Class I areas in Texas and Class I areas in surrounding states. Source 
apportionment modeling also indicated that sulfur emissions that impact 
visibility are dominated by point sources, while impacts from 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are more evenly distributed between area, 
mobile and point sources. The following table \191\ summarizes the 
source category contributions from the 2002 base case CENRAP source 
apportionment modeling for the five Class I areas whose visibility is 
most impacted by Texas emissions. In evaluating the emission inventory 
projections, Texas concluded that for SO<INF>2</INF>, point sources are 
responsible for over 90% of the projected 2018 statewide emissions, and 
for NO<INF>X</INF>, point sources comprise over 45% of the projected 
statewide emissions. The TCEQ noted that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are 
more evenly distributed among point, mobile, and area sources, and that 
states have very limited authority to reduce mobile source emissions 
and are already addressing road and non-road mobile emissions. The TCEQ 
noted the largest category of area source NO<INF>X</INF> is upstream 
oil and gas production, and it is taking all steps it has determined 
are reasonable at this time to control these sources as part of the 
Dallas-Fort Worth ozone SIP and is investing $4,000,000 in a grant 
program to assist with the retrofitting of gas-fired, rich burn 
compressor engines. The TCEQ also noted uncertainty in upstream oil and 
gas emission estimates. Therefore, the TCEQ reasoned that since point 
sources

[[Page 74835]]

are the single largest pollution category for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>, it should concentrate its RPG strategy on analyzing 
controls for point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ Reproduced from Table 3 in Appendix 10-1 of the Texas 
regional haze SIP.

                      Table 7--Percentage Source Category Contributions to SO4 and NO3 at the Five Class I Areas Texas Most Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Big Bend                                   Guadalupe Mountains
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Point          Mobile           Area            Point          Mobile           Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4.....................................................            67.1             2.8             6.9            75.6             3.5             8.5
NO3.....................................................            26.6            28.6            14.3            29.2            36.5            13.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Wichita Mountains                    Salt Creek                     White Mountain
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Point      Mobile      Area      Point      Mobile      Area      Point      Mobile      Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4..................................................       78.2        3.7        9.2       73.8        3.9        8.1       75.2        4.1        8.1
NO3..................................................       28.1       44.7       13.4       35.8       29.9       17.1       27.9       40.3       12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having narrowed the scope of the control analysis to point sources 
of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, the TCEQ developed a list of 
potential controls and costs associated with those controls to inform 
their four factor analysis. It used the control strategy analysis 
developed by CENRAP as the starting point for its analysis. CENRAP 
contracted with Alpine Geophysics to conduct an evaluation of possible 
additional point-source add-on controls for sources in CENRAP states. 
The Alpine Geophysics evaluation relied on AirControlNET,\192\ a 
database tool we released in 2006 to enable cost-benefit analyses of 
potential emissions control measures and strategies. Alpine Geophysics 
prepared cost estimates for potential add-on controls for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reductions in 2005 dollars for point 
sources in CENRAP states. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources and 
Kansas Department of Health and Environment staff developed Area-of- 
Influence (AOI) data for each Class I area in every CENRAP member 
state, as well as distance calculations for each source to each Class I 
area for inclusion in the Alpine Geophysics analysis. Available 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> control strategies in the 
AirControlNET dataset were applied to EGU and non-EGU sources to 
develop a master list of available incremental control strategies for 
the CENRAP states.\193\ The TCEQ reviewed this information for Texas 
sources and made changes based on additional information and past 
experience. The TCEQ also added some additional sources from source-
types not included in the CENRAP AirControlNET dataset. This work 
resulted in a list of potential add-on controls for reducing 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> at Texas point sources, an estimate 
of the costs associated with each control, and identification of the 
AOIs for each Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Additional information and a copy of the AirControl NET 
software can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/AirControlNET.htm
    \193\ Lists of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls 
meeting cost thresholds ranging from $1,500/ton to $10,000/ton 
developed by Alpine Geophysics are available in the docket to this 
action (See spreadsheets titled ``nox_cost_ton_--2_'' and 
``so2_cost_ton'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ states its analysis focused on moderate cost controls for 
sources it believed were likely to contribute to visibility impairment 
at Class I areas. In an effort to further narrow the list of potential 
controls, the TCEQ followed the screening process summarized below and 
as detailed in Section 10-1.3 of Appendix 10-1 of the Texas regional 
haze SIP:
    <bullet> Identified controls at sources with potential control 
strategy costs greater than $2,700 per ton SO<INF>2</INF> or 
NO<INF>X</INF> were initially screened out.
    <bullet> Remaining sources were reduced by eliminating the ones the 
TCEQ believed were so far away from any of the ten Class I areas, that 
any reduction in their emissions would likely not have a perceptible 
impact on visibility.
    <bullet> Remaining sources were further reduced by eliminating the 
ones for which a ratio of the estimated projected 2018 base annual 
emissions (tons) of SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> to distance 
(kilometers), to any Class I area, did not exceed five.
    <bullet> Any source with predicted 2018 emissions less than 100 
tons per year was excluded.
    Separate from the above described screening process, the TCEQ also 
excluded additional NO<INF>X</INF> controls on cement kilns from 
consideration, as it concluded it had already required all the measures 
it had determined reasonable to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
these sources in the latest Dallas-Fort Worth ozone SIP revision. The 
TCEQ reasoned, based on a study performed for the Dallas-Fort Worth 
ozone SIP revision,\194\ that a 35 to 50% NO<INF>X</INF> control range 
was the most appropriate control level to address ozone formation. The 
TCEQ developed a source cap that required a reduction of approximately 
9.69 tons per day (tpd) of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the cement 
kilns in Ellis County starting March 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Assessment of NO<INF>X</INF> Emission Reduction Strategies 
for Cement Kilns--Ellis County Final Report, TCEQ Contract No. 582-
04-65589, Work Order No.05-06, Prepared by: ERG, Inc., 10200 
Alliance Road, Suite 190, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-4716. Available at: 
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/agreements/BSA/CEMENT_FINAL_REPORT_70514_final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The types of controls considered by the CENRAP study, based on 
industrial categories, are listed below:
SO<INF>2</INF> Control at 24 Facilities From 15 Sites
<bullet> Natural Gas Transmission--Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
<bullet> Crude Petroleum--Sulfur recovery and/or tail gas treatment
<bullet> Inorganic chemical plants--coal washing and Spray Dryer 
Absorber (SDA) on boilers, increase efficiency of sulfuric acid plants
<bullet> Electric Generating Units (EGU)--coal washing and FGD wet 
scrubbing
<bullet> Carbon black--FGD
NO<INF>X</INF> Control for 24 Facilities at 15 Sites
    <bullet> Natural Gas Transmission--Low NO<INF>X</INF> Burners 
(LNB), Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) + LNB
    <bullet> EGU--LNB with Close Coupled Over-Fired Air (LNC1), and 
with both LNC1 and Separated Over-Fired Air (LNC3)
    <bullet> Flat Glass--LNB, SCR
    <bullet> Paper Mills SNCR and Oxygen Trim (OT) with water injection
    <bullet> Chemical Plant Boiler--SCR

    The total cost of controls and the resulting emission reductions 
were calculated by summing up the

[[Page 74836]]

individual costs of those identified controls located within the AOI of 
Big Bend or the Guadalupe Mountains. The TCEQ also performed this 
calculation for eight additional Class I areas in other states impacted 
by Texas' emissions: Breton Island, Caney Creek, Carlsbad Caverns, Salt 
Creek, Upper Buffalo, Wheeler Peak, White Mountain, and the Wichita 
Mountains. The annualized costs \195\ that would result from the 
imposition of the above controls within each Class I area's AOI are 
shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ Annualized costs are the total yearly costs, typically the 
sum of the yearly capital cost (amortized over the life of the 
control) and the yearly operational cost. In this instance, the TCEQ 
relied upon our AirControlNET model which for these types of 
controls typically assumed a 30 year control life.

       Table 8--Annualized Cost of Controls for Each Class I Area
         [Controls at facilities within each class I area's AOI]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Class I area                    NOX                SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend..........................        $24,100,000       $215,900,000
Breton Island.....................         27,000,000        231,000,000
Caney Creek.......................         28,600,000        245,900,000
Carlsbad Caverns..................         24,100,000        255,500,000
Guadalupe Mountains...............         33,800,000        254,900,000
Salt Creek........................         27,000,000        251,900,000
Upper Buffalo.....................         24,100,000        233,800,000
Wheeler Peak......................         22,700,000        229,500,000
White Mountains...................         23,000,000        244,500,000
Wichita Mountains.................         28,100,000        269,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of these controls are in more than one AOI. The TCEQ reviewed 
the total cost of all state-wide point source controls identified by 
the process described above, as follows for 13 facilities with 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls and 15 facilities with NO<INF>X</INF> controls.

         Table 9--Total Estimated Cost of Texas Control Set 196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Pollutant               Reduction  (tpy)    Estimated cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)..............            155,873       $270,800,000
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX).............             27,132         53,500,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total Costs...................  .................       $324,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 196 TCEQ used the results of the 2018 CENRAP state-wide 
photochemical grid modeling analyses (that includes the 2018 modeling 
and a CENRAP control case modeling scenario) to estimate the visibility 
benefit that would result in 2018 from controlling those sources in 
Texas identified by it following the process described above. CENRAP 
developed a modeling scenario to estimate the effectiveness of a 
specific suite of controls on facilities in the CENRAP states. CENRAP 
based its control sensitivity analysis on a maximum estimated cost of 
$5,000 per ton of emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> or SO<INF>2</INF> reduced 
estimated in the Alpine Geophysics report and evaluated only those 
point sources predicted to emit 100 tons or more of SO<INF>2</INF> or 
NO<INF>X</INF> in the year 2018.\197\ Similar to the Texas analysis, 
CENRAP further refined the sources for analysis, considering controls 
only for those sources with emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> or 
SO<INF>2</INF> greater than or equal to five tons per year per 
kilometer of distance to the nearest Class I area. This distance-
weighing criterion limited the sensitivity evaluation to sources with 
the greatest likely influence on visibility. The CENRAP control 
sensitivity modeling run included emission reductions beyond CAIR and 
BART in the CENRAP states at all point sources where the cost-
effectiveness and Q/D \198\ criteria discussed above were met, and 
projected the resulting visibility conditions in 2018 at the CENRAP 
Class I areas. This modeling was developed as a starting point for 
discussion and development of refined analyses as needed.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Reproduced from Table 4 in Appendix 10-1 of the Texas 
regional haze SIP.
    \197\ See Section 2.14 of the Technical Support Document for 
CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze 
State Implementation Plans, September 12, 2007.
    \198\ Q/D is the ratio of annual emissions over distance to a 
Class I area.
    \199\ ``The results of the modeling were not intended to be 
prescriptive; instead, they were intended to be a starting point for 
control discussions that would require much greater refinement.'' 
CENRAP TSD, page 2-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ used the CENRAP control sensitivity analysis and the 
CENRAP 2018 visibility projection modeling as the starting point for 
estimating the visibility benefit of implementing only the controls 
identified by it above for Texas point sources. The TCEQ used the 
results of this modeling analysis and the source apportionment modeling 
results to determine an ``effectiveness ratio'' for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions, which it states provides an estimate of 
improvement in visibility for every ton of NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> reduced in order to produce ``an order of magnitude 
estimate of the likely visibility improvements resulting from the point 
source.'' See Appendix 10-2 and 10-4 of the Texas regional haze SIP and 
our TX TSD for additional information on the methodology Texas used to 
develop this estimate.
    The TCEQ summarizes the estimated visibility improvement that would 
result in 2018 from the imposition of all the above controls as follows 
\200\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ Table 5 in Appendix 10-1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.

[[Page 74837]]



   Table 10--TCEQ Projected Visibility Improvement to Selected Class I
             Areas From the Imposition of Potential Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Visibility
                     Class I area                      improvement  (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend.............................................               0.16
Breton Island........................................               0.05
Caney Creek..........................................               0.33
Carlsbad Caverns.....................................               0.22
Guadalupe Mountains..................................               0.22
Salt Creek...........................................               0.18
Upper Buffalo........................................               0.16
Wheeler Peak.........................................               0.04
White Mountains......................................               0.24
Wichita Mountains....................................               0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identification of potential controls for multiple sources, 
estimation of aggregate costs associated with those controls and 
estimation of the overall visibility improvement anticipated from 
implementation of those controls as described above, the TCEQ then 
weighed the four statutory factors in determining the reasonableness of 
additional controls and selecting the RPGs for Big Bend and Guadalupe 
Mountains. In general, the cost of compliance was the key factor 
considered by the TCEQ. It determined that the time necessary for 
compliance was not a critical factor for the determination of 
applicable additional controls for Texas sources. It stated that to the 
extent energy impacts are quantifiable for a particular control, they 
were included in its cost estimates. However, it stated that 
``including [energy and non-air quality environmental] impacts on a 
source-by-source basis would have added further weight against finding 
that the potential additional controls were reasonable to apply.'' 
\201\ The TCEQ also stated that for the purposes of initial analysis, 
no limited remaining useful life was assumed. The TCEQ describes the 
cost of compliance as a factor used to determine whether compliance 
costs for sources are reasonable compared to the emission reductions 
and visibility improvement they will achieve. The TCEQ weighed the four 
reasonable progress factors as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Page 10-8 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Cost of Compliance
    The TCEQ concluded that at a total estimated cost of over $300 
million and (in its view) no perceptible visibility benefit, it was not 
reasonable to implement additional controls. All units in Texas that 
met the emissions over distance threshold were assessed. The TCEQ 
states it adopted its $2,700 cost threshold to limit the proposed 
controls group to cost-effective measures. Annualized cost values, and 
emission reductions based on proposed efficiencies listed in 
AirControlNET, were used. Modifications for Texas included the 
consideration of flue gas desulfurization for carbon black units.
b. Time Necessary for Compliance
    The TCEQ determined that the time necessary for compliance was not 
a critical factor for the determination of applicable additional 
controls for its sources. It noted that in our CAIR regulatory impact 
statement, we estimated that approximately 30 months is required to 
design, build, and install SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbing technology for a 
single EGU boiler. The TCEQ stated that the total time for a single 
facility to comply with one of the NO<INF>X</INF> caps would be about 
five years. It estimated that completion by 2018 would still be 
anticipated. For mobile sources, MOBILE and NONROAD model runs were 
completed for the 2018 emissions inventory. These model runs 
incorporated the degree of fleet and expected engine replacement prior 
to 2018. The completion of other proposed controls were anticipated by 
2018.
c. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance
    The TCEQ stated that to the extent energy impacts are quantifiable 
for a particular control, they were included in its cost estimates. 
However, it stated that ``including [energy and non-air quality 
environmental] impacts on a source-by-source basis would have added 
further weight against finding that the potential additional controls 
were reasonable to apply. Source-by-source review of the non-air 
quality impacts of the potential controls would possibly have led to a 
different determination about the unreasonableness of the set of 
potential additional controls.'' \202\ The TCEQ noted that scrubbers, 
SCR systems, and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) systems 
installed under the EGU control strategies would require electricity to 
operate fans and other ancillary equipment. However, it noted that 
estimates were given that the electricity and steam required by 
controls installed to meet SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
caps would be less than 1% of the total electricity and steam 
production of EGUs. TCEQ noted that Scrubbers, coal washing, and spray 
dryers would require additional safeguards for fuel handling and waste 
handling systems to avoid additional non-air environmental impacts such 
as increased effluents in waste water discharges and storm water 
runoff. The TCEQ expected that solid waste disposal and wastewater 
treatment costs would be less than five percent of the total operating 
costs of pollution control equipment. It noted that these factors would 
have to be considered specific to individual sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Texas Regional Haze SIP, page 10-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Remaining Useful life
    The TCEQ noted that CENRAP considered the remaining useful life in 
modeling for mobile sources that assumes reduced emissions per vehicle 
mile traveled due to the turnover of the on-road mobile source fleet. 
It noted that for sources with a relatively short remaining useful 
life, this consideration would have weighed more heavily against a 
determination that controlling those sources would have been 
reasonable. The TCEQ believed that this factor was not critical for its 
sector analyses for the 2018 timeline and did not assume any limited 
useful equipment life. Only units that were scheduled for shutdown 
under enforceable decrees were eliminated from the 2018 inventory and 
further analysis.
e. TCEQ Noted Uncertainty in Visibility Projections Due to CAIR
    The TCEQ noted that the majority of the emission reductions 
underlying the predicted visibility improvements in 2018 resulting from 
controls already in effect or scheduled to become effective will result 
from the CAIR program in particular. The CAIR program allows interstate 
trading of allowances, and does not put specific emission limits on 
specific sources. Further, it notes that because emission allowances 
can be purchased by EGUs, visibility improvement may be less or more 
that that predicted by the CENRAP's modeling. CENRAP used our 
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to predict the emission reductions 
expected from CAIR in 2018. The TCEQ assumed that any replacement for 
CAIR will include interstate trading of emissions allowances. The TCEQ 
presents a comparison \203\ of its baseline 2002 SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions, the CAIR budget for EGUs in 2015 and the IPM predicted 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the 2018 planning year:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ Reproduced from Table 10-7 in the Texas Regional Haze SIP.

[[Page 74838]]



  Table 11--Comparison of Texas 2002 Baseline SO2 Emissions, 2015 CAIR
            EGUs Budget and 2018 IPM Predicted SO2 Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Texas SO2
                      SO2 emissions                          emissions
                                                               (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current (2002 base case)................................         550,000
EPA's CAIR budget for Texas EGUs for 2015...............         225,000
IPM projection CENRAP modeled for 2018..................         350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ notes that the IPM model analysis used by CENRAP predicts 
that by 2018 EGUs in Texas will purchase approximately 125,000 tpy of 
emissions allowances from out of state. This represents more than 50% 
of Texas' total CAIR SO<INF>2</INF> budget. The TCEQ states that it 
requested that key EGUs in Texas review and comment on the predictions 
of the IPM model. However, no EGU made an enforceable commitment to any 
particular pollution control strategy and preferred to retain the 
flexibility offered by the CAIR program.
f. The TCEQ Reasonable Progress Conclusion
    The TCEQ's assessment of reasonable progress rested primarily on 
its calculation of the total cost of the controls it analyzed versus 
the visibility benefits at the ten Class I areas it analyzed. It 
concluded, ``At a total estimated cost exceeding $300 million and no 
perceptible visibility benefit, Texas has determined that it is not 
reasonable to implement additional controls at this time.'' \204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Texas Regional Haze SIP, page 10-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.308(d)(1)(iii) requires that in determining whether the 
state's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable 
progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will 
evaluate the demonstrations developed by the state pursuant to Sections 
51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). We perform that evaluation beginning in 
the next section.
3. Our Analysis of Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor Analysis
    We agree with the TCEQ's decision to focus the analysis of the four 
statutory factors on point sources, as the CENRAP modeling results and 
the TCEQ's analysis in Chapter 11 and appendix 10-1 of the Texas 
regional haze SIP indicate that the predominant anthropogenic 
pollutants that affects the state's ability to meet the URP goals in 
2018 on the worst 20% days at the Texas Class I areas are largely due 
to sulfate and nitrate, primarily from point sources. We agree with the 
TCEQ's assessment that the cost of compliance is the dominant factor, 
and its incorporation of the other factors into the cost, where 
applicable. We note, however, that because the TCEQ did not evaluate 
controls on a source-by-source basis, source-specific factors related 
to the evaluation of the reasonable progress four factor analysis could 
not be considered. We also agree with the TCEQ's decision to consider 
visibility benefits in weighing the factors and to assist in its 
consideration of the cost of compliance. While visibility is not an 
explicitly listed factor to consider when determining whether 
additional controls are reasonable, the purpose of the four-factor 
analysis is to determine what degree of progress toward natural 
visibility conditions is reasonable. Therefore, we believe it is 
appropriate to consider the projected visibility benefit of the 
controls when determining if cost-effective controls are warranted to 
make reasonable progress. However, the TCEQ did not discriminate 
between and analyze controls on those source(s) with the highest 
potential visibility benefit at each Class I area. We disagree with the 
set of potential controls identified by the TCEQ and how it analyzed 
and weighed the four reasonable progress factors in a number of key 
areas.
a. The TCEQ's Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Approach
    The TCEQ eliminated controls with an estimated cost-efficiency 
greater than $2,700/ton from any further analysis, regardless of their 
potential visibility benefits. Given the large number of sources and 
their large geographic distribution, some consideration of location and 
emissions data is needed before controls should have been eliminated 
from further analysis. The TCEQ supports its selection of this value 
with reference to ``EPA estimated cost of implementing CAIR was up to 
$2,700/ton.'' However, although we demonstrated that CAIR was 
acceptable in lieu of BART, CAIR was not designed as a reasonable 
progress strategy. A state should look beyond BART for additional 
reductions when developing its long-term strategy to achieve reasonable 
progress at its Class I areas.\205\ As a result of the application of 
this $2,700/ton threshold, potentially cost-effective controls were not 
evaluated at sources that may result in meaningful visibility benefits 
at Guadalupe Mountains or Big Bend. For example, potential 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls for the Tolk Station were estimated in the 
Alpine Geophysics analysis to cost an average of approximately $3,100/
ton and result in nearly 20,000 tpy reduced across the two units. 
Applying the $2,700/ton threshold, the TCEQ did not consider potential 
controls on any EGUs in West Texas to improve visibility at the two 
Class I areas located in West Texas despite the potential visibility 
benefits from controlling these large point sources. Sensitivity 
analysis performed by CENRAP suggests to us that a threshold in the 
range of $4,000/ton to $5,000/ton would be reasonable for purposes of 
identifying potential cost-effective controls for further 
analysis.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Per Section 51.308(e)(5), ``After a State has met the 
requirements for BART or implemented emissions trading program or 
other alternative measure that achieves more reasonable progress 
than the installation and operation of BART, BART-eligible sources 
will be subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section 
in the same manner as other sources.''
    \206\ See ``Sensitivity Run Specifications for CENRAP 
Consultation,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. The TCEQ's Weighing of the Four Factors for Individual Sources
    The TCEQ constructed a large potential control set consisting of a 
mix of large and small sources, located at various distances from Class 
I areas, with a large geographical distribution. Because of the 
variation in size, type, and location of these sources, the potential 
to impact visibility and potential benefit from controls at a given 
Class I area can vary greatly between the identified sources. This 
potential control set identified by the TCEQ included controls on some 
sources that would likely result in significant visibility benefits, 
but also included controls on many sources with much less anticipated 
visibility benefits. Because it only estimated the visibility benefit 
of all the controls together, the TCEQ was not able to assess the 
potential benefit of controlling individual sources with significant, 
and potentially cost-effective, visibility benefits. Also, we believe 
that individual benefits were masked by the inclusion of those controls 
with little visibility benefit that only served to increase the total 
cost figures. For example, the TCEQ identified SO<INF>2</INF> controls 
at Big Brown to be approximately $1,500/ton, significantly less than 
its $2,700/ton threshold. These controls were estimated to achieve 
greater than 40,000 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions. Despite 
this evidence in the record of an identified cost-effective control 
that results in large emission reductions, and source apportionment 
modeling identifying large impacts from

[[Page 74839]]

EGU sources in northeast Texas, the TCEQ did not separately evaluate 
the visibility benefit from the implementation of this control, or 
appropriately weigh the four reasonable progress factors in determining 
the reasonableness of this individual control.
    Because individual sources were not considered by the TCEQ, we 
found it is necessary to conduct an additional analysis to determine 
whether this approach materially affected the outcome of the TCEQ 
analysis. As we demonstrate in detail in our FIP TSD, by analyzing 
sources individually, we believe we have identified a small number of 
sources that are responsible for much of Texas' collective visibility 
impact on the Texas' Class I areas, which if controlled, would provide 
for visibility benefit at Texas' Class I areas. That modeling is 
summarized below.
    Our preliminary modeling study identified those facilities with the 
largest impacts on the Texas Class I areas on the 20% worst days in 
2018.\207\ This modeling includes the same projections the TCEQ used to 
account for predicted reductions due to CAIR. The projected impacts 
\208\ in 2018 from the top ten facilities in Texas that impact 
visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are summarized in 
Tables 12 and 13 below (see our FIP TSD for more details). Texas point 
sources combined are projected in 2018 to contribute approximately 8% 
(3.56 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\) to the total visibility impairment at Big 
Bend, and 9% (3.84 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\) to the total visibility 
impairment at Guadalupe Mountains. These results below show that some 
facilities can have large impacts on certain days and significant 
impacts on the 20% worst days, even including facilities like Big Brown 
which is more than 700 km from Big Bend and more than 800 km from the 
Guadalupe Mountains. We note that Texas decided to invite states to 
consult using the CENRAP Particulate Matter Source Apportionment 
Technology (PSAT) results and included states with > 0.5 inverse 
megameter impact (from all sources in the state) on one of Texas' Class 
I areas.\209\ These results also suggest that controlling a small 
number of sources will result in visibility benefits at both Class I 
areas, and that rather than evaluating controls at all facilities 
identified by Texas combined, a subset of those facilities (and some 
additional facilities not identified) may be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ As discussed later in this TSD, this study also looked at 
impacts from Texas sources on Class I areas in other States.
    \208\ We occasionally present visibility in extinction, rather 
than deciviews (dv). Light extinction, in units of inverse 
megameters (Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\), is the amount of light lost as it 
travels over one million meters. The haze index, in units of 
deciviews (dv), is calculated directly from the total light 
extinction, bext, as follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10). Extinction is an 
appropriate measure for the visibility impairment contribution from 
individual sources because it avoids the sensitivity of the 
logarithmic transformation for calculating deciviews to the overall 
level of visibility impairment including the impacts of other 
sources.
    \209\ See Appendix 4-1: Summary of Consultation Calls.

    Table 12--2018 Phase 1 EPA Source Apportionment Modeling Results, top ten Facilities in Texas That Impact
                                             Visibility at Big Bend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  % Contribution
                                                                  Extinction (Mm-    to total     Max extinction
                 Rank                         Facility name        1) 20% worst     visibility      during 20%
                                                                       days       impairment 20%    worst days
                                                                                    worst days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  SOMMERS DEELY S.........           0.276            0.57           1.193
2.....................................  COLETO CREEK PL.........           0.216            0.44           0.937
3.....................................  BIG BROWN...............           0.212            0.44           0.923
4.....................................  RELIANT ENERGY *........           0.103            0.21           0.441
5.....................................  LIGNITE-FIRED P **......           0.101            0.21           0.428
6.....................................  MONTICELLO STM..........           0.096            0.20           0.413
7.....................................  W A PARISH STAT.........           0.090            0.18           0.385
8.....................................  BIG SPRING CARB.........           0.084            0.17           0.356
9.....................................  SANDOW STEAM EL.........           0.080            0.16           0.342
10....................................  MARTIN LAKE ELE.........           0.080            0.16           0.342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the Limestone facility.
** This is the San Miguel facility.


    Table 13--2018 Phase 1 EPA Source Apportionment Modeling Results, top ten Facilities in Texas That Impact
                                        Visibility at Guadalupe Mountains
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  % Contribution
                                                                  Extinction (Mm-    to total     Max extinction
                 Rank                         Facility name        1) 20% worst     visibility      during 20%
                                                                       days       impairment 20%    worst days
                                                                                    worst days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  TOLK STATION............           0.302            0.65           1.004
2.....................................  BIG BROWN...............           0.235            0.50           0.809
3.....................................  BIG SPRING CARB.........           0.226            0.48           0.775
4.....................................  SOMMERS DEELY S.........           0.208            0.44           0.688
5.....................................  HARRINGTON STAT.........           0.184            0.39           0.606
6.....................................  MONTICELLO STM..........           0.114            0.24           0.391
7.....................................  WAHA PLANT..............           0.113            0.24           0.387
8.....................................  RELIANT ENERGY *........           0.111            0.24           0.372
9.....................................  MARTIN LAKE ELE.........           0.104            0.22           0.351
10....................................  COLETO CREEK PL.........           0.066            0.14           0.227
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the Limestone facility.


[[Page 74840]]

c. The TCEQ's Cost of Compliance Analysis Assumed Future CAIR 
Reductions as a Baseline
    We based our determination that CAIR was better than BART in part 
on a finding that CAIR resulted in an overall improvement in visibility 
determined by comparing the average differences over all affected Class 
I areas. We noted at the time that BART is one component of a long-term 
strategy to make reasonable progress, but it is not the only component. 
\210\ Thus, when assessing reasonable progress, a state should look 
beyond BART for additional reductions when determining what long-term 
strategy will achieve reasonable progress at its Class I areas. A 
critical decision point in performing cost analysis for potential 
controls is the determination of an emission baseline. As we state 
above, the TCEQ projected that Texas EGUs would purchase approximately 
125,000 tpy of emissions allowances from out of state. The TCEQ relied 
on the IPM predictions as discussed above to estimate 2018 emission 
levels for EGUs. The TCEQ also notes that there is uncertainty in the 
size and distribution in emissions in the future projections. 
Nevertheless, the TCEQ utilized this future projection of 2018 
emissions as the starting point for its estimation of emission 
reductions and the associated costs of additional controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ 70 FR 39137 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, Big Brown Unit 1's SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2002 
were 34,448 tpy. The IPM predictions that were incorporated into the 
2018 emission level assume that a roughly 1/3 reduction in these 
emissions will occur in response to CAIR by switching to a coal with a 
lower sulfur content, resulting in a 2018 SO<INF>2</INF> emission level 
of 23,142 tpy. The TCEQ's cost-effectiveness calculation for post-
combustion controls on Big Brown Unit 1 was based on reducing that 
projected 2018 SO<INF>2</INF> emission level of 23,142 tpy by 90%, 
resulting in a reduction of 20,828 tpy. This results in a cost of 
$32,766,310/yr, or a cost-effectiveness calculation of $1,573/ton. 
However, the installation of a scrubber would allow Big Brown 
flexibility in fuel choice thus allowing the unit to continue to burn 
the higher average sulfur fuel it currently burns, instead of moving to 
the low sulfur coal predicted by IPM.
    Big Brown Unit 1 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2012 were 32,100 tons. 
The issue of scrubber efficiency aside, a reduction of 90% from these 
actual emission levels would result in an SO<INF>2</INF> reduction in 
the range of 29,000 to 31,000 tpy. While the numerator ($) in the cost-
effectiveness metric of $/ton will increase slightly beyond what was 
estimated by Alpine Geophysics due to an increased sulfur loading to 
the scrubber, the denominator (tons) would increase by roughly 50%, 
thus improving (lowering) the overall cost-effectiveness of controlling 
Big Brown Unit 1 significantly.\211\ Estimates for scrubbers at 
Monticello are similarly impacted by the cost-methodology used by Texas 
in estimating cost-effectiveness on a cost-per-ton basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ See our cost-effectiveness calculations for retrofitting 
Big Brown and other Texas EGU with scrubbers in section VII.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that in performing its control analysis, the TCEQ should 
have given greater consideration to the flexibility in the CAIR trading 
program and the resulting uncertainty in the projected emissions. In 
other words, the TCEQ could have recognized that implementation of 
reasonable controls under the Regional Haze Rule would likely not be in 
addition to anticipated reductions due to CAIR predicted by IPM, but 
would replace or complement any controls predicted by IPM.
d. The TCEQ's Assumptions of SO<INF>2</INF> Control Efficiency of 
Scrubbers
    We note that the control efficiency of scrubbers evaluated by 
CENRAP and Texas, based on the data from AirControlNET, was assumed to 
be 90%. As we discuss in detail in our FIP TSD, we establish that 
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbers are capable of achieving emission reductions 
of at least 95% for dry scrubbers and 98% for wet scrubbers. These 
additional reductions would further reduce the price on a $/ton basis 
and increase the visibility benefit anticipated due to controls.
e. The TCEQ's Evaluation of Potential Visibility Improvements
    In considering whether compliance costs for sources were 
reasonable, the TCEQ compared those costs to the emission reductions 
and visibility improvement those sources would achieve. While 
visibility is not an explicitly listed factor to consider when 
determining whether additional controls are reasonable, the purpose of 
the four-factor analysis is to determine what degree of progress toward 
natural visibility conditions is reasonable. Therefore, we consider it 
appropriate to consider the projected visibility benefit of the 
controls when determining if the controls are needed to make reasonable 
progress. We discuss this in more detail in our FIP TSD.
    In evaluating and dismissing the estimated visibility benefit from 
the control set identified by the TCEQ, the TCEQ states that the 
estimated benefit is not perceptible (less than 1 dv) and that it is 
less than 0.5 dv, the threshold used under BART requirements used to 
determine if a facility contributes to visibility impairment. The 0.5 
dv BART threshold referred to applies to the maximum anticipated 
visibility impact on a single day due to the short-term maximum actual 
baseline emissions from a single facility, compared to clean background 
conditions. The reasonable progress analysis presented by the TCEQ 
contemplates the visibility benefit anticipated for an average tpy 
emission reduction (as opposed to the impact from the total short-term 
maximum emissions from the sources) averaged across the 20% worst days, 
which would be anticipated to be significantly lower. See our FIP TSD 
for a detailed discussion of the different metrics and modeling 
typically used for BART and reasonable progress analyses. Furthermore, 
in a situation where the installation of BART may not result in a 
perceptible improvement in visibility, the visibility benefit may still 
be significant, as explained by the Regional Haze Rule: \212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ 70 FR 39130 (July 6, 2005)

    Even though the visibility improvement from an individual source 
may not be perceptible, it should still be considered in setting 
BART because the contribution to haze may be significant relative to 
other source contributions in the Class I area. Thus, we disagree 
that the degree of improvement should be contingent upon 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
perceptibility.

    As we stated in our Oklahoma final decision: \213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ 76 FR 81739 (Dec. 28, 2011).

    Given that sources are subject to BART based on a contribution 
threshold of no greater than 0.5 deciviews, it would be inconsistent 
to automatically rule out additional controls where the improvement 
in visibility may be less than 1.0 deciview or even 0.5 deciviews. A 
perceptible visibility improvement is not a requirement of the BART 
determination because visibility improvements that are not 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
perceptible may still be determined to be significant.

f. The TCEQ's ``Order of Magnitude Estimate'' for Visibility 
Improvement
    The TCEQ produced an ``order of- magnitude estimate'' of the 
visibility improvements resulting from the level of aggregate emission 
reductions that would result from its point source control strategy 
using PSAT results and effectiveness ratios. This methodology assumes 
that all emission reductions within a PSAT region have the same

[[Page 74841]]

effectiveness in reducing visibility impairment. The estimated 
effectiveness factor applied equally to all emission reductions located 
in the East Texas source region, including Sommers Deely Spruce (440 km 
from Big Bend and 680 km from Guadalupe Mountains) and Monticello (850 
km from Big Bend and 920 km from Guadalupe Mountains). Given the large 
difference in distances between these two facilities and the Class I 
areas, it is reasonable to expect that the effectiveness of emission 
reductions could vary greatly between the two. We propose to find that 
the TCEQ's analysis is insufficient to determine the visibility benefit 
of controlling the source or subset of sources with the most effective 
controls for improving visibility conditions at a Class I area or a 
number of Class I areas and that the potential visibility benefits from 
controlling these sources may be significant. Our own source 
apportionment modeling has confirmed that individual sources within the 
CENRAP modeling PSAT regions had significantly different impacts, 
leading us to believe that TCEQ's reliance on an aggregate analysis 
materially affected its conclusion that existing and scheduled controls 
would achieve reasonable progress.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See the FIP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Upgrades to Existing Controls
    The CENRAP analysis and the additional analysis performed by the 
TCEQ did not consider the reasonableness of control upgrades or 
increased utilization of existing controls. We note that the 
AirControlNET database does not include general information for the 
cost and effectiveness of scrubber upgrades as the cost and reductions 
from these potential upgrades are typically very specific to the 
existing equipment and site-specific conditions. Many Texas EGU's are 
equipped with older vintage scrubbers and/or have scrubber bypasses 
that divert a portion of the exhaust gas around the control equipment. 
In some cases, excess scrubbing capacity is simply not being utilized. 
Texas includes many of these sources with controls in the maps showing 
area of influence and ``high priority'' sources for other state's Class 
I areas, as well as in the table of sources within the Class I areas 
AOI, in their correspondence with other states (see Appendix 4.3 of the 
TX regional haze SIP). However, Texas did not provide any analysis of 
the four factors on these partially controlled sources or include these 
sources in a Q/D analysis to identify those sources with the largest 
potential to impact visibility due to emissions and distance. There are 
a number of EGUs with existing controls with 2018 projected emissions 
large enough to have a Q/D many times greater than threshold (Q/D > 5) 
used by Texas. Furthermore, even with these existing controls, some of 
these EGUs are among the largest SO<INF>2</INF> sources in the state. 
For example, the Martin Lake facility has a Q/D for Guadalupe Mountains 
(958 km away) greater than 37 using the projected 2018 SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions.\215\ The 2018 projected emissions includes predicted 
emission reductions due to CAIR at many of these controlled facilities, 
suggesting some increase in control efficiency and/or burning fuels 
with a lower average sulfur content is already included in the 2018 
projections. Absent any additional analysis, however, it is not 
possible to determine whether additional reductions beyond those 
included in the 2018 emission inventory for these facilities are cost-
effective, result in visibility benefits at the Class I areas and are 
reasonable. For example, emissions at Martin Lake unit 1 in the CENRAP 
emission inventory are projected to decrease from 24,832 tpy in 2002 to 
11,351 tpy in 2018. As we discuss in our FIP TSD, based on coal data 
submitted to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, upgrading the 
existing scrubber to 95% control efficiency would result in an 
approximate emission reduction of an additional 7,000 tpy beyond those 
reductions projected to occur due to CAIR. Scrubber upgrades across all 
three Martin Lake units could result in emission reductions of 
approximately 21,000 tpy beyond the level of control assumed in the 
2018 projections. Given the size of these sources, the size of the 
impact from Texas emissions, and the source apportionment data 
indicating the large impact from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs, we 
believe it was unreasonable for Texas to not perform any analysis on 
these sources or request additional information from the facilities 
concerning potential upgrades. As documented in our FIP TSD, scrubber 
upgrades are often very cost-effective on a cost per ton basis. Our 
analysis in the FIP TSD demonstrates that many of these older 
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbers can be cost-effectively upgraded. The 
importance of this omission becomes clear from our analysis that shows 
that for a cost-effectiveness of approximately $600/ton or less, over 
100,000 tpy of SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions can be achieved from 
a small number of scrubber upgrades, resulting in cost-effective 
visibility benefits at Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in other 
states. Thus, we propose to find that this omission by TCEQ materially 
affected the outcome of its four-factor analysis. See our FIP TSD for a 
detailed discussion of the visibility benefits anticipated from 
scrubber upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ We note that recent actual emissions at the facility are 
roughly twice as large as the 2018 projected value. Based on 2002 
emissions, the Q/D for Guadalupe Mountains for SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions is approximately 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Our Conclusion Regarding the TCEQ's Analysis of the Four Reasonable 
Progress Factors
    For the reasons described above, we propose to disapprove Texas' 
analysis of the reasonable progress factors under Section 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
4. Texas' Assertion That its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
    Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii) provides that for the period of the SIP, 
if Texas establishes a RPG that provides for a slower rate of 
improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain 
natural conditions by 2064, it must demonstrate based on the factors in 
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) that the rate of progress for the SIP to 
attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the 
progress goal it adopted is reasonable. As part of its SIP assessment, 
Texas must provide to the public for review the number of years it 
would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement 
continues at the rate of progress it selected as reasonable. In 
determining whether the Texas' goals for visibility improvement provide 
for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the 
Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by it pursuant 
to Section 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii).
a. The TCEQ's Evaluation
    Texas' RPGs for the 20% worst days establish a slower rate of 
progress than the URP for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. The 
TCEQ calculated that under the rate of progress selected as reasonable, 
natural visibility conditions (as calculated by Texas) would not be 
attained at Big Bend until 2155 and at the Guadalupe Mountains until 
2081. In Appendix 10-3 of its regional haze SIP, the TCEQ includes 
calculations based on our default natural conditions, estimating 
attainment of natural visibility conditions at the Big Bend in 2215 and 
Guadalupe Mountains in 2167.
    The TCEQ believes the RPGs it established for Big Bend and the 
Guadalupe Mountains on the 20% worst

[[Page 74842]]

days are reasonable, and that it is not reasonable to achieve the glide 
path in 2018. In support of this conclusion, it included a discussion 
of the pollutant contributions and the sources of visibility impairment 
at these Class I areas (see Section 10.6. and Chapter 11 of the Texas 
Regional Haze SIP and Table 14 below). In considering the four 
reasonable progress factors under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(i)(A), as discussed 
in Section V.C.2, above, the TCEQ also took other factors into 
consideration in determining that it is not reasonable to achieve the 
glide paths in 2018 and that the RPGs adopted by the state are 
reasonable. The TCEQ indicated that the ability to meet the URP or make 
additional progress towards reaching natural visibility conditions is 
impeded primarily by the following: the significant contribution of 
emissions from Mexico and other international sources; the uncertainty 
in the effect of CAIR; and the poor cost-effectiveness of additional 
reasonable point source controls.
    The TCEQ noted that the CENRAP PSAT analysis indicates that 52% of 
the impairment at Big Bend and 25% of the impairment at Guadalupe 
Mountains is from Mexico and further south. Substantial reductions in 
emissions from outside the United States are needed to meet the goal of 
natural visibility at the Texas Class I areas. As discussed elsewhere 
in this notice, the TCEQ considered the URP and the emission reductions 
necessary to meet the URP in establishing the RPG.

 Table 14--CENRAP's PSAT Contribution to Visibility in the Texas Class I
                       Areas on the Worst 20% Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Guadalupe
          Contribution by area             Big Bend  (%)  Mountains  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas...................................            24.8            34.8
Mexico..................................            26.7            16.5
Boundary Conditions.....................            25.7             8.7
Other U.S...............................            11.9            18.9
Miscellaneous...........................             5.8             9.6
Neighboring States......................             5.1            11.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, with respect to reductions at Texas sources, the TCEQ 
noted a wide range of measures and programs in place in Texas that 
result in emission reductions that often go beyond federal 
requirements. Chapter 11 and Appendices 11-2 (Federal and Texas 
Programs Related to On-Road and Non-Road Mobile Sources) and 11-3 
(Major Point Source NO<INF>X</INF> Rules and Reductions Promulgated in 
Texas Since 2000) detail additional rules and programs that minimize 
emissions that can cause or contribute to local and regional visibility 
impairment. In Section 10.2 of the Texas regional haze SIP, the TCEQ 
identifies the following programs:
    <bullet> Opacity limits on grandfathered facilities;
    <bullet> Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements that 
typically go beyond EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for 
new and modified sources;
    <bullet> Extensive NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits on existing and 
new sources including major, minor and area sources including some on a 
statewide basis;
    <bullet> Texas Emission Reduction Program (TERP), which provides 
financial incentives to accelerate the implementation of new, cleaner 
diesel engine technologies in on-road and non-road applications; and
    <bullet> Air Check Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program, 
which provides financial incentives for scrapping older gasoline-
powered on-road vehicles.
    The TCEQ noted that the established RPGs reflect emission reduction 
programs already in place, including CAIR, additional refinery 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions as a result of refinery consent decrees, 
Texas ozone SIP revisions, and the Texas Clean Air Act. It noted that 
the majority of the emission reductions underlying the predicted 
visibility improvements are from the CAIR program or its eventual 
replacement. The TCEQ assumes that any replacement for CAIR will 
include interstate trading of emissions allowances and therefore there 
is uncertainty regarding how visibility will be improved at individual 
Class I areas. The TCEQ states that because emission allowances can be 
purchased by EGUs relatively close to the Texas Class I areas from EGUs 
far from the Texas Class I areas, the visibility improvement, may not 
be as great as predicted by the CENRAP's modeling. Conversely, nearby 
EGUs may elect to control beyond their emission caps and sell emission 
allowances out of state, resulting in reduced emissions closer to the 
Texas Class I areas.
    The TCEQ concluded that ``given the significant impact from 
international emissions, the uncertainty in the impact of CAIR, and the 
poor cost-effectiveness of additional, reasonable point source 
controls, the TCEQ has determined that additional controls for regional 
haze are not appropriate at this time.'' \216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ Section 10.7 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Our Evaluation
    We agree that there is uncertainty regarding the size and location 
of reductions at Texas EGUs due to implementation of CAIR/CSAPR. While 
reductions at certain facilities within Texas would result in 
improvements in visibility conditions at the Texas Class I areas or 
Class I areas in other states, similar reductions at other facilities 
may have no impact on visibility conditions at the Class I area. 
Furthermore, reductions that are seasonal in nature due to decreased 
operation during the fall and/or winter reduce annual emissions, 
contribute towards CAIR/CSAPR compliance, but will not lead to improved 
visibility during the 20% worst days, which typically occur during the 
summer months. For example, in recent years the Monticello units have 
been shut down for several non-summer months, which has resulted in 
reduced annual emissions, while having no impact on summer time 
emissions or visibility impacts during the summer months. The CENRAP 
source apportionment results include the projected reductions due to 
CAIR compliance and show that even after these reductions, impacts from 
Texas points sources remain the most significant portion of the total 
visibility impairment with available controls at Big Bend and 
Guadalupe. Analysis of recent emissions from Texas EGUs shows that in 
many cases current emission levels are above those predicted in the 
2018 CENRAP modeling. In fact, in the case of Martin Lake, current 
annual emissions are roughly twice those included in the 2018 modeling, 
and we are not aware of

[[Page 74843]]

any upcoming controls or changes in operation to suggest that future 
actual emissions will decrease to those predicted levels.
    We also agree with the TCEQ's conclusion that it is not reasonable 
to meet the URP for the Texas Class I areas for this planning period. 
We agree with the TCEQ that emissions and transport from Mexico and 
other international sources will limit the rate of progress achievable 
on the 20% worst days and that efforts to meet the goal of natural 
visibility by 2064 would require further emission reductions not only 
within Texas, but also large emission reductions from international 
sources.
    We also note the more recent IMPROVE monitored data at the Big Bend 
and Guadalupe Mountains indicate that more progress than anticipated by 
the CENRAP modeling has occurred.\217\ The most recent five-year (2009-
2013) average conditions for the 20% worst days is 16.3 dv at Big Bend 
and 15.3 dv at Guadalupe Mountains. This is below the level anticipated 
in the CENRAP projection for 2018 of 16.6 dv for Big Bend and 16.3 dv 
for Guadalupe Mountains. We believe that this observed improvement from 
the baseline conditions is the result of meteorological conditions, 
reduction in the impacts from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and a reduction 
in the impacts from coarse material. More recent emission inventory 
data shows reductions in emissions in most states beyond what was 
projected in the 2018 modeling, including large reductions in emissions 
from the Eastern United States. Emissions from non-EGU Texas point 
sources are lower than have been projected in the modeling. We note 
that additional reductions are still needed to meet or exceed the URP 
goals for 2018 as calculated by us in Section VII.M below. As discussed 
above, emission reductions at some of the sources that impact 
visibility the most are still above the emission level projected in the 
model and we believe that cost-effective controls are likely available 
at these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, for the reasons we have discussed above, although we agree 
with the TCEQ that a rate of improvement necessary to attain natural 
visibility conditions by 2064 is not reasonable, we do not believe that 
the rate of improvement the TECQ has selected is reasonable, because we 
disagree with its four factor analysis and the analysis of emission 
measures needed to meet the URP. Therefore we propose to disapprove the 
TCEQ's RPGs for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains under Section 
51.308(d)(1)(ii). In so doing, we rely on the specific directive in 
Section 51.308(d)(1)(iii): ``In determining whether the State's goal 
for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards 
natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the 
demonstrations developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 
and (d)(1)(ii) of this section.'' We also propose to disapprove the 
Texas' RPGs for the 20% best days. We propose to find that visibility 
on these days will be better than Texas projects, given additional 
controls in our proposed FIP.
5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
    Pursuant to Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), Texas consulted with other 
states which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment at its two Class I areas. In any situation in 
which Texas cannot agree with another such state or group of states 
that a goal provides for reasonable progress, Texas must describe in 
its submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In 
reviewing Texas' SIP submittal, the Administrator will take this 
information into account in determining whether Texas' goal for 
visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural 
visibility conditions.
    The TCEQ held three conference calls in July, 2007 to which 
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma were invited. The 
TCEQ used CENRAP generated products, such as regional photochemical 
modeling results and visibility projections, and source apportionment 
modeling to assist in identifying neighboring states' contributions to 
the visibility impairment at its Class I areas. Specifically, the TCEQ 
used the results from the CENRAP particulate matter source 
apportionment technology (PSAT) modeling to determine that New Mexico, 
Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisiana contribute to visibility impairment at 
the Texas Class I areas. The TCEQ invited those states with a > 0.5 
inverse megameter impact on one of its Class I areas to its 
consultations. Other participants that attended one or more of the 
calls included CENRAP, us, and the federal land managers. The TCEQ 
invited tribes in all of the CENRAP states to the consultation calls, 
but no tribes participated in the consultation on Big Bend and 
Guadalupe Mountains. These calls are summarized in Appendix 4-1 of the 
Texas regional haze SIP.
    The first consultation call primarily addressed technical papers 
that discussed the natural conditions, the impacts of dust storms in 
Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, our IPM emission projections, and 
the URP and RPGs for the Texas Class I areas. The second and third 
consultation calls consisted of discussions between the states and 
federal land managers regarding the dust storm technical papers. The 
TCEQ presented the URPs for its Class I areas, discussed controls that 
are in place in Texas, and its decision that no additional controls 
would be included in its regional haze SIP. The federal land managers 
suggested that the TCEQ revise the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) permit process to include FLM notification 
provisions. Texas committed to further consultations with the federal 
land managers to address their concerns about the Texas PSD program.
    The TCEQ discussed the CENRAP PSAT modeling results with the 
attendees. It noted that the BRAVO study indicated that for 
SO<INF>4</INF>, which has the largest visibility impact of all 
pollutants at Big Bend, approximately \1/3\ comes from Mexico, \1/3\ 
from Texas, and \1/3\ from the Midwest and South beyond Texas. It noted 
that these results are somewhat inconsistent with CENRAP PSAT modeling 
results, which indicate that slightly more than half of the visibility 
impairment at Big Bend comes from Mexico and other areas outside the 
U.S.
    New Mexico and the federal land managers discussed that despite the 
Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico sharing 
the same monitor, these Class I areas appeared to have significantly 
different calculated natural visibility values, individually prepared 
by the two states.\218\ The federal land managers and we both expressed 
a desire to review the TCEQ's natural visibility calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ Note that we discuss the difference between the natural 
visibility value calculated by New Mexico for Carlsbad Caverns and 
that calculated by Texas for the Guadalupe Mountains elsewhere in 
our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ concluded its consultations by noting that other states' 
visibility impacts on Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are 
relatively small. Texas sources are responsible for 25% and 35% of the 
visibility impairment at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, 
respectively. Neighboring states combined contribute only 5% of the 
visibility impairment at Big Bend and 11.5% at the Guadalupe Mountains. 
As a result of these

[[Page 74844]]

consultations, the TCEQ did not request any additional reductions from 
other states.
    Citing the source apportionment results and results of the BRAVO 
study, in Section 11.3 of the Texas regional haze SIP, Texas requests 
in its SIP that we initiate and pursue federal efforts to reduce 
impacts from international transport. Due to large contributions from 
international sources, the TCEQ concludes it will be impossible to 
reach natural conditions without significant reductions in Mexico and 
other countries, in parallel with reductions within Texas and the rest 
of the United States. The TCEQ notes that Class I areas in other states 
will also benefit from reductions in emissions from international 
sources. We acknowledge that emissions from Mexico significantly impact 
the visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. As we state in 
the Regional Haze Rule,\219\ ``the EPA does not expect States to 
restrict emissions from domestic sources to offset the impacts of 
international transport of pollution. We believe that States should 
evaluate the impacts of current and projected emissions from 
international sources in their regional haze programs, particularly in 
cases where it has already been well documented that such sources are 
important.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ 64 FR 35736 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reviewed the CENRAP PSAT data for the Texas Class I areas 
referred to during the consultation calls, as well as the technical 
papers discussed during those calls and the summary of the calls in 
Appendix 4-1 of Texas' SIP submittal. Approximately half of the 2002 
visibility impairment at Big Bend is due to Mexico and other 
international sources captured in the modeled boundary conditions, one 
quarter of the impairment is due to Texas sources and the remaining 
quarter is due to all the remaining sources combined, with the largest 
contributions in this group from the Eastern United States (2.5%) and 
Louisiana (2.8%). Examining only contributions due to point sources in 
2002, Texas point sources contribute 10% of the total visibility 
impairment at Big Bend and Mexico point sources contribute 16.9%. The 
largest impact from a nearby state is Louisiana at a little more than 
2% contribution. All other nearby states contribute less than 1% to the 
total visibility impairment at Big Bend. The source apportionment 
results for 2018 projections at Big Bend show similar levels of 
contribution with a slight decrease in Texas and Eastern United States 
contributions. Mexico and other international sources contribute 
approximately one quarter of the visibility impairment and Texas 
contributes about one third of the visibility impairment at the 
Guadalupe Mountains in 2002. The next largest contributing source 
regions are New Mexico (7.3%, 4.7% from natural sources), Kansas 
(3.3%), the Eastern United States (3.2%), Western United States (3.0%), 
and Oklahoma (2.5%). Examining only contributions due to point sources 
in 2002, Texas point sources contribute 8.7% of the total visibility 
impairment and Mexico point sources contribute 6.8%. The largest impact 
from a nearby state is New Mexico at a little more than 1% 
contribution. All other nearby states contribute less than 1% to the 
total visibility impairment at Guadalupe Mountains. The source 
apportionment results for 2018 projections at Guadalupe Mountains show 
similar levels of contribution with a slight decrease in eastern United 
States contributions. PSAT results show an overwhelming contribution 
from international sources and Texas sources and the technical papers 
shared by Texas suggest that dust storms significantly impact a number 
of the worst 20% days at these Class I areas.
    We find that the TCEQ appropriately identified those states with 
the largest impacts on Texas Class I areas and invited them for 
consultation. We agree with Texas' determination that was not 
reasonable to request additional controls from other states at this 
time. Given the small contributions from individual nearby states, 
especially when only considering anthropogenic sources that can be 
easily controlled in comparison with the size of impacts from Texas 
sources and international sources, we find that it was reasonable for 
the TCEQ to have focused the analysis of additional controls on sources 
within Texas. We propose to find that Texas has satisfied the 
requirement under Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv) to consult with other states 
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment at its two Class I areas.

D. Evaluation of Texas' BART Determinations

    As part of its strategy to address BART, the TCEQ adopted a BART 
rule on January 10, 2007, as 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter M.\220\ 
This rule identifies potentially affected sources as those belonging to 
one of 26 BART source industry categories; having a Potential to Emit 
(PTE) of 250 tpy or more of any visibility impairing pollutant; and not 
operating prior to August 7, 1962, and being in existence on August 7, 
1977. It uses a value of 0.5 dv as the visibility contribution 
threshold. It also incorporates the BART model plant and de minimis 
exemption criteria discussed below, and exempts EGUs that participate 
in CAIR from undergoing a BART review for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF>. It specifies that all non-exempt sources must undergo a 
BART review, according to the BART Guidelines. Lastly, it provides that 
BART controls must be installed and operational within 5 years 
following our approval of this SIP. We have reviewed the Texas BART 
rule and propose to approve it, with the exception of Texas' reliance 
on CAIR to meet BART, as discussed in more detail in Section V.D.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ The Texas BART Rule is present in Appendix 9-2 of the 
Texas regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas exercised its option under Section 51.308(e)(4) (as it read 
at that time) that participation in CAIR is equivalent to BART. This 
exempted EGUs impacted by CAIR from a BART analysis for SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF>. As a result, the TCEQ did not evaluate BART-
eligible EGUs that are included in CAIR for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>. This EGU BART exemption does not extend to particulate 
matter. As explained further in Section V.D.3, we earlier issued a 
limited disapproval of Texas' regional haze SIP based on its reliance 
on CAIR. We are now proposing a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with 
reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR as an alternative to BART for 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs in the regional 
haze plan for Texas.
    As discussed in more detail in our BART Rule,\221\ the BART 
evaluation process consists of three components: (1) An identification 
of all the BART-eligible sources, (2) an assessment of whether those 
BART-eligible sources are in fact subject to BART and (3) a 
determination of any BART controls. The TCEQ addressed these steps as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. The TCEQ identified the 
BART-eligible sources in Texas by utilizing the three eligibility 
criteria in the BART Guidelines \222\ and our regulations (Section 
51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one 
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emission 
unit(s) began operation on or after August 6, 1962, and was in 
existence on

[[Page 74845]]

August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing 
pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ 70 FR 39158-39161 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ did not have a comprehensive database of potential 
emissions from facilities, so it used annual emissions reporting with 
some adjustments. The TCEQ's State of Texas Air Reporting System 
(STARS) database was used to determine which sources were potentially 
BART-eligible. In addition to NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, the 
TCEQ also screened its database for sources of Volatile Organics (VOC) 
and coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) greater than 200 tpy. 
The TCEQ used PM<INF>10</INF> as a conservative value for direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. However, because this database does not contain all 
information necessary to determine BART eligibility, the TCEQ also 
surveyed companies regarding their potential to emit and construction 
dates in order to complete the BART eligibility determination. In order 
to reduce the number of companies requiring clarification, the TCEQ 
chose to adopt a model plant analysis approach based on our model 
plants \223\ in order to eliminate smaller sources of NO<INF>X</INF> 
and SO<INF>2</INF> sources from being surveyed and potentially subject 
to BART. Regarding the use of the model plant approach, the BART 
Guidelines state:\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
    \224\ 70 FR 39163 (July 6, 2005).

    Based on our analyses, we believe that a State that has 
established 0.5 deciviews as a contribution threshold could 
reasonably exempt from the BART review process sources that emit 
less than 500 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF> or SO<INF>2</INF> (or 
combined NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>), as long as these 
sources are located more than 50 kilometers from any Class I area; 
and sources that emit less than 1000 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF> 
or SO<INF>2</INF> (or combined NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that are located more than 100 kilometers from any Class I area.

    Since the STARS database includes reported actual emissions instead 
of potential to emit, the TCEQ added some conservatism to the inclusion 
of sources. The TCEQ modified its model plant approach and reduced the 
emission threshold to 375 tpy for sources greater than 50 km and 750 
tpy for sources greater than 100 km to capture sources that might not 
have been above the BART Guideline's emissions threshold, based only on 
their 2002 emissions levels.
    As a result of the BART eligibility screening analysis, 254 sites/
facilities (approximately 12% of the 2,165 facilities in the Texas 2002 
emissions inventory) were identified as being potentially BART-eligible 
based on their county's minimum distance to Class I areas and their 
actual emissions. The TCEQ then sent surveys to these sites to request 
additional information in identifying construction or reconstruction 
dates and whether the potential to emit of potential BART eligible 
equipment exceeded the BART eligibility threshold of 250 tpy. As a 
result of the BART eligibility survey, the TCEQ determined that the 
following sites \225\ numbered 1 through 120 were BART-eligible. During 
TCEQ's review of BART eligible sources another 6 facilities were 
identified as potentially BART eligible (numbered 121-126):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ Reproduced from Table 9-2 of the Texas regional haze SIP 
with additional sources later identified added.

                    Table 15--Potential BART-Eligible Sources Based on Results of TCEQ Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          No.                    Account                  Source                  Regulated entity          SIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................  AC0017B                 Abitibi Consolidated      RN100220110                      2621
                                                  Corp.
2......................  TG0044C                 AEP Texas...............  RN101531226                      4911
3......................  CD0013K                 AEP Texas Central         RN102560687                      4911
                                                  Company.
4......................  NE0024E                 AEP Texas Central         RN100642040                      4911
                                                  Company.
5......................  NE0026A                 AEP Texas Central         RN100552181                      4911
                                                  Company.
6......................  JI0030K                 AEP Texas North Company.  RN100215557                      4911
7......................  CB0003M                 Alcoa Alumina &           RN100242577                      2819
                                                  Chemicals.
8......................  MM0001T                 Alcoa Inc...............  RN100221472                      3334
9......................  HT0011Q                 Alon USA Lp.............  RN100250869                      2911
10.....................  ED0034O                 Ash Grove (Formerly       RN100225978                      3241
                                                  North Texas Cement).
11.....................  HG0558G                 Atofina Chemicals Inc...  RN100209444                      2869
12.....................  BL0021O                 BASF Corporation........  RN100218049                      2869
13.....................  GB0001R                 BP Amoco Chemical         RN102536307                      2869
                                                  Company.
14.....................  GB0004L                 BP Products North         RN102535077                      2911
                                                  America In Texas.
15.....................  GH0003Q                 Cabot Corporation.......  RN100221761                      2895
16.....................  BG0045E                 Capitol Cement Div        RN100211507                      3241
                                                  Capitol.
17.....................  GH0004O                 Celanese Chemical.......  RN101996395                      2869
18.....................  MH0009H                 Celanese Limited........  RN100258060                      2869
19.....................  ED0011D                 Chaparral Steel           RN100216472                      3312
                                                  Midlothian.
20.....................  BJ0001T                 Chemical Lime Ltd.......  RN100219856                      3274
21.....................  HG0310V                 Chevron Phillips          RN103919817                      2869
                                                  Chemical.
22.....................  BL0758C                 Chevron Phillips          RN100825249                      2869
                                                  Chemical.
23.....................  HW0013C                 Chevron Phillips          RN102320850                      2869
                                                  Chemical Co.
24.....................  NE0027V                 Citgo Refining &          RN102555166                      2911
                                                  Chemicals.
25.....................  BG0057U                 City Public Service.....  RN100217975                      4911
26.....................  BG0186I                 City Public Service.....  RN100217835                      4911
27.....................  HW0018P                 Conoco Phillips           RN102495884                      2911
                                                  (Formerly Phillips 66).
28.....................  CR0020C                 Copano Processing LP....  RN101271419                      1321
29.....................  AB0012W                 DCP (Formerly Duke        RN100218684                      1321
                                                  Energy Field Services).
30.....................  HW0008S                 Degussa Engineered        RN100209659                      2895
                                                  Carbons.
31.....................  HGA005E                 DOW.....................  RN104150123                      2869
32.....................  HG0126Q                 DOW.....................  RN100227016                      2869
33.....................  CI0022A                 Dynegy Midstream          RN100222900                      1321
                                                  Services.
34.....................  HH0042M                 Eastman Chemical Company  RN100219815                      2869
35.....................  HG0218K                 E.I. Dupont de Nemours &  RN100225085                      2869
                                                  Co.
36.....................  OC0007J                 E.I. Dupont de Nemours &  RN100542711                      2869
                                                  Co.
37.....................  EE0029T                 El Paso Electric Co.....  RN100211309                      4911

[[Page 74846]]

 
38.....................  TH0004D                 Electric Utility Dept...  RN100219872                      4911
39.....................  CG0012C                 Enbridge Pipelines......  RN102166964                      1321
40.....................  MQ0009F                 Entergy Gulf States Inc.  RN100226877                      4911
41.....................  OC0013O                 Entergy Gulf States Inc.  RN102513041                      4911
42.....................  BL0113I                 Equistar................  RN100218601                      2869
43.....................  BL0268B                 Equistar Chemicals LP...  RN100237668                      2821
44.....................  HG0033B                 Equistar Chemicals LP...  RN100542281                      2869
45.....................  HG0228H                 Exxon Chemical Co.......  RN102212925                      2869
46.....................  JE0065M                 Exxon Mobil Chemical Co.  RN100211903                      2821
47.....................  HG0229F                 ExxonMobil Chemical Co..  RN102574803                      2869
48.....................  HG0232Q                 ExxonMobil Corp.........  RN102579307                      2911
49.....................  JE0067I                 ExxonMobil Oil Corp.....  RN102450756                      2911
50.....................  NE0120H                 Flint Hills Resources...  RN102534138                      2911
51.....................  NE0122D                 Flint Hills Resources LP  RN100235266                      2911
52.....................  JE0052V                 Huntsman Corporation....  RN100219252                      2869
53.....................  JE0135Q                 Huntsman Petrochemical    RN100217389                      2869
                                                  Corp.
54.....................  EB0057B                 Huntsman Polymers.......  RN101867554                      2869
55.....................  BL0002S                 INEOS Olefins & Polymers  RN100238708                      2869
56.....................  CG0010G                 International Paper Co..  RN100543115                      2621
57.....................  OCA002B                 Invista.................  RN104392626                      2869
58.....................  VC0008Q                 Invista (Formerly Du      RN102663671                      2869
                                                  Pont De Nemours).
59.....................  WE0005G                 Laredo Power............  RN100213909                      4911
60.....................  MB0123F                 Lehigh Cement Company...  RN100218254                      3241
61.....................  NE0025C                 Lon C Hill Power........  RN100215979                      4911
62.....................  BC0015L                 Lower Colorado River      RN102038486                      4911
                                                  Authority.
63.....................  FC0018G                 Lower Colorado River      RN100226844                      4911
                                                  Authority.
64.....................  HG1575W                 Lyondell Chemical.......  RN100633650                      2869
65.....................  HG0048L                 Lyondell Citgo Refining.  RN100218130                      2911
66.....................  GB0055R                 Marathon Ashland          RN100210608                      2911
                                                  Petroleum.
67.....................  HH0019H                 NORIT Americas Inc......  RN102609724                      2819
68.....................  GB0037T                 NRG Texas (Formerly       RN101062826                      4911
                                                  Texas Genco LP).
69.....................  ED0051O                 Owens Corning...........  RN100223585                      3296
70.....................  HG1451S                 Oxyvinyls LP............  RN102518065                      2821
71.....................  HG0175D                 Pasadena Refining.......  RN100716661                      2911
72.....................  JE0042B                 Premcor Refining Group..  RN102584026                      2911
73.....................  MC0002H                 Regency Tilden Gas        RN100216621                      2819
                                                  (Formerly Enbridge).
74.....................  HG0697O                 Rhodia Inc..............  RN100220581                      2819
75.....................  HG0632T                 Rohm & Haas Texas.......  RN100223205                      2869
76.....................  HG0659W                 Shell Oil Co............  RN100211879                      2911
77.....................  HW0017R                 Sid Richardson Carbon...  RN100222413                      2895
78.....................  HT0027B                 Sid Richardson Carbon Co  RN100226026                      2895
79.....................  BL0038U                 Solutia Inc.............  RN100238682                      2869
80.....................  TF0012D                 Southwestern Electric     RN100213370                      4911
                                                  Power.
81.....................  GJ0043K                 Southwestern Electric     RN102156916                      4911
                                                  Power.
82.....................  ME0006A                 Southwestern Electric     RN100542596                      4911
                                                  Power.
83.....................  PG0040T                 Southwestern Public       RN100224641                      4911
                                                  Service.
84.....................  PG0041R                 Southwestern Public       RN100224849                      4911
                                                  Service.
85.....................  LN0081B                 Southwestern Public       RN100224765                      4911
                                                  Service.
86.....................  JE0091L                 Sun Marine Terminal.....  RN100214626                      4226
87.....................  WN0042V                 Targa...................  RN102552387                      1311
88.....................  CY0019H                 Targa (Formerly Dynegy    RN102551785                      1311
                                                  Midstream).
89.....................  OC0019C                 Temple-Inland...........  RN100214428                      2621
90.....................  CI0012D                 Texas Genco LP..........  RN100825371                      4911
91.....................  FG0020V                 Texas Genco LP..........  RN100888312                      4911
92.....................  HK0014M                 Texas Lehigh Cement Co..  RN102597846                      3241
93.....................  HG0562P                 Texas Petrochemicals LP.  RN100219526                      2869
94.....................  BL0082R                 The Dow Chemical Co.....  RN100225945                      2869
95.....................  JE0039N                 The Goodyear Tire And     RN102561925                      2822
                                                  Rubber Co.
96.....................  NE0022I                 Ticona Polymers Inc.....  RN101625721                      2869
97.....................  JE0005H                 Total Petrochemicals....  RN102457520                      2911
98.....................  ED0066B                 TXI Operations LP.......  RN100217199                      3241
99.....................  FI0020W                 TXU Big Brown Company LP  RN101198059                      4911
100....................  DB0251U                 TXU Electric Company....  RN101559854                      4911
101....................  FB0025U                 TXU Generation Company    RN102285855                      4911
                                                  LP.
102....................  HQ0012T                 TXU Generation Company    RN100664812                      4911
                                                  LP.
103....................  MB0116C                 TXU Generation Company    RN102566494                      4911
                                                  LP.
104....................  MM0023J                 TXU Generation Company    RN102147881                      4911
                                                  LP.
105....................  MO0014L                 TXU Generation Company    RN102285848                      4911
                                                  LP.
106....................  RL0020K                 TXU Generation Company    RN102583093                      4911
                                                  LP.
107....................  TA0352I                 TXU Generation Company    RN100693308                      4911
                                                  LP.
108....................  WC0028Q                 TXU Generation Company    RN102183969                      4911
                                                  LP.
109....................  YB0017V                 TXU Generation Company    RN102563426                      4911
                                                  LP.

[[Page 74847]]

 
110....................  TF0013B                 TXU Generation Company    RN102285921                      4911
                                                  LP.
111....................  GB0076J                 Union Carbide Corp......  RN100219351                      2869
112....................  CB0028T                 Union Carbide             RN102181526                      2869
                                                  Corporation.
113....................  HR0018T                 Valence Midstream Ltd...  RN100213685                      1321
114....................  GB0073P                 Valero Refining Co Texas  RN100238385                      2911
115....................  NE0043A                 Valero Refining Company.  RN100211663                      2911
116....................  MR0008T                 Valero McKee............  RN100210517                      2911
117....................  WH0014S                 Vetrotex Wichita Falls    RN100218601                      3229
                                                  Plant.
118....................  VC0003D                 Victoria Power..........  RN100214980                      4911
119....................  JB0016M                 Vintage Petroleum Inc...  RN100214592                      1311
120....................  JC0003K                 Westvaco................  RN102157609                      2631
121 \226\..............  JE0343H                 BMC Holdings Inc........  .............................  ......
122....................  AG0024G                 Pueblo Midstream Gas      .............................  ......
                                                  Corp.
123....................  GBA007G                 INEOS...................  .............................  ......
124....................  HG0130C                 Valero Refining Texas LP  .............................  ......
125....................  JH0025O                 Johns Manville            .............................  ......
                                                  International.
126....................  PE0024Q                 Regency Gas Services....  .............................  ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the TCEQ's development of their list of BART-
eligible facilities (ultimately 126 sources) and we propose to conclude 
that the TCEQ has adequately identified all sources that are BART 
eligible in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ Numbers 121-130 were not included in TCEQ's initial list 
of 120 sources potentially subject to BART but were added during 
their review and development of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Sources that are not 
exempted by the state are required to conduct a full BART analysis and 
the state then makes a determination of what is BART for each of these 
subject to BART sources.
a. Modeling Methodology
    Consistent with the BART Guidelines, the TCEQ chose to evaluate 
sources and determine if they were exempt from being subject to BART. 
When exempting sources from BART because they do not cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, the BART 
Guidelines suggest three sub-options for determining that certain 
sources are not subject to BART: \227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ 70 FR 39162-3 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> The use of model plants to exempt sources with common 
characteristics.
    <bullet> A cumulative modeling analysis to show that groups of 
sources are not subject to BART.
    <bullet> An individual source attribution approach.
    The TCEQ utilized all of these options to determine which sources 
were subject to BART. These BART exemption exercises are explained 
below. The BART Guidelines direct states to address SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and direct PM (including both PM<INF>10</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) emissions as visibility-impairing pollutants, and 
states must exercise their ``best judgment to determine whether VOC or 
ammonia emissions from a source are likely to have an impact on 
visibility in an area.'' \228\ Ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) emissions in 
Texas are primarily due to area sources, such as livestock and 
fertilizer application.\229\ Because these are not point sources, they 
are not subject to BART. CENRAP modeling demonstrated that VOCs from 
anthropogenic sources are not significant visibility-impairing 
pollutants at the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. The TCEQ further 
investigated VOC and direct PM impacts with the photochemical modeling 
as discussed below. We have reviewed this information and propose to 
agree with the TCEQ's decision to address only SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and PM as visibility impairing pollutants because VOC 
emissions from anthropogenic sources are not significant visibility-
impairing pollutants at Class I areas in Texas and surrounding states 
and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions in Texas are primarily due to area 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
    \229\ See Tables 7-1 and 7-3 of the Texas regional haze SIP. 
Area sources comprise approximately 94% of the total 2002 ammonia 
emissions, and approximately 93% of the total projected 2018 ammonia 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines provide that states may choose to use the 
CALPUFF \230\ modeling system, or another appropriate model, to predict 
the visibility impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to 
therefore determine whether an individual source is anticipated to 
cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., 
``is subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that we believe CALPUFF is 
the best regulatory modeling application currently available for 
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility 
impairment.\231\ The TCEQ consulted with us and FLM representatives and 
used both the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) 
\232\ and CALPUFF modeling systems to determine whether individual 
sources in Texas were subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer at http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
    \231\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
    \232\ CAMx model code and user's guide can be found at http://www.camx.com/download/default.aspx.Model code used in our analysis 
is available with the modeling files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that 
states may choose to consult with us and their regional planning 
organization to address any

[[Page 74848]]

issues prior to modeling. The CENRAP states, including Texas, developed 
the ``CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines.'' \233\ Stakeholders, including 
EPA, FLM representatives, industrial sources, trade groups, and other 
interested parties, actively participated in the development and review 
of the CENRAP protocol. CENRAP provided readily available modeling data 
bases for use by states to conduct their analyses. We note that the 
original CALPUFF meteorological databases generated by CENRAP did not 
include observations as our guidance recommends,\234\ therefore sources 
were evaluated using the 1st High values instead of the 8th High 
values. The use of the 1st High modeling values was agreed to by us, 
representatives of the Federal Land Managers, and CENRAP stakeholders. 
We propose to find the chosen model and the general modeling 
methodology for the initial CALPUFF based screening modeling with 
CENRAP meteorological data acceptable. We further discuss both refined 
analyses using CALPUFF and CAMx modeling systems below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines, T. W. Tesche, D. E. 
McNally, and G. J. Schewe (Alpine Geophysics LLC), December 15, 
2005, available at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/Regional_Haze/SIP/Appendices/index.htm.
    \234\ 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W: Guideline on Air Quality 
Models Parts 8.3(d) and 8.3.1.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source 
that is responsible for a 1.0 dv change or more should be considered to 
`cause' visibility impairment.'' \235\ The BART Guidelines also state 
that ``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across 
States,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for 
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment 
should not be higher than 0.5 dv.'' Further, in setting a contribution 
threshold, states should ``consider the number of emissions sources 
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the 
individual sources' impacts. The Guidelines affirm that states are free 
to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the location of a large 
number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area 
justifies this approach. Texas adopted a contribution threshold of 0.5 
dv for determining which sources are subject to BART. For BART eligible 
EGUs that were originally covered by CAIR for NO<INF>2</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF>, TCEQ used this threshold for PM impacts. For CALPUFF 
modeling that used the non-guideline CENRAP meteorological data and 
CAMx modeling we agreed to use the 1st High or maximum impact for 
evaluation with the threshold value. For the refined CALPUFF modeling 
that used meteorological data that did meet our guidelines we agreed 
with the use of the 98th percentile value. We agree with Texas' 
selection of this threshold value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ 70 FR 39104, 39161 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ first performed cumulative modeling analyses using the 
CAMx model. TCEQ's CAMx modeling utilized the existing CENRAP 
photochemical modeling databases and CAMx modeling tools of Particulate 
Source Apportionment Tagging (PSAT) with Plume-in-Grid (PiG) treatment 
to assess contribution of groups of sources initially and later 
individual sources. As a result of this modeling, several BART-eligible 
sources were eliminated from further consideration due to their 
insignificant impacts on visibility at Class I areas. The remaining 
sources were required to perform source-specific screening modeling 
analyses using either the CALPUFF or the CAMx model setup developed by 
the TCEQ. TCEQ also utilized model plant approaches to screen out some 
sources. BART-eligible sources that were not eliminated due to any of 
the modeling analyses were then given the option of either reducing 
their emissions from their BART-eligible units using an enforceable 
mechanism, such as a permit, or performing a BART analysis. The 
following sections describe this process.
c. Cumulative Modeling Using CAMx PSAT
    Due to the large number of sources the TCEQ initially conducted a 
cumulative modeling analysis to eliminate groups of sources from being 
subject to BART, as described in its CAMx modeling protocol and its 
CAMx modeling report.\236\ In addition to the cumulative CAMx modeling, 
the TCEQ developed its model plants based on the CAMx modeling 
results.\237\ CAMx also gave a more sophisticated way to evaluate VOC 
emissions from BART sources and determine if they needed to be 
evaluated further. The TCEQ also used the CAMx modeling and source 
grouping to assess the BART sources' direct PM emissions impacts. It 
relied on CAIR coverage for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from EGUs subject to CAIR, so it only assessed impacts of VOCs and 
direct PM from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ Screening Analysis of Potentially BART-Eligible Sources in 
Texas, and Final Report, Screening Analysis of Potential BART-
Eligible Sources in Texas, located in Appendices 9-4 and 9-5 of the 
Texas Regional Haze SIP, respectively.
    \237\ See the CAMx modeling report, Addendum I, BART Exemption 
Screening Analysis, and Addendum II, BART Exemption Screening 
Analysis, located in Appendices 9-5 and 9-6 of the Texas Regional 
Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ's CAMx modeling determined that visibility impacts at 
Class I areas due to all VOC emissions from BART eligible sources was 
well below the 0.5 dv threshold. The TCEQ CAMx modeling screened direct 
PM emissions from 37 EGUs using groupings and some individual source 
analyses. Of these, 35 of the 37 sources screened out from BART for 
direct PM emissions with the two remaining sources being from Account 
TF0012D--SWEPCO Welsh and Account TF0013B--TXU Monticello. The TCEQ 
also evaluated VOC emissions from non-EGU sources and screened out all 
but one non-EGU facility, the exception being Account CG0010G--
International Paper facility. We have reviewed the TCEQ's analysis as 
further discussed in our BART TSD, and we propose to concur with the 
TCEQ's screening out of all BART sources from further screening or BART 
evaluation for VOC and direct PM emissions except for the International 
Paper, Monticello and Welsh accounts that were further evaluated for 
screening to be discussed later.
    The TCEQ also developed a Texas model plant for PM based on the 
previously discussed PM modeling for evaluation of two additional 
sources that were not in the original CAMx grouping modeling for PM. As 
further discussed in our BART TSD and the TCEQ's regional haze SIP, two 
accounts were screened out from being subject to BART. They were 
Account CI0012D--Texas Genco LP and Account HW004D--Agrium. We have 
reviewed this analysis and propose to concur with TCEQ's analysis and 
conclusion to screen out these two facilities from being subject to 
BART for their potential PM impacts.
    For SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> BART screening, the TCEQ 
screened out many sources that were BART eligible and determined that 
they were eliminated from being subject to BART using either the 
cumulative CAMx modeling analyses or the Texas model plants approach 
based on sources in the CAMx groupings that screened out or using our 
model plants.

[[Page 74849]]

The 94 non-EGU sources were broken into groups of sources (initially 5-
10 sources per group approximately). Further analysis used the same 
sources and broke them into smaller groups for further evaluation and 
screening. From this second round of CAMx source grouping, the TCEQ 
developed model plants from the sources in the groups that screened 
out. The TCEQ's model plant analyses is further discussed in our BART 
TSD and the Texas regional haze SIP submittal.
    If the technical analysis indicated a source was screened out, the 
TCEQ requested each source to certify that they agreed with the 
modeling analyses and data inputs (emissions, stack parameters, etc.). 
BART-eligible sources that were not eliminated from being subject to 
BART using these methods were required to conduct their own screening 
modeling analysis using either CALPUFF or CAMx modeling on an 
individual basis, using protocols developed by the TCEQ. As part of 
this analysis, the TCEQ also utilized our model plants and more 
facility specific information to screen out some facilities. Using 
these three techniques (CAMx grouping modeling, Texas model plants, and 
our model plants), the TCEQ screened out 72 facilities that were BART 
eligible based on their NO<INF>X</INF> and/or SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from being determined as subject to BART and a full five factor 
analysis. Table 17 below summarizes all the BART-eligible sources that 
were eliminated and how each source was eliminated. For sources 
eliminated from being subject to BART using the cumulative CAMx 
modeling analyses, CAMx based model plants and our model plants it is 
indicated in the column titled ``Cum. Model CAMx''. For full details 
see our BART TSD. We have reviewed the evaluation of facilities in 
TCEQ's cumulative/grouping CAMx modeling analyses, the TCEQ's Texas 
Model Plants analyses, and the TCEQ's analyses using our Model Plants; 
and we propose to concur with the screening out from a full BART 
analysis of the 72 facilities indicated in Table 17 under the column 
titled ``Cum. Model CAMx'' based on estimated/modeled impacts from 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> from each facility.
    Many of the facilities not screened out by the TCEQ were further 
evaluated with individual facility impact modeling using either CALPUFF 
or CAMx. We discuss the TCEQ's individual facility analysis in the 
following sections.
d. Individual Source Apportionment Modeling Using CALPUFF
    As previously discussed CENRAP developed a CALPUFF modeling 
protocol and the meteorological modeling files (CALMET files) for 
conducting individual facility impact analysis from NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The CENRAP CALMET data set did not include 
observations, so CALPUFF modeling that used the CENRAP CALMET data had 
to use the 1st High value from the modeling instead of the 8th High. 
TCEQ contacted the sources that did not previously screen out and gave 
them the option to do additional analysis with CALPUFF and/or CAMx. 
Facilities submitted individual source modeling protocols for their 
facilities and submitted them to TCEQ, us, and FLM representatives for 
review and comment. For the CALPUFF modeling, some sources used the 
CENRAP CALMET data and the 1st High metric for evaluation against the 
screening level of 0.5 del-dv (delta, or change in deciviews) and other 
sources developed CALMET with inclusion of meteorological observations 
data and used the 8th High modeling value instead. The TCEQ received 
and reviewed the additional individual source attribution modeling 
using the CALPUFF model.\238\ The 29 BART-eligible sources that were 
eliminated from being subject to BART based on CALPUFF modeling results 
are listed in the column labeled ``CALPUFF'' in Table 17, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ The TCEQ CALPUFF modeling protocol, Best Available 
Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources 
Subject to BART in the State of Texas, and a summary report for each 
modeling demonstration are included in Appendix 9-8 of the Texas 
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the modeling reports and files provided for these 
29 modeling efforts. Seventeen facilities screened out using the CENRAP 
No-Observation data set and followed the approved CENRAP protocol, 
including model setup/flags, post processing procedures, and accepted 
versions of the CALPUFF modeling suite at the time. Twelve facilities 
screened out using the refined CALMET data set using the CENSARA MM5 
data and incorporating land and upper air meteorological data. From the 
discussion on PM screening above, there were three facilities that did 
not screen out (International Paper, TXU--Monticello, and AEP Welsh) 
which were evaluated in these model runs and these facilities were 3 of 
the 29 screened out here. We have reviewed the TCEQ's individual source 
apportionment CALPUFF modeling analysis, and we propose to concur with 
TCEQ's conclusion to screen these 29 sources from being subject to 
BART.
e. Individual Source Apportionment Modeling Using CAMx
    Some facilities desired to do a single source analysis with CAMx. 
To standardize the modeling and evaluation, TCEQ developed ``The CAMx 
modeling guideline, Guidance for the Application of the CAMx Hybrid 
Photochemical Hybrid Photochemical Grid Model to Assess Visibility 
Impacts of Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas,'' as a standard 
protocol for refined single facility assessment with CAMx using the 
platform used for earlier screening modeling. The modeling emission 
inventory files were updated to the latest available at the time and 
the individual sources used their short-term allowable emission rate 
instead of the doubling of annual emissions to approximate short-term 
actuals. Six facilities conducted CAMx single facility screening 
analysis and all were less than 0.5 del-dv impacts based on the 1st 
High modeling value as agreed to in the Modeling Protocols at the time. 
The TCEQ included the modeling reports and the modeling protocol for 
this CAMx modeling of individual facility attribution.\239\ In Table 17 
below, the column labeled ``Single Source CAMx'' indicates the BART-
eligible sources that were eliminated from being subject to BART based 
on individual facility attribution CAMx modeling results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ TCEQ's CAMx modeling guideline, Guidance for the 
Application of the CAMx Hybrid Photochemical Grid Model to Assess 
Visibility Impacts of Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas is 
included in Appendix 9-8 of the Texas regional haze SIP. Both it and 
modeling summary reports for each modeling demonstration are 
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These analyses used the maximum impact value on any day to compare 
against the 0.5 del-dv threshold. We have reviewed the modeling reports 
for these six facilities, and we propose to concur that the CAMx 
modeling and the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the 
modeling protocol approved by us at that time. When we approved the 
protocols, we did not consider the difference between CAMx and CALPUFF 
modeling and the natural conditions (``clean'') versus 2018 dirty 
background. In hindsight, we could have recommended using the ``Clean'' 
background approach in addition to the 2018 based analysis as we are 
using in our FIP action discussed below. We note that all six of these 
facilities were included in the sources that we evaluated in our 
initial Q/D screening for our FIP analysis (which included all Texas 
sources in TCEQ's emission database) as discussed below and all had a 
Q/D ratio to any Class I area that

[[Page 74850]]

was less than 10 and were not further evaluated. Sources that had a 
ratio of less than 10 have a lower potential impact level in general. 
In light of our concurrence of the protocol and metrics to be used at 
the time of the Texas Regional Haze SIP development (2006-2007), we are 
not proposing to disapprove this aspect of TCEQ's analysis.
f. TCEQ-Granted BART Exemptions
    In addition to all the BART exemption modeling discussed above, the 
TCEQ also eliminated sources from being subject to BART based on 
further model plant analysis, using the BART Guideline approach.\240\ 
Sources that emitted less than 500 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF> or 
SO<INF>2</INF> (or combined NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>), located 
more than 50 kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that emitted 
less than 1,000 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF> or SO<INF>2</INF> (or 
combined NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>) located more than 100 
kilometers from any Class I area were eliminated from being subject to 
BART, consistent with the BART Guidelines.\241\ The TCEQ also exempted 
a number of other sources for other reasons, including for having a PTE 
of less than 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing 
pollutant,\242\ not having any emitting units in any of the 26 BART 
categories, unit shut downs, and de minimis levels of emissions.\243\ 
The results of the TCEQ's granted exemptions are listed in column 
titled ``Exemption Requested'' in Table 17 below. We have reviewed the 
screening analysis for these 22 facilities and concur with the TCEQ 
screening them out from being subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
    \241\ 70 FR 39119 (July 6, 2005)
    \242\ 70 FR 39157 (July 6, 2005).
    \243\ 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). ``Any de minimis values that 
you adopt may not be higher than the PSD applicability levels: 40 
tons/yr for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> and 15 tons/yr for 
PM<INF>10</INF>. These de minimis levels may only be applied on a 
plant-wide basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the 2002 base year inventory, some BART-eligible 
sources reduced their permitted emissions and requested exemptions from 
the TCEQ. These nine sources did screen out/obtain exemptions based on 
the limits and model plant approaches or reducing PTE below BART 
thresholds. See Table 17 and the BART TSD for details. Documentation of 
the emission reductions is in the Texas regional haze SIP, Appendix 9-
11: Documentation of Emission Reductions. The sources and the estimated 
reductions were also presented in our BART TSD and Table 16 below. 
Reduction estimates are conservative because they are from the 2002 
actual emissions level to a new potential to emit level below the 2002 
actuals. Since facilities typically operate at less than their 
allowable emission rate on an annual basis we concur that the estimates 
of actual emission reductions for most of the sources is conservative. 
Capitol Cement shut down their BART units.

                                              Table 16--Post 2002 Emission Reductions at Texas BART Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         NOX Reduced     SO2 Reduced    PM Reduced  from
        No.             Regulated entity                  Source                      Account          from  baseline  from  baseline    baseline 2002
                                                                                                         2002  (tpy)     2002  (tpy)         (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................  RN100211507.............  CAPITOL CEMENT DIV...........  BG0045E.................           1,328           1,193                100
2.................  RN100227016.............  DOW..........................  HG0126Q.................             694               0                  0
3.................  RN102450756.............  EXXONMOBIL OIL...............  JE0067I.................             2.7             290                  0
4.................  RN102609724.............  NORIT AMERICAS INC...........  HH0019H.................            16.6            +5.4                  0
5.................  RN100216621.............  REGENCY TILDEN GAS (FORMERLY   MC0002H.................               2           2,276                0.2
                                               ENBRIDGE PIPELINE).
6.................  RN102551785.............  TARGA (FORMERLY DYNEGY         CY0019H.................             336             0.3                0.5
                                               MIDSTREAM SERVICES).
7.................  RN102561925.............  THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER   JE0039N.................            89.1           +11.3                2.9
                                               CO.
8.................  RN100213685.............  VALENCE MIDSTREAM LTD........  HR0018T.................           247.1         2,743.5                5.6
9.................  RN100218601.............  VETROTEX AMERICA ST. GOBAIN..  WH0014S.................            62.6            16.4               59.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total estimated reductions in PTE of haze emissions = 9,485.2 tpy......  ........................         2,778.1         6,535.9              168.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the conclusion of the BART exemption modeling, model 
plant analysis, and granted exemptions, all 126 BART-eligible sources 
were found to be exempted from BART.
g. Summary of Our Review of Texas' BART Screening Analyses and 
Determinations
    The TCEQ analyzed 126 facilities that were potentially BART 
eligible or needed additional information to rule out their BART 
eligibility. We have reviewed the different modeling techniques that 
the TCEQ utilized in evaluating and screening out these sources and we 
propose to concur with the analysis. The TCEQ's analysis was done in 
accordance with our 2005 BART Guidelines, our modeling Guidelines on 
Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51 App. W), our and Interagency Work 
Group on Air Quality Monitoring's (IWAQM) modeling guidance for CALPUFF 
and visibility analysis (several documents) and other pertinent 
modeling guidance. CALPUFF modeling was conducted pursuant to modeling 
protocols that were shared and reviewed by us and Federal Land Manager 
representatives and included the initial CENRAP modeling protocol, the 
TCEQ's refined modeling protocol, and source specific modeling 
protocols. The TCEQ and six sources also performed modeling analyses 
with CAMx based on the TCEQ's modeling protocols (initial TCEQ group/
source modeling and refined single source protocols for six 
facilities). We initially had some concern in early 2007 that some 
sources may have screened out in the initial CAMx group modeling and 
model plant source screening in late 2006 based on using the 98th 
percentile threshold rather than the threshold that was later agreed to 
in February 2007 of using the maximum (high 1st high instead of the. 
8th high). As discussed and analyzed at the time (February 2007) and 
detailed in our BART TSD, we think that the sources that screened out 
were analyzed in groups, and it is reasonable to conclude that no one 
source would have been above either threshold if refined modeling had 
been conducted. Subsequent screening using

[[Page 74851]]

these sources and the model plant approach are also valid since each 
source would be below 0.5 del-dv based on the analysis as further 
discussed in our BART TSD. Therefore, we propose to concur with the 
sources that the TCEQ screened out using the model plant approaches.
    We also reviewed the results of the CALPUFF and CAMx single-source 
modeling, and we propose to concur with the screening of those 
facilities. We propose to concur with the TCEQ's screening analysis 
overall and its conclusions as discussed above and in the BART TSD. The 
final list of all BART-eligible sources and the different screening 
techniques that provided the reason for not considering the source to 
be subject to BART for its VOC, direct PM, NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> appears in the following table.

           Table 17--Summary of Screening Analysis for Each BART-Eligible Facility That Was Evaluated for Impacts at Class I Areas and Removed
                                                                     [Screened out]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Reason for removal
                                                                                        BART-    -------------------------------------------------------
                                Account                        Company                eligible     Cum. model                    Single       Exemption
                                                                                                      CAMx        CAL-PUFF     source CAMx    requested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................  TG0044C....................  AEP TEXAS......................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
2...................  CD0013K....................  AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY_La               y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    Palma.
3...................  NE0024E....................  AEP TEXAS CENTRAL                          y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    COMPANY_Barney M Davis.
4...................  NE0026A....................  AEP TEXAS CENTRAL                          y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    COMPANY_Nueces Bay.
5...................  JI0030K....................  AEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANY_W.T.U.-            y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    FT. PHANTOM.
6...................  CB0003M....................  ALCOA ALUMINA & CHEMICALS......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
7...................  BL0002S....................  INEOS OLEFINS & POLYMERS.......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
8...................  HG0558G....................  ATOFINA CHEMICALS INC..........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
9...................  BL0021O....................  BASF CORPORATION...............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
10..................  GB0001R....................  BP AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
11..................  MH0009H....................  CELANESE LIMITED...............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
12..................  ED0011D....................  CHAPARRAL STEEL MIDLOTHIAN.....            y             y   ............  ............  ............
13..................  BJ0001T....................  CHEMICAL LIME LTD..............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
14..................  HG0310V....................  CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
15..................  HW0013C....................  CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CO...            y             y   ............  ............  ............
16..................  BG0057U....................  CITY PUBLIC SERVICE_Sommers                y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    Deely Spruce.
17..................  BG0186I....................  CITY PUBLIC SERVICE_V.H                    y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    Brauning.
18..................  CR0020C....................  COPANO PROCESSING LP...........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
19..................  CI0022A....................  DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
20..................  WN0042V....................  TARGA..........................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
21..................  HG0218K....................  EI DUPONT......................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
22..................  EE0029T....................  EL PASO ELECTRIC CO............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
23..................  TH0004D....................  ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPT..........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
24..................  MQ0009F....................  ENTERGY GULF STATES INC_Lewis              y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    Creek.
25..................  OC0013O....................  ENTERGY GULF STATES INC_Sabine.            y             y   ............  ............  ............
26..................  BL0113I....................  EQUISTAR.......................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
27..................  BL0268B....................  EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP..........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
28..................  HG0033B....................  EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP..........            y   ............            y             y   ............
29..................  HG0228H....................  EXXON CHEMICAL CO..............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
30..................  JE0065M....................  EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
31..................  HG0229F....................  EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO.........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
32..................  NE0122D....................  FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP.......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
33..................  JE0052V....................  HUNTSMAN CORPORATION...........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
34..................  JE0135Q....................  HUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL CORP....            y             y   ............  ............  ............
35..................  EB0057B....................  HUNTSMAN POLYMERS..............            y   ............            y   ............  ............
36..................  GBA007G....................  INEOS..........................  ............  ............  ............  ............            y
37..................  NE0120H....................  FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP.......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
38..................  WE0005G....................  LAREDO POWER...................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
39..................  MB0123F....................  LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY..........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
40..................  NE0025C....................  LON C HILL POWER...............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
41..................  BC0015L....................  LOWER COLORADO RIVER                       y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    Authority_Lower Colorado River.
42..................  FC0018G....................  LOWER COLORADO RIVER                       y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    AUTHORITY_Fayette.
43..................  HG1575W....................  LYONDELL CITGO REFINING........            y             y   ............  ............            y
44..................  HG1451S....................  OXYVINYLS LP...................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
45..................  JE0042B....................  PREMCOR REFINING GROUP.........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
46..................  HG0632T....................  ROHM & HAAS TEXAS..............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
47..................  BL0038U....................  SOLUTIA INC....................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
48..................  GJ0043K....................  SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER....            y             y   ............  ............  ............

[[Page 74852]]

 
49..................  ME0006A....................  SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC                      y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    POWER_Wilkes.
50..................  PG0040T....................  SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC                        y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    SERVICE_Nichols.
51..................  PG0041R....................  SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC                        y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    SERVICE_Harrington.
52..................  TF0012D....................  SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC                      y   ............  ............            y   ............
                                                    POWER_Welsh.
53..................  JE0091L....................  SUN MARINE TERMINAL............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
54..................  CI0012D....................  TEXAS GENCO LP_Cedar Bayou.....            y             y   ............  ............  ............
55..................  FG0020V....................  TEXAS GENCO LP_W A Parrish.....            y             y   ............  ............  ............
56..................  GB0037T....................  NRG Texas_PH Robinson..........            y   ............            y   ............  ............
57..................  HG0562P....................  TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS LP........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
58..................  BL0082R....................  THE DOW CHEMICAL CO............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
59..................  NE0022I....................  TICONA POLYMERS INC............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
60..................  ED0066B....................  TXI OPERATIONS, L.P............            y   ............            y   ............  ............
61..................  FI0020W....................  TXU BIG BROWN COMPANY LP.......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
62..................  DB0251U....................  TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY_North Lake            y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    Steam.
63..................  FB0025U....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Valley Steam.
64..................  HQ0012T....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Decordova.
65..................  MB0116C....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Tradinghouse.
66..................  MM0023J....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Sandow.
67..................  MO0014L....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Morgan Creek.
68..................  RL0020K....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Martin Lake.
69..................  TA0352I....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP_Eagle            y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    Mtn.
70..................  WC0028Q....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Permian Bsn.
71..................  YB0017V....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y             y   ............  ............  ............
                                                    LP_Graham.
72..................  TF0013B....................  TXU GENERATION COMPANY                     y   ............            y   ............  ............
                                                    LP_Monticello.
73..................  GB0076J....................  UNION CARBIDE CORP.............            y             y   ............  ............  ............
74..................  CB0028T....................  UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
75..................  GB0073P....................  VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS.......            y             y   ............  ............  ............
76..................  VC0003D....................  VICTORIA POWER.................            y             y   ............  ............  ............
77..................  JB0016M....................  VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC.........            y             y   ............  ............  ............
78..................  LN0081B....................  SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE....            y             y   ............  ............  ............
79..................  AC0017B....................  ABITIBI CONSOLIDATED CORP......            y   ............  ............  ............            y
80..................  MM0001T....................  ALCOA INC......................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
81..................  HT0011Q....................  ALON USA LP....................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
82..................  ED0034O....................  ASH GROVE......................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
83..................  JE0343H....................  BMC HOLDINGS INC...............  ............  ............  ............  ............            y
84..................  GB0004L....................  BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA IN               y   ............  ............            y   ............
                                                    TEXAS.
85..................  GH0003Q....................  CABOT CORPORATION..............            y   ............            y   ............  ............
86..................  BG0045E....................  CAPITOL CEMENT DIV CAPITOL.....            y   ............  ............  ............            y
87..................  GH0004O....................  CELANESE CHEMICAL..............            y   ............  ............            y   ............
88..................  BL0758C....................  CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL......            y   ............  ............  ............            y
89..................  NE0027V....................  CITGO REFINING & CHEMICALS.....            y   ............  ............            y   ............
90..................  HW0018P....................  CONOCOPHILLIPS.................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
91..................  AB0012W....................  DCP............................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
92..................  HW0008S....................  DEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONS.....            y   ............            y   ............  ............
93..................  MR0008T....................  DIAMOND SHAMROCK REFINING......            y   ............  ............  ............            y
94..................  HGA005E....................  DOW............................            y   ............  ............            y   ............
95..................  HG0126Q....................  DOW............................            y   ............  ............  ............            y
96..................  HH0042M....................  EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY.......            y   ............            y   ............  ............
97..................  OC0007J....................  EI DUPONT DENEMOURS & CO.......            y   ............  ............  ............            y
98..................  MC0002H....................  ENBRIDGE PIPELINE..............  ............  ............  ............  ............            y
99..................  CG0012C....................  ENBRIDGE PIPELINES.............            y   ............  ............  ............            y
100.................  HG0232Q....................  EXXONMOBIL CORP_Baytown........            y   ............            y   ............  ............

[[Page 74853]]

 
101.................  JE0067I....................  EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP_Beaumont...            y   ............            y   ............  ............
102.................  CG0010G....................  INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.........            y   ............            y   ............  ............
103.................  OCA002B....................  INVISTA........................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
104.................  VC0008Q....................  INVISTA........................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
105.................  JH0025O....................  JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL...  ............  ............  ............  ............            y
106.................  HG0048L....................  LYONDELL CITGO REFINING........            y   ............  ............            y   ............
107.................  GB0055R....................  MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM.....            y   ............  ............  ............            y
108.................  HH0019H....................  NORIT AMERICAS INC.............            y   ............            y   ............            y
109.................  ED0051O....................  OWENS CORNING..................            y   ............  ............  ............  ............
110.................  HG0175D....................  PASADENA REFINING..............            y   ............            y   ............  ............
111.................  AG0024G....................  PUEBLO MIDSTREAM GAS CORP......  ............  ............  ............  ............            y
112.................  PE0024Q....................  REGENCY GAS SERVICES...........  ............  ............  ............  ............            y
113.................  HG0697O....................  RHODIA, INC....................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
114.................  HG0659W....................  SHELL OIL CO...................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
115.................  HW0017R....................  SID RICHARDSON CARBON..........            y   ............            y   ............  ............
116.................  HT0027B....................  SID RICHARDSON CARBON..........            y   ............            y   ............  ............
117.................  CY0019H....................  TARGA..........................            y   ............  ............  ............            y
118.................  OC0019C....................  TEMPLE-INLAND..................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
119.................  HK0014M....................  TEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT CO.........            y   ............            y   ............  ............
120.................  JE0039N....................  THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO            y   ............            y   ............            y
121.................  JE0005H....................  TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS...........            y   ............            y   ............  ............
122.................  HR0018T....................  VALENCE MIDSTREAM LTD..........            y   ............            y             y             y
123.................  NE0043A....................  VALERO REFINING COMPANY........            y   ............  ............  ............  ............
124.................  HG0130C....................  VALERO REFINING TEXAS LP.......  ............  ............  ............  ............            y
125.................  WH0014S....................  VETROTEX WICHITA FALLS PLANT...            y   ............  ............  ............            y
126.................  JC0003K....................  WESTVACO.......................            y   ............            y   ............  ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Subject to BART EGUs
    As explained above in Section I.C, in an earlier action, we issued 
a limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP based on 
deficiencies arising from its reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional 
haze requirements.\244\ In the same rulemaking, we found that CSAPR, 
like CAIR, provides for greater reasonable progress towards the 
national goal than would BART. This finding applied only to EGUs in the 
states in the CSAPR region and only to the pollutants subject to the 
requirements of CSAPR.\245\ The docket for this earlier limited 
disapproval of Texas' regional haze SIP may be found at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. In that action, we did not disapprove the 
reasonable progress targets for 2018 that have been set by the states 
in their SIPs. The reasonable progress goals in the SIPs were set based 
on modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using 
the best available information at the time the analysis was done. Given 
the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi) that states must take into 
account the visibility improvement that is expected to result from the 
implementation of other Clean Air Act requirements, states set their 
reasonable progress goals based, in part, on the emission reductions 
expected to be achieved by CAIR. As CAIR has now been remanded by the 
D.C. Circuit, the assumptions underlying the development of the 
reasonable progress targets have changed; however, because the overall 
EGU emission reductions from CSAPR are larger than the EGU emission 
reductions that would have been achieved by CAIR, we expect CSAPR to 
provide similar or greater benefits than CAIR. Given these 
considerations, we concluded not to disapprove the reasonable progress 
goals in any of the regional haze SIPs for their reliance on CAIR, 
including those for Texas. In this earlier action, we did not 
promulgate a FIP for Texas in order to allow more time for us to assess 
the Texas regional haze SIP submittal due to the variety and number of 
BART-eligible sources and the complexity of the SIP.\246\ At this time, 
we propose a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the 
trading programs of CSAPR as an alternative to BART for SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs in the regional haze plan for 
Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
    \245\ Texas is subject to the requirements of the CSAPR trading 
program for both NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>. See 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011).
    \246\ 77 FR 33654 (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previously, CSAPR was stayed by the D.C. Circuit pending resolution 
of litigation. We moved to have that stay lifted in light of the 
Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case 
No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In 
our motion, we asked the Court to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by 
three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 
2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets 
apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). Under the tolled 
compliance deadline schedule proposed by us in its motion to lift the 
CSAPR stay, CAIR would sunset at the end of 2014 and be replaced by 
CSAPR beginning January 1, 2015. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 
granted our request to lift the legal stay on the implementation of 
CSAPR. Therefore, our proposed FIP to replace Texas' reliance on CAIR 
with reliance CSAPR is consistent with the Court's ruling.
3. Texas' BART Rule
    Texas also promulgated and submitted rule sections that add

[[Page 74854]]

engineering and control requirements for BART on certain affected 
sources. The full SIP submittal is available in the docket for this 
proposal at www.regulations.gov. Texas' BART rules are codified at 30 
TAC 116.1500-116.1540. The rules establish definitions, applicability, 
exemptions, BART, and exemption from BART. Our technical analysis of 
the provisions in Texas' BART rules can be found in the TX and BART 
TSDs in the docket for this rulemaking. On September 22, 2006, we 
provided substantive comments on Texas' proposed BART rules.\247\ In 
its final adoption of the rules, the TCEQ adequately addressed all of 
our comments. However, at the time of our comments, CAIR had not yet 
been vacated by the D.C. Circuit. One provision in Texas' BART rule, 30 
TAC 116.1510(d), provides an exemption from BART based on CAIR. 
Specifically, it states ``BART-eligible electric generating units 
participating in the Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Program are not 
subject to the requirements of Section 116.1520 or Section116.1530 of 
this title for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>.'' \248\ As discussed 
in Section I.C, we have already issued a limited disapproval of the 
Texas regional haze SIP for its reliance on CAIR. However, we 
determined that CSAPR provides for greater reasonable progress towards 
the national goal than would BART and Texas is included in CSAPR for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>. Therefore, our proposed FIP to 
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR 
as an alternative to BART includes a FIP to replace Texas' reliance on 
CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d) with reliance on CSAPR. We propose to 
approve the remainder of the provisions in the Texas BART rules and 
Texas' application of the BART rules regarding the identification of 
all BART eligible sources within the state and the screening of BART 
sources from full BART analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ See Letter from Thomas Diggs, EPA, to Lola Brown, TCEQ 
(Sept. 22, 2006), attachment W-16 in the TCEQ's March 19, 2009, SIP 
submittal.
    \248\ 30 TAC 116.1510(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Long-Term Strategy

    Section 51.308(d)(3) provides that Texas' long-term strategy 
include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and 
other measures necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals 
established by states having mandatory Class I areas. There are a 
number of requirements a state must meet when establishing its long-
term strategy. These requirements include: (1) states must consult with 
downwind states to develop coordinated management strategies that 
address regional haze visibility impairment; \249\ (2) where multiple 
states cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, 
each state must demonstrate that it has put all measures necessary to 
obtain its share of emission reductions needed to meet the progress 
goal for the Class I area; \250\ and (3) each state must provide and 
document the technical basis on which the state is relying to determine 
its share of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable 
progress for each Class I area it affects.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ Section 51.308(d)(3)(i).
    \250\ Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    \251\ Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii)-(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Texas' Long-Term Strategy Consultation
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that where Texas has emissions 
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment 
in any mandatory Class I area located in another state or states, it 
must consult with the other state(s) in order to develop coordinated 
emission management strategies. Texas must consult with any other state 
having emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area within it.
    Regarding this requirement, the TCEQ makes the following statement 
in its SIP: \252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ Page 4-2 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.

    The TCEQ reviewed CENRAP modeling to assess which Class I areas 
in other States might be impacted by Texas' emissions. Modeling 
indicated that Texas impacts Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana, 
the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado, and several Class I sites in New 
Mexico. The TCEQ also consulted the adjacent States in which the 
modeling data indicated no significant impact by Texas, including 
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ We assume the statement that modeling data indicates ``no 
significant impact by Texas'' on Class I areas in Arkansas and 
Oklahoma is an oversight in the Texas regional haze SIP.

    As we summarize below, CENRAP visibility modeling in fact 
demonstrates that Texas sources are responsible for a significant 
portion of the visibility impacts to Class I areas in a number of 
states on the worst 20% days for both 2002 and 2018, including Arkansas 
and Oklahoma.\254\ Furthermore, as we discuss below, both Oklahoma and 
Texas mutually acknowledged that Texas sources significantly impact the 
visibility at the Wichita Mountains. Regardless, Texas participated in 
consultation calls with Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma and through 
letters with Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, and New Mexico. 
The TCEQ identified the significant point sources within each AOI and 
shared this information with nearby states during the consultation 
process (see Appendix 4-3 of the Texas regional haze SIP for 
consultation letters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ See Table 1 of the TX TSD for a summary of CENRAP source 
apportionment modeling results for Class I areas in other States 
impacted by emissions from sources in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this review and in response to comments from us and the 
federal land managers in March 2008, Texas wrote consultation letters 
to Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Colorado to 
ask whether emission reductions projected in Texas by 2018 are 
sufficient to meet Texas' apportionment of the impact reduction needed 
to meet the RPG for each Class I area in each state.
    The TCEQ also requested recipients of the letters to confirm they 
were not expecting any additional emission reductions from Texas 
sources. These letters and associated documents are included in 
Appendix 4-3 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP. Texas stated in the record 
that it had completed its consultation with Louisiana, Arkansas, 
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Colorado, and none of these states has asked it 
for further emission reductions to help the it meet its reasonable 
progress goals for its Class I area(s). Appendix 4-3 to the Texas 
regional haze SIP contains the official communications from these 
states to Texas. The following is a summary of the state-by-state 
review of Texas' consultation under Section 51.308(d)(3)(i):
    Colorado (Great Sand Dunes, Rocky Mountains) TCEQ sent Colorado a 
letter on March 25, 2008 with information of impacts of Texas sources 
on Colorado Class I areas. On June 19, 2008, Colorado responded in a 
letter in which it presented its own impact analyses and stated that 
Texas sources are below the criteria identified in the Colorado SIP 
(based on regional apportionment modeling used to develop the Colorado 
SIP, PSAT.). In a June 24, 2008, letter, Colorado's Department of 
Public Health and Environment responded that no further emission 
reductions were requested of Texas at this time.
    Louisiana (Breton). On November 29, 2007, the Louisiana Department 
of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) sent an email that stated it determined 
that emissions from Texas do not contribute to visibility impairment at 
Breton Wilderness Class I Area in Louisiana. LDEQ stated that it will 
continue to monitor all state and federal rules and control measures 
and will include the necessary emission factors in future

[[Page 74855]]

modeling. TCEQ sent LDEQ a letter on March 25, 2008, with information 
of impacts of Texas sources on Breton.
    New Mexico: (Carlsbad Caverns, Salt Creek, White Mountain, Wheeler 
Peak). On August 8, 2008, TCEQ sent a letter to NMED. As of the date of 
the submission of the Texas regional haze SIP, New Mexico had not 
replied. New Mexico's regional haze SIP provides additional 
clarification on its consultations. New Mexico acknowledges that the 
long-term strategies adopted by Colorado, Arizona, and Texas in their 
SIPs and approved by us will include emission reductions from a variety 
of sources that will reduce visibility impairment in New Mexico's Class 
I areas.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ New Mexico Regional Haze SIP, Page 4 at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/documents/Proposed_RH_SIP_309g_03312011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri (Hercules-Glades, Mingo) and Arkansas (Caney Creek, Upper 
Buffalo). On August 26, 2007, Missouri and Arkansas invited states 
including Texas to a series of consultation calls concerning visibility 
at their four Class I areas. During these calls, a URP was developed 
for each Class I area in Arkansas and Missouri (Caney Creek and Upper 
Buffalo in Arkansas, and Hercules Glades and Mingo in Missouri). The 
participating states also determined that the projected 2018 CENRAP 
modeling and other findings based on existing and proposed controls 
arising from local, state, and federal requirements indicated that the 
two Class I areas in Arkansas and the two Class I areas in Missouri are 
on the glidepath and are projected to meet the URP goals for the first 
implementation period ending in 2018. Arkansas Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources (MDNR) both determined that additional emission reductions 
from other states were not necessary to address visibility impairment 
at Caney Creek, Upper Buffalo, Hercules-Glades, and Mingo for the first 
implementation period ending in 2018, and all states participating in 
its consultations agreed with this.\256\ The TCEQ sent Missouri and 
Arkansas letters on March 25, 2008, with information of impacts of 
Texas sources on Missouri and Arkansas Class I areas. On April 21, 
2008, Missouri responded with a letter that stated it had reviewed the 
TCEQ analysis and attachments and they provided results generally 
consistent with the CENRAP and Missouri modeling and data analysis used 
in developing its plan. Missouri indicated at this time, that emission 
reductions from Texas were adequate. In an April 21, 2008, letter, 
Missouri's Department of Natural Resources responded that no further 
emission reductions were requested of Texas. Arkansas responded on June 
10, 2008. It concurred with the CENRAP PSAT modeling assessment, and 
those results were used to set Arkansas' RPGs for its 2 Class I areas. 
Arkansas stated it was not depending on additional reductions at this 
time to meet its RPGs. In a June 10, 2008, letter, the ADEQ responded 
that no further emission reductions were requested of Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ See Appendix 4_3d of the Texas regional haze SIP for July 
23, 2007, letter from ADEQ and MDNR to participants in the Central 
Class I Areas Consultation Process summarizing this series of 
consultation calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oklahoma (Wichita Mountains). The TCEQ attended Oklahoma's three 
consultation calls held in August and September 2007. On August 3, 
2007, ODEQ sent TCEQ a letter that noted the Wichita Mountains is not 
projected to be on its glide path and that, from ``the work done 
through the CENRAP process, it is clear that Wichita Mountains suffers 
from significant anthropogenic impacts from Texas.'' The letter 
requested that the ODEQ be able to comment on BACT determinations for 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) sources that 
significantly impact the Wichita Mountains and requested that Class I 
impact reviews be required for all proposed PSD sources within 300 
kilometers of a Class I area. The letter cited several CAA visibility 
provisions related to PSD visibility requirements and the visibility 
transport requirement under Section 110 of the CAA. The ODEQ asked that 
the TCEQ ``fully consider its comments'' about applicable CAA 
provisions. In a response letter dated October 15, 2007, the TCEQ 
agreed that the modeling shows Texas to be a ``significant source of 
visibility impairing pollution on the Wichita Mountains.'' The TCEQ 
agreed to notify the ODEQ, along with the relevant FLM, whenever 
modeling indicates that a proposed source significantly impacts Wichita 
Mountains. The TCEQ also responded to the ODEQ's PSD comments on 
potential impacts of new and modified sources. The TCEQ did not agree 
to the ODEQ's 300 kilometer PSD review request, and cited the need for 
us to adopt significant impact levels for Class I reviews so that there 
is a consistent approach to requiring Class I reviews. During the 
interim, the TCEQ committed to working with the federal land managers 
on mutually acceptable criteria for determining when a proposed PSD 
source should conduct a Class I review. The TCEQ also stated, in 
conjunction with work being done through CENRAP, that there will be 
significant reductions in the next few years and visibility at Wichita 
Mountains would improve as a result of those reductions.
    The TCEQ sent Oklahoma another consultation letter, dated March 25, 
2008. In that letter, the TCEQ provides a detailed assessment, based on 
CENRAP modeling, of the impact of Texas sources on the visibility at 
the Wichita Mountains. Specifically, the letter contained information 
related to the 2002 visibility impacts and the 2018 projected 
visibility impacts from all source areas on the one Class I area in 
Oklahoma and the impacts apportioned to be from Texas' sources. TCEQ 
indicated that CENRAP produced these results using particulate matter 
source apportionment technology (PSAT) modeling and relative response 
factors according to our regional haze modeling guidance. The data were 
from the August 27, 2007, version of the PSAT tool that Environ 
produced for CENRAP. The TCEQ also provided a table of sources of 
particular interest to Wichita Mountains, identified by the TCEQ due to 
their emissions and location within the AOI, developed as part of the 
CENRAP planning process. This table included 2002 and 2018 projected 
annual emissions from CENRAP, as well as the sources distance from 
Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ concluded by requesting ODEQ's concurrence 
on that assessment, and, ``that your State is not depending on any 
additional reductions from Texas sources in order to meet your 
reasonable progress goal(s).''
    On May 12, 2008, the ODEQ responded to that letter and concurred 
with the ``information in that letter.'' The ODEQ stated that it 
developed its RPG through CENRAP deliberation. It also stated that it 
does not anticipate reductions beyond those that Texas already planned 
to implement and upon which the CENRAP studies relied. However, the 
ODEQ stated that its RPG falls short of the uniform rate of improvement 
necessary to reach the default natural visibility conditions in 2064. 
The ODEQ stated that reaching its progress goal requires constraints on 
emissions from new, modified, and existing sources. Referring back to 
its August 2007 letter, the ODEQ restated its request that the TCEQ 
perform an analysis of any new or modified PSD subject source within 
300 km of the Wichita Mountains to conduct an analysis for its impact 
on the Wichita Mountains, following FLM guidance, as appropriate. It 
restated its request to review BACT determinations for proposed sources 
projected to

[[Page 74856]]

significantly contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita 
Mountains. The TCEQ committed to provide the ODEQ the opportunity to 
comment on control determinations for Texas facilities that having the 
potential to significantly impair visibility at the Wichita Mountains. 
The ODEQ asked to be informed of actual emission reductions achieved 
from CAIR. Please see our description of the Texas-Oklahoma 
consultations, based on the information in Oklahoma's record, in our OK 
TSD and as summarized in Section VI.B.2, for additional consultation 
details.
a. Our Review of Texas' Long-Term Strategy State Consultation
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that Texas consult with other 
states if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 
visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s), and that Texas 
consult with other states if those states' emissions are reasonably 
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Big Bend and 
Guadalupe Mountains. The TCEQ's consultations with other states that 
impact Texas Class I areas are described in Section V.C.5 above.
    During consultation, Colorado and Louisiana determined that Texas 
impacts on their Class I areas were not significant enough to warrant 
additional controls for this planning period. Based on the 2018 CENRAP 
projections, Missouri and Arkansas \257\ established RPGs for their 
Class I areas that provide for a slightly greater rate of improvement 
in visibility than needed to attain the URP, and determined that the 
projected emission reductions included in the model were adequate, and 
that it was not reasonable to request additional controls from Texas at 
this time. We find these consultations acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ We note, however, that we disapproved Arkansas' RPGs 
because it did not perform an adequate four-factor analysis of their 
own sources and because we disapproved BART determinations in the 
State. See 76 FR 64186 (October 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CENRAP source apportionment modeling indicates that Texas 
emissions, particularly SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from point sources, 
impact a number of Class I areas outside of Texas. Texas SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions are projected in 2018 to have the largest visibility impacts, 
in terms of both absolute contribution to extinction and percent 
contribution to total extinction, at the Wichita Mountains in 
Oklahoma.\258\ As we discuss above, both the ODEQ and the TCEQ agreed 
that sources in Texas significantly impact the visibility at the 
Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma, and that the impacts from point sources 
in Texas are several times greater than the impact from Oklahoma point 
sources. Furthermore, the ODEQ asserted in its consultations with the 
TCEQ, and elsewhere in its regional haze SIP, that it would not be able 
to reach natural visibility by 2064 without additional reductions from 
Texas sources. During consultations, the ODEQ specifically requested 
additional information on controls identified through the CENRAP 
process that were cost-effective and had the potential to result in 
visibility improvements due to their location and size. In addition, 
the ODEQ had information that other sources with existing controls 
still have a large potential to impact visibility and should be 
analyzed for control upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ See Tables 25 and 26 below and our TX TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, however, Texas determined that no additional controls 
at its sources were warranted during the first planning period to help 
achieve reasonable progress at the Wichita Mountains, and Oklahoma did 
not specifically request any additional reductions from Texas sources. 
As a result, Oklahoma set RPGs for the Wichita Mountains that do not 
reflect any reasonable emission reductions from Texas beyond those that 
will be achieved by compliance with other requirements of the CAA. 
During the notice-and-comment period on Oklahoma's proposed SIP, 
several commenters criticized Oklahoma for not requesting additional 
reductions from Texas. They argued that without such reductions, 
Oklahoma would not make reasonable progress toward the national goal at 
the Wichita Mountains. In responding to these comments, Oklahoma 
acknowledged that sources in Texas had significant impacts on 
visibility in the Wichita Mountains, but maintained that it did not 
have the regulatory authority to require emission reductions in other 
states. Oklahoma asserted that only Texas and we could require such 
reductions. We believe that the technical analysis developed by Texas 
did not provide the information necessary to identify reasonable 
reductions from its sources, and inform consultations in order to 
develop coordinated management strategies with Oklahoma. As a result, 
we believe that Texas did not incorporate those potential reasonable 
reductions into its long-term strategy and those reductions were not 
included in the reasonable progress goal established by Oklahoma for 
Wichita Mountains. Consequently, we propose to find that the TCEQ did 
not adequately address the requirement in Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) to 
``consult with the other State(s) in order to develop coordinated 
emission management strategies.''
2. Texas' Share of Reductions in Other States' Progress Goals
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if Texas emissions cause or 
contribute to impairment in another state's Class I area, it must 
demonstrate that it has included in its regional haze SIP all measures 
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet 
the progress goal for that Class I area. Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also 
requires that since Texas participated in a regional planning process, 
it must ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its 
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through 
that process. As we state in the Regional Haze Rule, Texas' commitment 
to participate in CENRAP bind it to secure emission reductions agreed 
to as a result of that process, unless it proposes a separate or 
supplemental process and performs its consultations on the basis of 
that process.
    While the content of state SIPs cannot be dictated by a regional 
planning organization, the Regional Haze Rule contemplated that a 
coordinated regional effort would likely produce results the states 
would find beneficial in developing their regional haze SIPs. Any state 
choosing not to follow the recommendations of a regional body would 
have to provide a specific technical basis that its strategy 
nonetheless provides for reasonable progress based on the statutory 
factors and would be responsible for the content of that demonstration. 
The technical data prepared through the regional planning organization 
process is typically designed to inform the member states of their 
apportionment of the visibility impact at Class I areas, project future 
visibility conditions, and to provide high-level information on 
potential control strategies to inform consultations and the four-
factor analysis necessary to establish RPGs. These analyses may require 
additional supplementation or refinement by the states in development 
of their regional haze SIPs to address impacts and potential controls 
of specific sources or source categories.
    Participation in a regional planning organization does not 
automatically satisfy a state's obligation to ``demonstrate that it has 
included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain 
its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal'' 
for a Class I area. As mentioned in section IV above, the

[[Page 74857]]

control measures in an upwind state's long term strategy should be 
sufficient to obtain its share of reductions needed to meet an 
approved, or approvable, progress goal in a downwind state's SIP. In 
this instance, the CENRAP technical analysis was sufficient to 
demonstrate that Texas as a whole, and particular source categories 
such as EGU point sources, had a significant impact on the visibility 
at the Wichita Mountains and other Class I areas. The analysis also 
estimated that large emission reductions could be achieved at some of 
these sources by implementing potentially cost-effective controls. The 
TCEQ recognized that some aspects of CENRAP's technical analysis were 
limited and therefore attempted to supplement that analysis, which it 
used as the technical basis for both its reasonable progress and long-
term strategy demonstrations, as we describe in Section V.C. As it 
states with regard to the development of its long-term strategy on page 
10-4 of its regional haze SIP, ``[t]he TCEQ used the control strategy 
analysis completed by the CENRAP as the starting point for the analysis 
of additional controls.'' In fact, the TCEQ went beyond the CENRAP 
analysis by contemplating additional controls, applying a lower cost-
effectiveness threshold and estimating the visibility benefit from the 
identified control set. The TCEQ incorporated this supplemental 
analysis in the development of its RPG and its long-term strategy. It 
used this analysis to inform its decision not to control any additional 
sources, including those that impact the visibility at the Wichita 
Mountains and other Class I areas in other states.
    However, we believe the technical analysis developed by CENRAP and 
supplemented by the TCEQ did not provide the information needed to 
evaluate the reasonableness of controls on those sources with the 
largest potential to impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains. See 
Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3, as well as the TX TSD for a detailed 
description and our review of the CENRAP and TCEQ analyses. We believe 
this information was critical for ODEQ to use in setting the RPG and 
critical for TCEQ when determining its fair share of reductions.
    We propose to find that Texas did not develop an adequate technical 
basis to inform consultations with Oklahoma and to identify reasonable 
reductions from its sources. As a result, we find that Texas did not 
incorporate those reasonable reductions into its long-term strategy. 
Texas' ``share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress 
goal'' for the Wichita Mountains was not properly established because 
of the inadequacies in its technical analyses, which compromised its 
consultations with Oklahoma. For these reasons we propose to find that 
TCEQ did not adequately meet the requirement in Section 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
3. Texas' Technical Basis for Its Long-Term Strategy
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that Texas document the 
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions 
information, on which it is relying to determine its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable 
progress in each mandatory Class I area it affects. It may meet this 
requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional 
planning organization and approved by all state participants. Texas 
must identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies 
are based. The baseline emissions inventory year is presumed to be the 
most recent year of the consolidated periodic emissions inventory.
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that Texas identify all 
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by it in 
developing its long-term strategy. Texas should consider major and 
minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
    The TCEQ addressed the requirements of Sections 51.308(d)(3)(iii)-
(iv) mainly by relying on technical analyses developed by CENRAP and 
approved by all state participants, but it also performed an additional 
analysis building upon the work of the regional planning organization 
in order to evaluate additional controls, as described in Section 
V.C.2. The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by CENRAP with assistance from Texas. The 2018 
emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and 
applying reductions expected from federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, and VOCs. By analogy, with regard 
to development of the long-term strategy, the BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOCs and NH<INF>3</INF> 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s).\259\ CENRAP performed 
modeling sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic 
emissions of VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> do not significantly impair 
visibility in the CENRAP region. Therefore, Texas did not consider 
NH<INF>3</INF> among visibility-impairing pollutants and did not 
further evaluate NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC emissions sources for potential 
controls under BART or reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ 70 FR 39114 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Texas' 2002 Emission Inventory
    The TCEQ and CENRAP developed an emission inventory for five 
inventory source classifications: Point, area, non-road and on-road 
mobile sources, and biogenic sources for the baseline year of 2002. 
Texas' 2002 emissions inventory provides estimates of annual emissions 
for haze producing pollutants by source category, based on information 
in Section 7.0 of Texas' regional haze SIP.
    Methodologies used in developing the 2002 emissions inventory are 
documented in Appendix 7-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and the 
technical support document for the CENRAP emission inventory 
development.\260\ See our TX TSD and our CENRAP Modeling TSD for a 
summary and our review of how the 2002 emissions inventory was 
constructed. The TCEQ noted concerns with the estimate of area source 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions included in the CENRAP emission inventory for 
2002 and 2018, and stated that the 2002 emissions reported by TCEQ were 
15,633 tpy for SO<INF>2</INF> area sources. However, it states that the 
CENRAP's modeled emissions are not expected to significantly impact 
visibility estimates for 2018 because of the relatively small 
contribution for these Texas sources on Class I areas.\261\ Texas' 2002 
emissions inventory is summarized in Tables 18 and 19:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air 
Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze SIP, included as Appendix 
8-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP.
    \261\ See page 7-1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
    \262\ TOG is total organic gas, which includes total 
hydrocarbons.

[[Page 74858]]



                                                        Table 18--Texas' 2002 Emissions Inventory
                                                                       [Tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                CO              NOX             SO2           TOG 262          PM2.5           PM10             NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area....................................         908,407         280,811         111,853       1,163,549         347,490       1,552,824         380,057
Point...................................         498,467         600,725         821,961         207,695          46,789          80,947           2,609
Non-road mobile.........................       1,210,158         242,551          21,828         148,952          15,089          15,556              56
On-road mobile..........................       4,098,391         664,163          18,814         309,707          11,275          15,476          21,599
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................       6,715,423       1,788,250         974,457       1,829,902         420,642       1,664,803         404,321
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 19--Texas' 2002 Biogenic Emissions Inventory
                               [Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       NOX           CO          VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biogenic.........................     184,896      755,941    4,033,760
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Texas' 2018 Emission Inventory
    In general, the TCEQ used a combination of our Economic Growth 
Analysis System (EGAS 5), our mobile emissions factor model (MOBILE 6), 
our off-road emissions factor model (NONROAD), and the IPM for electric 
generating units.\263\ All control strategies expected to take effect 
prior to 2018 are included in the projected emission inventory. See our 
TX TSD and our CENRAP Modeling TSD for a summary and our review of how 
the 2018 emissions inventory was constructed. Texas' 2018 emissions 
inventory is summarized in Table 20, based on information in Section 
7.0 of the Texas regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ Appendix 7-2 of the Texas regional haze SIP: Integrated 
Planning Model Projections of Electric Generating Unit Emissions for 
the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

                                                        Table 20--Texas' 2018 Emissions Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                CO              NOX             SO2           TOG 264          PM2.5           PM10             NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area....................................         899,497         274,663         114,138       1,420,681         354,712       1,557,089         562,379
Point...................................         542,128         525,174         625,068         283,290          80,577         121,733           6,790
Non-Road................................       1,921,674         167,451           6,988         119,855          10,588          11,498             239
On-Road.................................       2,710,631         148,387           2,925         125,234           5,337           5,337          32,191
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................       6,073,930       1,115,676         749,119       1,949,060         451,214       1,695,657         601,598
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ TOG is total organic gas, which includes total 
hydrocarbons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methodologies used in developing the 2018 emissions inventory are 
documented in Appendix 7-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and the 
technical support document for the CENRAP emission inventory 
development. CENRAP and the TCEQ used this and other states' 2018 
emission inventories to construct visibility projection modeling for 
2018.
c. Visibility Projection Modeling
    Chapter 8 of the Texas regional haze SIP discuss the modeling 
methods and protocol used by the TCEQ and CENRAP in developing the 
assessment. Chapter 7 describes the baseline and 2018 emission 
inventories used by the TCEQ. A detailed description and discussion of 
the model selection, modeling protocol, quality assurance, performance 
evaluation, emission inventory development and data used in the 
regional haze analysis can be found in our TX and CENRAP Modeling TSDs. 
A short summary is provided below:
    <bullet> CENRAP performed modeling for the regional haze long-term 
strategy for its member states, including Texas. The modeling analysis 
is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the 
modeling system. CENRAP used the following modeling system:
    <bullet> Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR) Mesoscale 
Meteorological Model (MM5) is a non-hydrostatic, prognostic 
meteorological model routinely used for urban-and regional-scale 
photochemical, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and regional haze regulatory modeling 
studies.
    <bullet> Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system generates hourly gridded speciated 
emission inputs of mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire and 
biogenic emission sources for photochemical grid models.
    <bullet> Air Quality Model: Our Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 
Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model capable of 
addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional 
scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was CMAQ version 
4.5. It was modified through CENRAP with a module for Secondary 
Organics Aerosols (SOA) in an open and transparent manner that was also 
subjected to outside peer review. The Comprehensive Air Quality Model 
with extensions (CAMx) Version 4.40 model, applied using similar 
options as used by CMAQ, was used as a secondary corroborative model. 
CAMx was also utilized with its Particulate Source Apportionment 
Technology (PSAT) tool to provide source apportionment of predicted 
nitrate and sulfate aerosol concentrations.
d. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Big Bend National Park
    Tables 21 and 22 summarize the modeled contributions to total 
extinction at Big Bend for each source category and species for 2002 
and 2018,

[[Page 74859]]

respectively.\265\ Visibility impairment at Big Bend in 2002 on the 
worst 20% days is largely due to SO<INF>4</INF> from point sources that 
contributes 17.7 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ of the total extinction of 47.79 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\. The largest contributions of SO<INF>4</INF> come 
from Texas (5.50 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ from all source categories), 
boundary conditions outside the modeling domain (5.82 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\) and Mexico (8.28 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\). Overall, the 
largest source region contributions to visibility impairment in 2002 
are from Mexico (12.75 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\), Texas (11.87 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\), and outside the modeling domain (12.27 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ The species contributing to visibility extinction at Big 
Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, shown on Tables 21, 22, 23 and 24, are 
the following: Sulfate (SO<INF>4</INF>), nitrate (NO<INF>3</INF>), 
primary organic aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC), soil dust, 
and coarse mass (CM). These species' precursors are SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and in some cases, NH<INF>3</INF> and VOCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2018, Texas, Mexico and sources outside the modeling domain are 
projected to continue to contribute the most to visibility impairment 
at Big Bend. The 2018 projection shows the total extinction at Big Bend 
for the worst 20% days is estimated to be 44.06 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\, a 
reduction of approximately 8% from 2002 levels. Anticipated reductions 
of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions primarily from point sources in Texas, the 
Eastern United States, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Alabama and Ohio will 
account for a decrease of 2.73 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ in total light 
extinction (1.55 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ decrease from Texas point sources). 
Even with these expected reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
point sources in 2018, extinction due to point sources will continue to 
be the highest contributor to visibility impairment on the worst 20% 
days, accounting for over one third of the total extinction. Visibility 
impairment from all Texas sources will decrease by 1.90 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\, primarily due to expected reductions from point 
sources.

                          Table 21--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2002 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total 1          Point          Natural         On-road        Non-road          Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4.....................................................           26.10           17.70            0.02            0.28            0.45            1.82
NO3.....................................................            2.05            0.55            0.33            0.36            0.23            0.30
POA.....................................................            5.81            0.10            0.08            0.04            0.09            0.83
EC......................................................            2.12            0.01            0.03            0.10            0.32            0.45
SOIL....................................................            2.54            0.28            1.14            0.01            0.00            1.00
CM......................................................            7.03            0.02            5.52            0.00            0.07            1.23
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sum.................................................           47.79           18.66            7.12            0.80            1.16            5.63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.


                          Table 22--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2018 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total 1          Point          Natural         On-road        Non-road          Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4.....................................................           23.00           15.15            0.01            0.04            0.20            1.84
NO3.....................................................            1.99            0.63            0.38            0.12            0.16            0.35
POA.....................................................            5.61            0.14            0.06            0.02            0.08            0.67
EC......................................................            1.81            0.02            0.02            0.02            0.23            0.29
SOIL....................................................            2.54            0.32            1.13            0.01            0.00            0.97
CM......................................................            7.03            0.02            5.42            0.00            0.07            1.33
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sum.................................................           44.06           16.27            7.03            0.20            0.74            5.46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.

e. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Guadalupe Mountains National 
Park
    Tables 23 and 24 summarize the contributions to total extinction at 
Guadalupe Mountains for each source category and species for 2002 and 
2018, respectively. Visibility impairment at Guadalupe Mountains in 
2002 on the worst 20% days is largely due to SO<INF>4</INF> from point 
sources and course material from natural and area sources. The largest 
contributions of SO<INF>4</INF> come from Texas (4.28 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ 
from all source categories), boundary conditions outside the modeling 
domain (1.90 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\) and Mexico (3.21 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\). 
Overall, the largest source region contributions to visibility 
impairment in 2002 are from Texas (16.62 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\), New Mexico 
(3.49 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\), Mexico (7.90 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\), and source 
outside the modeling domain (4.16 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\).
    In 2018, sulfate and course material from Texas, Mexico, New Mexico 
and sources outside the modeling domain are projected to continue to 
contribute the most to visibility impairment at the Guadalupe 
Mountains. The 2018 projection shows the total extinction at the 
Guadalupe Mountains for the worst 20% days is estimated to be 44.32 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\, a reduction of approximately 7% from 2002 levels. 
Anticipated reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions primarily from point 
sources in Texas, the Eastern United States, Indiana, Alabama and Ohio 
will account for a decrease of 2.02 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ in total light 
extinction (0.68 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ decrease from Texas point sources). 
Even with these expected reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
point sources in 2018, extinction due to point sources will still be a 
significant contributor to visibility impairment on the worst 20% days, 
accounting for over one fourth of the total extinction. Visibility 
impairment from all Texas sources will decrease by 1.29 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\, primarily due to expected reductions from point 
sources.

[[Page 74860]]



                             Table 23--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Guadalupe Mountains in 2002 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total \1\         Point          Natural         On-road        Non-road          Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4.....................................................           15.94           12.10            0.02            0.22            0.33            1.36
NO3.....................................................            3.67            1.09            0.40            0.79            0.55            0.52
POA.....................................................            2.75            0.24            0.19            0.10            0.16            1.61
EC......................................................            1.19            0.01            0.04            0.15            0.34            0.51
SOIL....................................................            4.37            0.41            1.29            0.02            0.00            2.41
CM......................................................           16.04            0.19            7.75            0.02            0.39            6.60
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sum.................................................           47.80           14.05            9.68            1.31            1.76           13.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.


                          Table 24--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Upper Guadalupe Mountains in 2018 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total \1\         Point          Natural         On-road        Non-road          Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4.....................................................           13.65           10.11            0.02            0.03            0.10            1.40
NO3.....................................................            3.32            1.18            0.44            0.27            0.37            0.65
POA.....................................................            2.38            0.29            0.15            0.05            0.13            1.30
EC......................................................            0.86            0.02            0.04            0.04            0.23            0.37
SOIL....................................................            4.37            0.51            1.29            0.02            0.00            2.31
CM......................................................           16.02            0.20            7.69            0.03            0.38            6.65
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sum.................................................           44.32           12.31            9.62            0.43            1.22           12.68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.

f. Texas' Contribution to Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas 
Outside the State
    CAMx PSAT results were also utilized to evaluate the impact of 
Texas emission sources in 2002 and 2018 on visibility impairment at 
Class I areas outside of the state. Texas sources are modeled to have 
contributions to the Class I areas in a number of nearby states. Tables 
25 and 26 summarize the contribution from Texas emissions of sulfate, 
nitrate and total visibility degradation at nearby states' Class I 
areas for the 20% worst days in 2002 and 2018, as modeled by CENRAP and 
shown in Section 11.2 of the Texas regional haze SIP.\266\ The 
contributions from Texas sources on total visibility impairment 
decreases from 2002 to 2018 at all impacted Class I areas shown in the 
tables below. Texas' impacts on other Class I areas in these nearby 
states are less than the impacts for the areas that are shown in the 
tables below for each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See Appendix E of the Technical Support Document for 
CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze 
SIP, included as Appendix 8-1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP for 
PSAT modeling results.

                Table 25--Contribution From Texas Emissions to Visibility Impairment (Mm-\1\) at Class I Areas on 20% Worst Days in 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Sulfate                         Nitrate                          Total
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Class I area                     State                           Total, all                      Total, all                      Total, all
                                                               Texas       source areas        Texas       source areas        Texas       source areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Creek........................  New Mexico..........            4.79           16.75            3.05           11.15           13.41           52.50
White Mountain....................  New Mexico..........            2.78           10.51            0.53            3.05            7.40           32.91
Wheeler Peak......................  New Mexico..........            0.76            5.27            0.22            1.64            1.85           21.96
Wichita Mountains.................  Oklahoma............           13.98           49.12            7.89           23.72           28.15          100.03
Great Sand Dunes..................  Colorado............            0.66            5.84            0.02            1.94            1.25           27.88
Rocky Mountains...................  Colorado............            0.30            7.69            0.08            5.17            0.58           32.13
Caney Creek.......................  Arkansas............           11.55           87.05            1.49           13.78           14.89          133.93
Upper Buffalo.....................  Arkansas............            4.41           83.18            0.27           13.30            5.19          131.79
Hercules-Glades...................  Missouri............            3.48           87.94            2.56           17.91            6.59          140.05
Mingo.............................  Missouri............            0.69          102.52            1.18           27.24            2.01          159.83
Breton............................  Louisiana...........            3.55           96.83            0.15            8.29            4.20          123.99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 26--Contribution From Texas Emissions (Mm-\1\) to Visibility Impairment at Class I Areas on 20% Worst Days in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Sulfate                         Nitrate                          Total
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Class I area                     State                           Total, all                      Total, all                      Total, all
                                                               Texas       source areas        Texas       source areas        Texas       source areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Creek........................  New Mexico..........            3.50           13.75            2.43            9.81           10.24           46.67
White Mountain....................  New Mexico..........            2.37            8.92            0.47            2.68            6.22           29.80

[[Page 74861]]

 
Wheeler Peak......................  New Mexico..........            0.79            5.00            0.19            1.48            1.59           20.80
Wichita Mountains.................  Oklahoma............            9.68           33.33            6.08           18.10           20.79           75.56
Great Sand Dunes..................  Colorado............            0.65            5.32            0.02            1.83            1.11           26.77
Rocky Mountains...................  Colorado............            0.30            6.52            0.06            4.28            0.51           29.41
Caney Creek.......................  Arkansas............            7.24           48.95            0.83            7.57            9.74           85.84
Upper Buffalo.....................  Arkansas............            2.74           45.38            0.18            9.22            3.38           86.16
Hercules-Glades...................  Missouri............            2.51           50.63            1.51           12.35            4.45           92.49
Mingo.............................  Missouri............            0.53           54.45            0.64           19.14            1.28           99.24
Breton............................  Louisiana...........            2.66           68.63            0.16            8.20            3.23           94.06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that the TCEQ's 2002 and 2018 emission 
inventories are acceptable and that Texas has satisfied the requirement 
of Section 51.308(D)(3)(iv) regarding identifying all anthropogenic 
sources of visibility impairment considered by it in developing its 
long-term strategy, and that it considered major and minor stationary 
sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
    However, as we discuss in Section IV.C., given the plain language 
of the CAA, we believe Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires states to 
consider the four factors used in determining reasonable progress in 
developing the technical basis for both their own Class I areas and 
downwind Class I areas. This documentation is necessary so that the 
interstate consultation process can proceed on an informed basis, and 
so that downwind states can properly assess whether any additional 
upwind emission reductions are necessary to achieve reasonable progress 
at their Class I areas. Therefore, in determining its long-term 
strategy under Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), we believe that Texas had an 
obligation to conduct an appropriate technical analysis, and 
demonstrate through that technical analysis (required under 
(d)(3)(ii)), that it provided its fair share of emission reductions to 
Oklahoma. In addition, we believe that Texas was required through 
consultation under Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) to provide a reasoned 
technical analysis, on which it based its long-term strategy, to 
Oklahoma. The regulations further provide that:

    The State must document the technical basis, including modeling, 
monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is relying 
to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations 
necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class 
I Federal area it affects. States may meet this requirement by 
relying on technical analyses developed by the regional planning 
organization and approved by all State participants.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).

    Thus, states may meet this requirement by relying on reasonable 
progress four-factor analyses and associated technical documentation 
prepared by a regional planning organization on behalf of its member 
states, to the extent that such analyses and documentation were 
conducted. If the technical analysis performed by the regional planning 
organization was missing, flawed, or incomplete, it could not be solely 
relied upon by a state when developing or documenting the technical 
basis of its long-term strategy. The technical data prepared through 
the regional planning organization process is typically designed to 
inform the member states of their apportionment of the visibility 
impact at Class I areas, project future visibility conditions, and to 
provide high-level information on potential control strategies to 
inform consultations and the four-factor analysis necessary to 
establish RPGs. These analyses may require additional refinements by 
the states in development of their regional haze SIPs to address 
impacts and potential controls of specific sources or source 
categories. As we discuss in Sections V.C., and V.E.2, the TCEQ 
recognized that some aspects of CENRAP's technical analyses were 
limited because it supplemented that analysis with its own. It used 
this analysis to inform its decision not to control any additional 
sources, including those that impact the visibility at the Wichita 
Mountains and other Class I areas in other states. For the reasons 
discussed at length in Section V.C.2, we believe this analysis was 
inadequate and did not provide the information necessary to determine 
the reasonableness of controls at those sources in Texas that 
significantly impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains or other Class 
I areas. Based on CENRAP data and information shared during 
consultations, included in the record, the ODEQ and the TCEQ had 
evidence of some potential controls at certain EGUs in Northeast Texas 
that were estimated to be cost-effective even according to the TCEQ's 
own cost threshold and would result in large emission reductions within 
the source type and region with the largest projected impacts at 
Wichita Mountains. The ODEQ and the TCEQ were also aware of additional 
large emission sources in Texas that should have been further evaluated 
for potential controls. Although both the ODEQ and the TCEQ had 
abundant evidence that Texas coal fired EGUs had a significant impact 
on the visibility at Oklahoma and Texas Class I areas, the development 
of this technical information by either party did not progress to the 
point where the impacts of individual sources could be determined or to 
the point where the information on cost-effective controls identified 
for some sources could be refined from a high level state.
    Consequently, we propose to find that Texas did not adequately 
address the requirements in Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) to ``document the 
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions 
information, on which the state is relying to determine its 
apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving 
reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it 
affects.''
    To determine whether additional controls were reasonable in Texas, 
we believed it necessary to undertake a cost/control and visibility 
analysis which is presented in our FIP TSD. In the FIP TSD, we provide 
detailed information concerning which sources within Texas are the 
largest contributors to the visibility degradation at the Wichita 
Mountains and at other Class I areas, and which sources we believe have 
cost-effective controls. For more

[[Page 74862]]

information on our proposed FIP, please see section VII.
4. Texas' Consideration of the Long-Term Strategy Factors
    As required by Section 51.308(d)(3)(v), Texas must consider, at a 
minimum, the following factors in developing its long-term strategy:
    (A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs, including measures to address RAVI;
    (B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
    (C) Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve 
the reasonable progress goal;
    (D) Source retirement and replacement schedules;
    (E) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry 
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state 
for these purposes;
    (F) Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; 
and
    (G) The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected 
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period 
addressed by the long-term strategy.
    Texas' long-term strategy incorporates emission reductions due to a 
number of ongoing air pollution control programs. This includes 
enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, administrative 
orders, the issuance and enforcement of permits limiting emissions from 
all known major sources in Texas, state rules which specifically limit 
targeted emissions sources and categories, and several other ongoing 
air pollution control programs. The TCEQ has promulgated rules in order 
to administer these programs. These rules govern the TCEQ's permitting 
process, including PSD and BACT requirements, and implementation of 
federal requirements. The TCEQ also has promulgated rules that limit 
emissions in order to comply with the NAAQS, which have ancillary 
benefits of visibility improvements. Other air pollution control 
programs, including federal mobile emissions programs, the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, and Refinery 
Consent Decrees are implemented by TCEQ, have similar ancillary 
benefits of visibility improvements.
    Below we assess how the TCEQ addressed the long-term strategy 
factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A)-(G). Please see our TX TSD for 
more information on how the TCEQ has addressed these factors.
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    The Texas long-term strategy incorporates emission reductions due 
to a number of ongoing air pollution control programs, which are 
summarized below.
    <bullet> The TCEQ implements CAIR.
    <bullet> The TCEQ implements a number of federal and state rules 
related to mobile source emissions.
    <bullet> The TCEQ implements some major point sources 
NO<INF>X</INF> rules, including Texas Senate Bill 7, which required 
emission reductions at EGUs built before Texas BACT emission control 
requirements went into effect in 1972, and NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
reductions related to ozone SIP revisions for the Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria area, Beaumont-Port Arthur area, Austin, Northeast Texas, and 
East Texas.
    <bullet> A number of miscellaneous programs including 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions under our refinery consent decrees; the Texas 
Low Emissions Diesel Program; the Texas Emission Reduction Plan to 
reduce NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emissions by encouraging older road and 
non-road engine replacement; rules to control opacity and sulfur 
emissions, such as 30 TAC Chapters 111 and 112; and BACT.
    The TCEQ states that the federal land managers for Big Bend and the 
Guadalupe Mountains, or other Class I areas that are impacted by 
emissions from Texas sources, have not identified any RAVI caused by 
Texas sources. Consequently, Texas does not have any measures in place 
or a requirement to implement RAVI. We propose that Texas has satisfied 
this requirement.
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires that Texas consider measures to 
mitigate the impacts of construction activities in developing its long-
term strategy. The TCEQ notes that state Rule 30 TAC 111.145, 
Construction and Demolition, requires precautions to control dust 
emissions from construction operations and other activities.\268\ It 
also notes that water pollution control requirements to prevent 
pollution from storm runoff and mud and dirt tracked from construction 
sites reduces the amount of fine soil material suspended in the air 
from traffic in these areas. The TCEQ determined that no additional 
measures were needed to mitigate the impacts of construction activities 
for purposes of visibility improvement, and we agree with this 
determination. We propose that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ Approved into the SIP on January 18, 1994, at 59 FR 02532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Emissions Limitations and Schedules for Compliance
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) requires that in developing its long-
term strategy, Texas consider emissions limitations and schedules of 
compliance to achieve the RPGs. No newly adopted source specific 
measures were identified to achieve the RPGs established by Texas. The 
TCEQ determined that implementation of existing and ongoing control 
measures are adequate to achieve the RPGs established by it and other 
CENRAP states. We propose to find that Texas has not satisfied this 
requirement, regarding emissions limitations and schedules for 
compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big Bend and the Guadalupe 
Mountains. Please see the technical discussion we present in Section 
V.C regarding the development of the Texas RPGs, as the TCEQ applied 
the same technical basis to the development of its long-term strategy. 
As with its RPGs, we propose to find this analysis is inadequate as it 
does not provide the information necessary to determine the 
reasonableness of controls at those sources in Texas that significantly 
impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires that Texas consider source 
retirement and replacement schedules in developing its long-term 
strategy. Retirement and replacement schedules were taken into account, 
to the extent possible, when developing inputs for the IPM that was 
used in the CENRAP modeling analysis. Units that the TCEQ knew were 
going to be shut down under enforceable actions at the time the 
modeling was performed were removed from the future year emission 
inventory. We propose that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires that Texas consider smoke 
management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes 
in developing its long-term strategy. The TCEQ examined the data and 
modeling for the worst 20% days at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains 
and determined that smoke from agricultural burning and wildfires in 
Texas are not a large contributor to visibility impairment at these 
Class I areas. The TCEQ also determined that agricultural burning and 
wildfires in Texas are not

[[Page 74863]]

significant contributors to visibility impairment at Class I areas in 
nearby states. Because of the relatively low contribution of smoke from 
Texas to visibility impairment, Texas decided that certifying a smoke 
management plan as part of this SIP revision was unnecessary. The Texas 
Forest Service (TFS) coordinates fire and smoke management issues in 
Texas and has developed a voluntary plan under which all land managers 
in Texas, including the National Park Service, inform the TFS prior to 
performing prescribed burns. Texas also has an outdoor burning rule (30 
TAC Chapter 111, subchapter B) \269\ that includes requirements for 
allowable prescribed burning. Texas counties also have the authority to 
prohibit open burning in times of drought. The TCEQ found that the 
current rules, policies, and plans (including smoke management plans of 
the NPS and other federal agencies) are adequate to meet the long-term 
strategy. We agree and propose that Texas has satisfied this 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ Approved into the SIP on April 28, 2009, at 74 FR 19144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Enforceability of emissions Limitations and Control Measures
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) requires that Texas ensure the 
enforceability of emission limitations and control measures used to 
meet RPGs. The TCEQ has rules in place to ensure the enforceability of 
its emission limitations. This includes rules that govern TCEQ's 
permitting process for major and minor sources, Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions, and BACT. The TCEQ has the 
authority to issue permits to all major and minor point sources in 
Texas, as they are currently defined at 30 TAC Ch. 116. Each permit 
must contain enforceable limitations on emissions of various defined 
pollutants, including those which cause or contribute to regional haze 
at the Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in other states. The TCEQ 
included information describing their legal authority and applicable 
laws in the submitted Texas regional haze SIP following the executive 
summary. We propose that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes in 
Emissions
    Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G) requires that in developing its long-
term strategy, Texas consider the anticipated net effect on visibility 
due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions 
over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. In developing its 
regional haze SIP, the TCEQ relied on the CENRAP's 2018 modeling 
projections. As described above, CENRAP used its 2002 emissions 
inventory as the starting point for its 2018 emissions inventory. The 
2018 emissions inventory was designed to capture the anticipated 
changes in point, area, and mobile sources emissions over the period 
addressed by the long-term strategy. As we discuss in Section V.G, we 
propose to approve the TCEQ's obligation to develop a statewide 
inventory of emissions, including future projected emissions. We 
believe that these projected changes in emissions were adequately 
implemented in CENRAP's 2018 modeling, and therefore propose to approve 
Texas' submission under Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G).

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    Under Section 51.308(d)(4), states are required to coordinate their 
RAVI long-term strategy and monitoring provisions with those for RH. 
Under our RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must 
address any integral vistas identified by the federal land managers 
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR 51.302. An integral vista is 
defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama 
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista 
associated with that area. The federal land managers for Big Bend and 
the Guadalupe Mountains have not identified any RAVI from Texas or 
other state sources. Also, the federal land managers for the Class I 
areas that Texas' emissions impact in other states have not identified 
any RAVI caused by Texas sources. For these reasons, the TCEQ does not 
have any measures in place or a requirement to address RAVI. Thus, we 
propose to find that the Texas regional haze SIP has satisfied Section 
51.308(d)(4). We discuss the relevant monitoring provisions in the 
section that follows.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) requires the SIP contain a monitoring strategy 
for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze 
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 
areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated 
with the monitoring strategy required in Section 51.305 for RAVI. As 
Section 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement may be met 
through participation in the IMPROVE network. Since the monitors used 
for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend are IMPROVE monitors, we 
propose that the TCEQ has satisfied this requirement.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires the establishment of any 
additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether RPGs 
to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I areas within the 
state are being achieved. We do not believe that additional monitoring, 
beyond the IMPROVE network monitors that are already in place, is 
necessary in order to assess Texas' RPGs, and are therefore proposing 
to find that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that the TCEQ establish 
procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in 
determining the contribution of emissions from within Texas to regional 
haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I areas both within and 
outside the state. The monitors at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains 
are operated through the IMPROVE monitoring program, which is national 
in scope, and other states have similar monitoring and data reporting 
procedures, ensuring a consistent and robust monitoring data collection 
system. As Section 51.308(d)(4) indicates, participation in the IMPROVE 
program constitutes compliance with this requirement. We are therefore 
proposing that the TCEQ has satisfied this requirement.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that the SIP must provide for the 
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at 
least annually for each mandatory Class I area in the state. To the 
extent possible, Texas should report visibility monitoring data 
electronically. Section 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the TCEQ 
provide for other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. We 
believe that Texas' participation in the IMPROVE network ensures the 
monitoring data is reported at least annually and is easily accessible, 
and therefore we are therefore proposing to find that the TCEQ has 
satisfied this requirement.
    Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that the TCEQ maintain a statewide 
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I 
area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, 
emissions for the most recent year for which data are available,

[[Page 74864]]

and estimates of future projected emissions. Texas must also include a 
commitment to update the inventory periodically. TCEQ provides a 
summary of the 2005 emission inventory in Appendix 7-1 of the Texas 
Regional Haze SIP. We discuss our review of the TCEQ's 2002 and 2018 
emission inventories above in Section V.E.3. The TCEQ has stated that 
it intends to update the Texas statewide emissions inventories 
periodically. We propose that this satisfies the requirement in Section 
51.308(d)(4)(v).

H. Federal Land Manager Consultation

    Both Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are federally protected 
national parks for which the United States Department of the Interior, 
National Park Service is the FLM. Although the federal land managers 
are very active in participating in the regional planning 
organizations, the Regional Haze Rule grants the federal land managers 
a special role in the review of the regional haze SIPs. We view both 
the federal land managers and the state environmental agencies as our 
partners in the regional haze process.
    Section 51.308(i)(1) requires that by November 29, 1999, Texas must 
have identified in writing to the federal land managers the title of 
the official to which the federal land managers of Big Bend and the 
Guadalupe Mountains can submit any recommendations on the 
implementation of Section 51.308. We acknowledge that this section has 
been satisfied by all states via their communications with the federal 
land managers prior to this SIP action.
    Under Section 51.308(i)(2), Texas was obligated to provide the Park 
Service with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 
days prior to holding a public hearing on its regional haze SIP. In 
practice, state environmental agencies have usually provided all 
federal land managers--the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, copies of their regional haze SIP, as the 
federal land managers collectively have reviewed these regional haze 
SIPs. The TCEQ followed this practice and sent its draft of this 
implementation plan revision to the federal land manager staff. The 
federal land managers were provided a comment period of from November 
16, 2007, through January 16, 2008. Their comments were provided to the 
public 30 days prior to the public hearing, which the federal land 
managers were notified of, and which occurred on February 19, 2008.
    Section 51.308(i)(3) requires that the TCEQ provide in its regional 
haze SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the 
federal land managers. The TCEQ has provided that information in 
Appendix 2-2 of its regional haze SIP.
    Lastly, Section 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
federal land managers on the implementation of the visibility 
protection program required by Section 51.308, including development 
and review of implementation plan revisions and 5-year progress 
reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the 
potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in the mandatory 
Class I areas. The TCEQ has acknowledged this requirement in its 
regional haze SIP. We are therefore proposing to find that the TCEQ has 
satisfied Section 51.308(i).

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    The TCEQ affirmed its commitment to complete certain items required 
in the future under our Regional Haze Rule. It acknowledged its 
requirement under Section 51.308(f), to revise and submit its regional 
haze SIP revision to us by July 31, 2018 and every ten years 
thereafter. It also acknowledged its requirement under Section 
51.308(g), to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision 
every five years following this initial submittal of the Texas regional 
haze SIP. The TCEQ submitted the first five-year report in March 2014. 
We are not including our analysis of this SIP revision within this 
proposed action.

J. Future Determination of the Adequacy of the Existing Implementation 
Plan

    Section 51.308(h) requires that Texas take one of the listed 
actions, as appropriate, at the same time it is required to submit any 
5-year progress report to us in accordance with Section 51.308(g). The 
TCEQ has committed in its SIP to take one of the actions listed under 
51.308(h), depending on the findings of the five-year progress report.

VI. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Remaining Parts of the 
Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP

A. Previous Rulemakings on the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP

    In a previous rulemaking, we partially approved and partially 
disapproved portions of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.\270\ We 
approved certain elements of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, as 
follows: Identification of sources that are BART eligible and subject 
to BART; its determination of baseline and natural visibility 
conditions; its coordination of regional haze and RAVI; monitoring 
strategy and other implementation requirements; its coordination with 
states and federal land managers; and a number of the state's 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM BART determinations. We 
disapproved Oklahoma's submitted SO<INF>2</INF> BART determinations for 
Units 4 and 5 of the OG&E Muskogee plant; Units 1 and 2 of the OG&E 
Sooner plant; and, Units 3 and 4 of the AEP/PSO Northeastern plant. We 
also disapproved the long-term strategy in Oklahoma's regional haze SIP 
because it did not include appropriate controls for these six sources. 
To remedy these deficiencies in the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, we 
concurrently promulgated a FIP that established SO<INF>2</INF> BART 
emission limits for these six sources at three facilities in Oklahoma. 
We have subsequently withdrawn our FIP for two of the sources, 
following approval of Oklahoma's SIP revision BART determinations for 
those two sources.\271\ We did not take action on whether Oklahoma 
satisfied the reasonable progress requirements of Section 51.308(d)(1) 
in our earlier action. In that proposed action, we stated that to 
properly assess whether Oklahoma had satisfied these requirements, we 
must first evaluate and act upon the regional haze SIP revision 
submitted by the State of Texas.\272\ Our proposed action here, 
insomuch as it concerns Oklahoma's obligations, is limited to our 
review of Oklahoma's submission under Section 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ Final action: 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011). Proposal: 
76 FR 16188 (March 22, 2011).
    \271\ Approval of OK's partial replacement for FIP: 79 FR 12944 
(March 7, 2014). Partial FIP withdrawal: 79 FR 12954 (March 7, 
2014).
    \272\ 76 FR 16177 (Mar. 22, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals

    As required by Section 51.308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule, the 
ODEQ has established RPGs for its Class I area, the Wichita Mountains. 
These RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most 
impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period.
1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
    The RPGs established by ODEQ for the Wichita Mountains are derived 
from the CENRAP modeling of visibility conditions in 2018.\273\ The 
CENRAP

[[Page 74865]]

modeling reflects emission reductions programs already in place from 
the implementation of the federal CAA and Oklahoma CAA, estimated 
reductions from the Oklahoma BART rule, and the estimated emission 
reductions identified in the long-term strategies of Oklahoma, Texas 
and other nearby states. The ODEQ adopted the results of the CENRAP 
modeling as the RPGs for the Oklahoma Class I area based on the results 
of its reasonable progress analysis and additional information 
developed by CENRAP or obtained through direct consultations with those 
states anticipated to impact visibility at Wichita Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ The TSD for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to 
Support Regional Haze State Implementation is found in Appendix 4-2 
of the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODEQ established a RPG of 21.47 dv for the Wichita Mountains 
for 2018 for the 20% worst days. This represents a 2.3 dv improvement 
in visibility over a baseline of 23.81 dv of visibility impairment. 
Based on the rate of progress represented by this RPG for the first 
planning period, the ODEQ calculated that the Wichita Mountains would 
attain natural visibility conditions in 2102. The ODEQ's RPG for the 
20% worst days is shown below, which is adapted from Tables IX-3 and 
IX-4 and Figure IX-1 of the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP.

                                          Table 27--Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goal for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Date natural
                                                                         Baseline      Projected 2018    Improvement     Improvement by     visibility
                            Class I area                                conditions       visibility      projected by     2018 at URP      attained at
                                                                                           (RPG)        2018 using RPG                       RPG rate
                                                                               (dv)             (dv)             (dv)             (dv)   ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains..................................................           23.81            21.47             2.33             3.80             2102
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODEQ's RPG for the 20% best days is shown below, which is adapted 
from Table IX-2 of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.

                       Table 28--Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goal for the 20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Projected 2018
                    Class I area                           Baseline        visibility (RPG)     Improvement by
                                                       conditions  (dv)          (dv)             2018  (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains...................................               9.78                9.23                0.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODEQ's RPGs for the Wichita Mountains are consistent with the 
minimum requirement of Section 51.308(d)(1) that the RPGs provide for 
an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period 
of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least 
impaired days over the same period. For the reasons discussed below in 
more detail, however, we propose to disapprove Oklahoma's RPGs for the 
Wichita Mountains. First, in our earlier action on the Oklahoma 
regional haze SIP, we disapproved the SO<INF>2</INF> BART 
determinations for six EGUs at three power plants in Oklahoma and 
promulgated a FIP setting more stringent SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits 
for these EGUs.\274\ Although we subsequently approved a SIP revision 
from Oklahoma addressing the BART requirements for two EGUs at one 
power plant,\275\ and removed the FIP requirements for this 
facility,\276\ our FIP and the revised Oklahoma SIP require greater 
reductions overall in emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> than was assumed in 
setting the RPGs for the Wichita Mountains. Second, we are proposing to 
disapprove Oklahoma's RPGs for the Wichita Mountains because they were 
based on an incomplete consultation with Texas under 51.308(d) (1)(iv) 
that resulted in inadequate reasonable progress towards the national 
visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011).
    \275\ 79 FR 12944 (March 7, 2014).
    \276\ 79 FR 12954 (March 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reasonable Progress Consultation
    In developing the RPGs for its Class I area, Oklahoma was required 
to consult with those states which may reasonably be anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita 
Mountains.\277\ In any situation in which Oklahoma could not agree with 
another such state or group of states that a goal provides for 
reasonable progress, Oklahoma was required to describe in its submittal 
the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In reviewing Oklahoma's 
SIP submittal, the Administrator takes this information into account in 
determining whether Oklahoma's goal for visibility improvement provides 
for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODEQ identified several states that were projected through 
visibility modeling to contribute more than 1 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> of light 
extinction at the Wichita Mountains in 2018 and invited these states to 
consult. It conducted four consultations.\278\ It directed its first 
consultation to the tribal leaders in Oklahoma and their environmental 
managers, on August 14, 2007. The ODEQ held the next three 
consultations as conference calls with representatives from CENRAP, 
EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas.\279\ The ODEQ 
received written responses from the Arkansas Department of 
Environmental Quality, the TCEQ, and the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources.\280\ The ODEQ sent a letter to the Iowa Department of 
Natural Resources as a follow up to the consultation calls for the 
Wichita Mountains. Below is a summary of Oklahoma's consultations.

[[Page 74866]]

For additional detail on Oklahoma's consultation, see the OK TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ Copies of agendas and presentation materials are available 
in the docket for this action and at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/SIP/Consultation/index.htm.
    \279\ These calls were recorded, referenced in OK's regional 
haze SIP, and placed on ODEQ's Web site.
    \280\ Copies of these letters can be found in Appendix 10-1 of 
the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first call with the states, held on August 16, 2007, the 
ODEQ discussed the current modeling results, comparing the projected 
visibility conditions in 2018 to the 2018 URP goal.\281\ The ODEQ 
identified that the Wichita Mountains is projected in the 2108 CENRAP 
modeling to be 1.5 dv short of its 3.8 dv reduction needed to meet the 
URP. It also discussed the primary anticipated causes of regional haze 
for the Wichita Mountains in 2018, based on modeling and monitored 
data. According to the ODEQ, high SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations at the 
Wichita Mountains reflect long range transport from Texas and the 
eastern two-thirds of United States. The ODEQ identified that point 
sources are the most significant contributors to haze at the Wichita 
Mountains based on the source apportionment results from the CENRAP 
modeling, with the largest contributing point sources being Texas EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ A copy of the presentation containing the information 
discussed by ODEQ is available in the docket for this action and at: 
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/RegionalHazeStatesConsultation1_081607.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODEQ used the AOI data developed for the Alpine Geophysics 
report and considered the PSAT modeling results to identify areas, 
pollutants and source types that contribute to visibility impairment at 
the Wichita Mountains. The ODEQ identified that SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions that impact visibility conditions at the Wichita Mountains 
generally originate from the south and east. The ODEQ identified 
sources within the Area of Influence of the Wichita Mountains with a 
ratio of annual emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> or SO<INF>2</INF> to 
distance (Q/D) greater than 5 based on 2018 projected emissions. The 
ODEQ then used the Alpine Geophysics report developed for CENRAP (as 
described in more detail in Section V.C.2 above) to identify estimates 
of the costs of installing retrofit controls for these sources. The 
ODEQ applied a maximum cost threshold of $5,000/ton to the list of 
potential controls to eliminate controls that it considered too costly 
from additional analysis. The remaining sources were listed in the 
charts provided to the participants in the consultation process.\282\ 
For these sources, the ODEQ requested that the participating states 
provide any available information or comments relative to which listed 
sources are BART sources, planned expansions or installation of 
controls, feasibility of controls, cost of controls, and any modeling 
conducted that would indicate the sources' levels of impact on the 
Wichita Mountains. It stated that it was not yet requesting reductions, 
but was merely soliciting additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ A spreadsheet with the list of potential controls shared 
with the States is available in the docket for this action and at: 
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/RegionalHazeStatesConsultation1_081607_ControlAssumptions.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the August 30, 2007 meeting, the ODEQ focused on the method 
used to calculate natural conditions at the Wichita Mountains. The ODEQ 
also reviewed and discussed information it had received following its 
request for information regarding the sources of interest that it had 
identified. ODEQ also noted that it had received information from 
Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska after the first call 
but that it still needed information from Texas, Missouri, and 
Minnesota. Texas indicated that although it had contacted its EGUs, 
none had provided information as to how they intended to comply with 
CAIR. Texas stated that it had not received any enforceable commitments 
for controls from any of its EGUs. For other listed Texas sources, TCEQ 
said it was seeing significant decreases in emissions from controls or 
programs that were already in place. According to Texas, in general, 
growth assumptions for non-EGU Texas sources were wrong. Total 
emissions for Texas point sources, it claimed, were steadily declining 
in spite of great economic growth. Louisiana stated that one of its 
sources, Rhodia, was under a Consent Decree and reducing its emissions. 
Minnesota and Missouri also offered to provide some additional 
information to Oklahoma regarding their sources.
    For the third and final consultation meeting on September 25, 2007, 
the ODEQ again followed up on the information request regarding the 
sources of interest that it had identified. Texas stated that there 
were no changes to its EGUs projections since very few of its EGUs had 
committed to controls in order to meet CAIR. Texas again stated that 
Texas point source 2018 projections were unrealistic and that Texas 
point source emissions have historically been dropping even when the 
state has been growing substantially economically. The ODEQ stated that 
SO<INF>2</INF> is 60% of the particulate issue with most of it coming 
from Texas, Louisiana, and other states all the way out to the east 
coast. The ODEQ finished the consultation call with a statement that it 
was considering the information provided from consultation and was 
using it in drafting its regional haze SIP.
    During the consultation process, Arkansas notified the ODEQ that it 
disagreed that its sources contribute significantly to visibility 
impairment at the Wichita Mountains. Missouri similarly informed the 
ODEQ that it considered current controls on Missouri sources to be 
sufficient. Later, the ODEQ also concluded based on modeled projections 
that Iowa would not contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita 
Mountains in 2018 and informed Iowa that additional reductions were no 
longer requested.
    During the consultation process, Oklahoma and Texas exchanged 
letters regarding the Wichita Mountains. On August 3, 2007, the ODEQ 
sent a letter to the TCEQ in which it noted that despite significant 
planned reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
sources in Oklahoma and Texas, the Wichita Mountains was not projected 
to meet the URP. The ODEQ further noted that the analyses by CENRAP had 
made clear that the Wichita Mountains suffer from significant 
anthropogenic impacts from Texas. The ODEQ requested that the TCEQ 
require new and modified PSD sources to conduct analyses of their 
impacts on visibility at the Wichita Mountains and that the ODEQ be 
given an opportunity to review and comment on BACT determinations for 
proposed projects likely to have a certain impact on visibility at the 
Wichita Mountains. In addition, the ODEQ requested that the evaluations 
of visibility impacts be extended from within 100 km of the Wichita 
Mountains to within 300 km of the Wichita Mountains in deference to FLM 
guidance. On October 15, 2007, the TCEQ sent a response to the ODEQ, 
agreeing that modeling showed emissions from Texas to be a significant 
source of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ also 
noted, however, that significant reductions from Texas will be realized 
in the next several years. In response to the ODEQ's specific request 
for the opportunity to comment on BACT for new and modified major 
sources, the TCEQ stated that it welcomed comment during the public 
review and comment period and would notify federal land managers and 
the ODEQ if modeling were to indicate that a proposed source might 
significantly impact the Wichita Mountains. In response to the ODEQ's 
request that impact evaluations be extended to 300 km, the TCEQ stated 
that it was working with federal land managers on mutually acceptable 
criteria for determining when a proposed PSD source should conduct a 
Class I area review and would inform ODEQ on the outcome of these

[[Page 74867]]

discussions. In addition, the TCEQ attached its draft RPG analysis for 
its two Class I areas, which included analyses the TCEQ used to 
determine that there are no reasonable costs of installing additional 
controls beyond CAIR to address Texas impacts at Big Bend National Park 
and the Guadalupe Mountains.
    Several months after this initial exchange of letter, the two 
states again exchanged letters. On March 25, 2008, following comments 
made by us and the federal land managers on Texas' draft regional haze 
SIP, the TCEQ sent a letter to the ODEQ regarding emissions that affect 
the Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ provided a copy of the PSAT modeling 
results developed by CENRAP indicating the contribution for each source 
area to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ stated 
in the letter that PSAT modeling indicated that the probable impacts of 
Texas sources at the Wichita Mountains will be reduced by 2018 due to 
expected emission reductions from current and planned controls. A list 
of sources that are within the area of interest and have an emissions 
over distance ratio equal to or greater than five (Q/D [gteqt]5) was 
included with the letter, along with information on projected emissions 
and distance to Wichita Mountains for those sources. The TCEQ then 
requested concurrence from Oklahoma on this assessment and a 
verification that Oklahoma was not depending on any additional 
reductions from Texas sources in order to meet RPG for the Wichita 
Mountains. On May 12, 2008, the ODEQ sent a response to the TCEQ in 
which it noted that it concurred with the information the TCEQ had 
provided. The ODEQ stated that it had developed its RPG for the worst 
20% days for the Wichita Mountains through the CENRAP deliberations and 
that its RPG did not anticipate emission reductions beyond those that 
Texas already planned to implement and upon which CENRAP modeling 
studies have relied. The letter also states that reaching the Wichita 
Mountains' RPG requires constraints on emissions from new, modified, 
and existing sources. The letter then recaps the ODEQ's initial request 
made in its August 3, 2007 consultation letter that all sources within 
300 km conduct an analyses of the impacts to the Wichita Mountains and 
that it be given the opportunity to comment on BACT for proposed 
sources projected to significantly contribute to visibility impairment 
at the Wichita Mountains.
    We reviewed the information developed by ODEQ and the participating 
states during the consultation process, as well as the CENRAP source 
apportionment modeling results and additional data developed by CENRAP 
and Alpine Geophysics. We propose to agree with the following 
conclusions made by the ODEQ in its consultations:
    <bullet> With all the reductions anticipated to occur in the 
contributing states, the CENRAP modeling projects that the Wichita 
Mountains will fall short of meeting the URP goal for this planning 
period.
    <bullet> NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> are the primary causes 
of haze at the Wichita Mountains, with SO<INF>2</INF> as the 
predominant cause of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains in 
2002 and 2018.
    <bullet> For this planning period, it is reasonable to not require 
additional controls for NO<INF>X</INF> sources, as NO<INF>X</INF> is 
not the predominant cause of visibility impairment at the Wichita 
Mountains in 2002 or 2018.
    <bullet> Texas is a significant contributor to the visibility 
impairment at the Wichita Mountains.
    <bullet> Point sources are the most significant contributors to 
haze at the Wichita Mountains, and the largest contributing point 
sources are Texas EGUs.
    <bullet> Texas point sources identified during consultation by 
Oklahoma and other large sources within the AOI of Wichita Mountains 
are excellent candidates for additional analysis for potential 
controls.
    <bullet> Control cost data developed by Alpine Geophysics, and 
shared by Oklahoma during consultations, indicated potential 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls were available for those Texas sources 
discussed during consultations at an average cost of less than $2,000/
ton, and that for all but two of those identified Texas sources, 
potential controls are below the $2,700/ton threshold established by 
Texas in its analysis and development of its LTS. More specifically, 
for the largest of the identified sources, Alpine Geophysics estimated 
the cost of SO<INF>2</INF> controls at the two units at Big Brown to be 
approximately $1,500/ton. They also projected that these controls would 
achieve greater than 40,000 tpy in SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions. 
Alpine Geophysics estimated the cost of SO<INF>2</INF> controls at two 
units at Monticello to be approximately $1,850/ton. They also projected 
that these controls would achieve greater than 35,000 tpy in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions.
    For this planning period, we propose to find that Oklahoma 
reasonably determined that additional SO<INF>2</INF> reductions from 
Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Iowa were not necessary for 
reasonable progress. This proposed determination is based, in part, on 
our review of the CENRAP modelling showing the projected impact from 
sources in these states and the relative contributions from 
SO<INF>2</INF> point sources in these states. See our OK TSD for 
additional discussion and presentation of CENRAP source apportionment 
results for impacts on Wichita Mountains.
    We agree with the ODEQ's approach for identifying those states with 
sources that may impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains and its 
decision to invite those states to consult. Through the consultation 
process, the ODEQ was able to gain additional information regarding the 
potential impacts from nearby states. We do not agree, however, with 
the ODEQ's approach to consultation to address impacts from emissions 
from Texas. At the time that Oklahoma was developing its SIP, it had 
(1) abundant information showing the impact of Texas sources on 
visibility at the Wichita Mountains, particularly from EGU sources in 
northeast Texas, and (2) evidence that cost-effective controls on these 
sources were likely available. Despite this information, the ODEQ 
neither requested that the TCEQ further investigate controls at these 
sources nor did it request additional reductions from Texas sources to 
address the impacts of emissions from these sources at the Wichita 
Mountains. The Regional Haze Rule requires states to use the 
consultation process under Sections 51.308(d)(1)(iv) in the development 
of RPGs to ensure that all states, including downwind states, take a 
hard look at what measures are necessary for ensuring reasonable 
progress towards improving and maintaining visibility at Class I areas. 
Lacking development of critical information during its consultations 
with Texas, we believe that Oklahoma did not have adequate information 
to reasonably establish its RPG for the Wichita Mountains, and, as 
explained below, should have requested that the TCEQ further 
investigate these sources or requested additional reductions from Texas 
sources to ensure that all reasonable measures to improve visibility 
were included in Texas' LTS and incorporated into Oklahoma's RPG for 
the Wichita Mountains.
3. The Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress ``Four Factor'' Analysis
    In establishing RPGs for a Class I area, Oklahoma is required by 
CAA Section 169A(g)(1) and Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to ``[c]onsider 
the costs of compliance, the time necessary

[[Page 74868]]

for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected 
sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were 
taken into consideration in selecting the goal.''
    The ODEQ analyzed the largest sources of visibility impairing 
pollutants within Oklahoma, including sources of sulfur, nitrates, 
NH<INF>3</INF>, VOCs, and directly emitted coarse and fine particles. 
The ODEQ calculated that sulfurous pollutants contribute approximately 
44% and nitrate bearing pollutants contribute approximately 21% of the 
total light extinction (or visibility impairment) to the Wichita 
Mountains. The ODEQ also calculated that sources from all source 
categories combined within Oklahoma contribute only approximately 13% 
of the total pollutants that contribute to light extinction at the 
Wichita Mountains in the 2002 modeled base year.
    To evaluate any additional control measures necessary to 
demonstrate reasonable progress, the ODEQ initially relied on the same 
CENRAP analysis, including the Alpine Geophysics report commissioned by 
CENRAP, that the TCEQ relied upon, that we describe above in Section 
V.C.
    The CENRAP control case sensitivity evaluation projected that 
visibility at the Wichita Mountains would be improved by an additional 
0.75 dv on the worst 20% days over what the ODEQ projects as its RPG of 
21.47 dv for 2018, if controls were implemented at the sources that met 
the combination of baseline emissions, potential for cost-effective 
add-on controls, and location selected by CENRAP for the sensitivity 
analysis. The ODEQ pointed out that even if all controls contemplated 
in the CENRAP sensitivity evaluation were implemented, the Wichita 
Mountains would still fall significantly short of meeting the URP glide 
path for the 20% worst days in 2018, and ODEQ noted that most of the 
sources were located in Texas or other states outside of ODEQ's 
jurisdiction. The ODEQ also stated that the control scenario presented 
in the Alpine Geophysics evaluation includes some already implemented, 
prohibitively costly, technically infeasible, or otherwise unreasonable 
controls. Following this analysis, the ODEQ examined additional 
controls for sources within Oklahoma, the full list of which we present 
in our OK TSD.
    In its analysis, the ODEQ considered the four statutory factors 
under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) in its evaluation of the potential for 
additional controls. In summary, the ODEQ analyzed the cost of 
compliance by reviewing the cost information previously developed by 
CENRAP and made changes to the cost information based on its knowledge 
of the particular facilities and experience with implementing ozone 
reduction strategies. The ODEQ's analysis focused on moderate cost 
controls for sources likely to contribute to visibility impairment at 
the Wichita Mountains. In considering the time necessary for 
compliance, the ODEQ determined that any such controls would have to be 
installed and in operation by 2018. It did not identify any detrimental 
non-air quality environmental impacts associated with any controls 
considered, and any energy impacts were factored into the cost of 
controls. In considering the remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources, the ODEQ stated that none of the sources considered 
for additional emission reductions had indicated plans to shut down.
    The ODEQ also evaluated the major sources of each visibility 
impairing pollutant within the state. In its analyses of additional 
SO<INF>2</INF> control, it noted that the three largest sources of 
sulfur emissions in the state, OG&E Muskogee, OG&E Sooner, and AEP/PSO 
Northeastern, were subject to BART.\283\ The ODEQ also stated that 
sulfur controls at the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) would be costly 
and result in little visibility benefit given the location of the 
facility. Furthermore, the GRDA already utilized flue gas 
desulfurization. It noted that additional sulfur emission reductions 
were already required due to consent decrees on refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ In our FIP (76 FR 81728), we disagreed with the ODEQ's 
BART determinations for these three facilities (two units at each 
facility) and required a more stringent level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the ODEQ identified that three of the 
four largest NO<INF>X</INF> point sources and a number of smaller 
sources close to Wichita Mountains would be controlled under BART. 
Similar to its analysis for SO<INF>2</INF>, the ODEQ also stated that 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls at the GRDA would be costly and result in 
little visibility benefit given the location of the facility. The ODEQ 
determined that controls for other point and area sources, especially 
those associated with oil and gas activities, would be expensive and 
that violations would entail large costs to detect and enforce. The 
ODEQ stated that improved emission inventories in the future could help 
in developing state rules for area sources. In addition, the ODEQ 
stated that new oil and gas sources are covered by new source 
performance standards.
    Based on the above analysis of the four factors, the ODEQ concluded 
that retrofitting these identified point sources of NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> would impose unreasonable costs for negligible 
visibility improvement. The ODEQ reasoned that most of the largest 
sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> were already being 
controlled through BART, consent decrees or other regulatory 
mechanisms; already had adequate controls in place; or are located too 
far from the Wichita Mountains, and therefore have too little 
visibility impact to justify the cost of additional controls. The ODEQ 
concluded that further emission reductions from such sources were 
unreasonable. It also stated that it would be unreasonable to require 
severe or over-control of Oklahoma sources to compensate for the 
contribution from Texas, other states, and foreign countries, 
especially considering that the vast majority of the visibility 
impairment at the Wichita Mountains originates from sources beyond the 
borders of Oklahoma.
    The ODEQ determined that the majority of VOC emissions are from 
biogenic sources. Anthropogenic sources of VOC are largely covered 
under federal mandates and have a small contribution to visibility 
impairment. Fine and coarse particulate emissions are also primarily 
due to natural sources such as dust storms and fires. The ODEQ noted 
that despite the prominence of agricultural burning and wildfires in 
the Oklahoma emissions inventory, it does not believe that these 
sources contribute significantly to regional haze at the Wichita 
Mountains or at any other Class I area. It pointed out that there are 
state regulations already in place (see the Oklahoma Administrative 
Code 252:100-13-7(4)) to address the burning of forestland, cropland, 
and rangeland. In addition, pursuant to the regional haze requirements 
at Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E), the ODEQ considered smoke management 
techniques for purposes of agricultural and forestry management. The 
ODEQ stated that it believes that most emissions of fine and coarse PM 
originate from natural sources, and that even those originating in 
Oklahoma are beyond the regulatory purview of ODEQ.
    In establishing its RPGs for 2018 for the 20% worst days, the ODEQ 
relied on the improvements in visibility that were anticipated to 
result from federal and state control programs that were either 
currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction 
schedules that predate 2018, including the long-term strategies of 
Oklahoma, Texas, and other states, and

[[Page 74869]]

presumptive emission reductions expected to result from the submitted 
Oklahoma BART rule. Based on the emission reductions from these 
measures, CENRAP modeled the projected visibility conditions 
anticipated at each Class I area in the region in 2018, and the ODEQ 
used these results to establish its RPGs.
    We agree with the ODEQ's decision to focus the analysis of the four 
statutory factors on point sources, as the CENRAP modeling results and 
ODEQ's analysis in Section V.F of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP 
indicate that sulfate is the predominant pollutant that affects the 
state's ability to meet the URP goals in 2002 on the worst 20% days at 
the Wichita Mountains, and comes primarily from point sources. CENRAP 
modeling results also indicate that Oklahoma point sources contribute 
only 3.25 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ of the total 111.03 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ 
visibility extinction at the Wichita Mountains in 2002 and only 2.95 
MmSO<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ of the total 86.56 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ projected for 
2018. This modeling projection does not include the level of controls 
required under BART by the FIP and the revised SIP for the three 
largest sources of SO<INF>2</INF> in the state. The ODEQ also 
considered sources of VOC emissions, coarse and fine PM emissions, 
mobile source emissions and area source emissions in its discussion and 
analysis of the four factors.
    There are large EGU sources of SO<INF>2</INF> for which the ODEQ 
did not propose control, including the GRDA Units 1 and 2,\284\ 
Muskogee Unit 6, and Hugo Unit 1. Oklahoma considered these sources for 
additional control under reasonable progress but ultimately for the 
reasons described above, declined to further control them. However, the 
total contribution from those sources not identified for control is 
only a fraction of the 1.23 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ projected from all 
SO<INF>2</INF> point sources, and none of the those sources are located 
such that we would anticipate significant visibility benefits at the 
Wichita Mountains on the 20% worst days should they be controlled. The 
20% worst days at the Wichita Mountains are dominated by days impacted 
by emissions from sources in Texas. The largest impacts from sources in 
Oklahoma rarely occur on the 20% worst days as identified by the 
IMPROVE monitor data during the baseline period. For these reasons and 
others that we more fully explore in our OK TSD, we believe that 
Oklahoma has adequately controlled its own sources for reasonable 
progress to the extent necessary for this planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ Both GRDA Units 1 and 2 plan to install low NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners and overfire air in order to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> by 
construction permit No. 2009-179-C (M-2)(PSD). Unit 2 of the GRDA is 
fitted with a dry scrubber. We have recently became aware that Unit 
1 (which is not scrubbed) is scheduled to be retired or converted to 
natural gas and a third natural gas powered unit may be added under 
a draft permit evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the ODEQ notes in several places in its SIP, point sources in 
Texas account for a much greater portion of the visibility impact at 
the Wichita Mountains than Oklahoma point sources. Compared to the 1.23 
Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ due to point source emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> in 
Oklahoma discussed above, Texas point source emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF> are projected to contribute 7.83 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ to 
the total extinction in 2018. We agree with the ODEQ's statement 
regarding this situation: ``The vast majority of visibility impairment 
at the Wichita Mountains comes from sources beyond the borders of the 
State of Oklahoma. The federal Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii) does not require DEQ to compensate for the lack of 
control of emissions in Texas, other states, and foreign countries.'' 
The Regional Haze Rule does not require a state to over control its own 
sources in order to compensate for under controlled sources from 
another state. However, the Regional Haze Rule does require, under 
Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), that in developing its RPGs, Oklahoma consult 
with those states which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains to 
identify reasonable measures for improving visibility at its Class I 
area.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) requires Oklahoma to analyze and 
determine the URP needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 
2064. To calculate the URP, Oklahoma must compare baseline visibility 
conditions to natural visibility conditions at the Wichita Mountains 
and determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement (measured in 
deciviews) that would need to be maintained during each implementation 
period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. In 
establishing the RPG, Oklahoma must consider the URP and the emission 
reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the 
implementation plan. In a previous final rulemaking,\285\ we found that 
ODEQ appropriately calculated the URP for the Wichita Mountains. 
Therefore, the only portion of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) that we 
address is Oklahoma's requirement to consider the emission reduction 
measures needed to achieve the URP when establishing the RPG for the 
Wichita Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the RPGs for the Wichita Mountains, the ODEQ 
compared the baseline visibility conditions to the natural visibility 
conditions and determined the URP needed in order to attain natural 
visibility conditions by 2064. It calculated that the URP results as a 
visibility improvement of 3.80 dv for the period covered by this SIP 
revision submittal (up to and including 2018). The ODEQ noted that the 
CENRAP modeling results indicated that complete elimination of all 
anthropogenic emissions in Oklahoma are likely to be insufficient to 
meet the URP at the Wichita Mountains and that a majority of the 
visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains comes from sources 
beyond Oklahoma's borders.
    After considering the URP, the results of the CENRAP modeling and 
the four reasonable progress factors, the ODEQ determined that meeting 
the URP goal for 2018 was not reasonable. It then adopted the 2018 
projected visibility conditions from the CENRAP photochemical modeling 
as the RPGs for the 20% best days and 20% worst days for the Wichita 
Mountains.

   Table 29--Comparison of URP to the Reasonable Progress Goal on Most
                 Impaired Days for the Wichita Mountains
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Extinction             Deciview
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Visibility            21.23 Mm-\1\........  7.53 dv.
 Conditions.
Baseline Visibility           108.15 Mm-\1\.......  23.81 dv.
 Conditions (2002-2004).
Improvement Needed to Reach   86.91 Mm-\1\........  16.28 dv.
 Natural Conditions.
Improvement by 2018 at        34.18 Mm-\1\........  3.80 dv.
 Uniform Rate of Progress.
Improvement by 2018 under     22.52 Mm-\1\........  2.33 dv.
 Oklahoma's RPG.
Rate of Improvement from      ....................  0.166 dv/year.
 2004-2018 under Oklahoma's
 RPG (dv/year).

[[Page 74870]]

 
Shortfall between Oklahoma's  ....................  -1.47 dv.
 RPG and the URP (for this
 implementation period).
Improvement by 2064           68.38 Mm-\1\........  10.01 dv.
 Extrapolated from
 Oklahoma's RPG.
Visibility in 2064 from       39.76 Mm-\1\........  13.80 dv.
 Oklahoma's RPG
 (extrapolated).
Visibility in 2102            21.23 Mm-\1\........  7.53 dv.
 Extrapolated from
 Oklahoma's RPG (natural
 visibility conditions
 achieved).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODEQ believes the RPGs it established for the Wichita Mountains 
are reasonable, and that it is not reasonable to achieve the URP in 
2018. In support of this conclusion it included a discussion of the 
pollutant contributions and the sources of visibility impairment at the 
Wichita Mountains (see Sections IX.D and E of the Oklahoma regional 
haze SIP). The ODEQ also took several other factors into consideration 
in determining that it was not reasonable to achieve the glide path in 
2018 and that the RPG adopted by it is reasonable. See our OK TSD for a 
summary of these factors and the CENRAP visibility modeling source 
apportionment results.
    We evaluated the analysis provided by the ODEQ along with the 
CENRAP modeling results, CENRAP emission inventories and other 
information in examining the RPGs established by ODEQ. Our review of 
the CENRAP emission inventory, modeling protocol and model results can 
be found in our CENRAP Modeling TSD. Below we present a summary of that 
evaluation:
    <bullet> The ODEQ demonstrated through the CENRAP control 
sensitivity modeling scenario discussed in Section V.C.2, above, that 
application of a wide suite of controls across CENRAP states determined 
to meet a cost-effective threshold of $5,000/ton and emissions in 
relation to location criteria, would also not be sufficient to meet the 
URP goal, falling approximately 0.71 dv deciview short of the goal. 
However, we note that this control sensitivity modeling also 
demonstrated that an additional improvement of 0.75 dv was achievable 
through implementation of the identified controls. Based on source 
apportionment data, a large portion of that improvement would likely 
result from implementation of identified controls in Texas. A 0.75 dv 
improvement represents nearly 33% additional improvement over the 2.3 
dv improvement projected to occur between the baseline period and 2018 
due to all of the reductions included in the model from on the book 
controls, implementation of CAIR and assumptions of reductions due to 
BART.
    <bullet> Evidence in the record demonstrated that additional 
reductions at sources in Texas were likely feasible, result in 
visibility improvement, and be cost-effective, but the ODEQ did not 
pursue this with Texas. Consequently, we believe the ODEQ did not have 
sufficient information to adequately consider emission reductions for 
sources in Texas in establishing its RPGs and demonstrating that it is 
reasonable.
    <bullet> We believe the current approach to estimate natural 
conditions used by ODEQ follows our default methods and is acceptable 
to establish the 2064 goal, calculate the URP, and evaluate the RPGs 
established by Oklahoma.
    <bullet> We note the more recent IMPROVE monitored data at the 
Wichita Mountains indicates that more progress than anticipated by the 
CENRAP modeling has occurred.\286\ The most recent five-year (2009-
2013) average conditions for the 20% worst days is 21.2 dv. This is 
below the level anticipated in the CENRAP projection for 2018 of 21.5 
dv. We believe that this observed improvement is the result of 
meteorological conditions, reduction in the impact from fires, and 
reduction in the impacts from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. More recent 
emission inventory data shows reductions in emissions in most states 
beyond what was projected in the 2018 modeling, including large 
reductions in emissions from the Eastern United States. Emissions from 
non-EGU Texas point sources are lower than have been projected in the 
modeling. We note that additional reductions are still needed to meet 
or exceed the URP goal for 2018 of 20.01 dv. As discussed above, 
emissions at some of the sources that impact visibility the most are 
still above the emission levels projected in the model and cost-
effective controls are likely available at these sources. Based on 
information provided by the TCEQ, we do not expect large additional 
emission reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> in Texas between 2013 and 2018 
under federal programs and the SIP as submitted.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ Available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/.
    \287\ TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft modeling platform 
dated June 24, 2014. `2018 EMP signed.pdf'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above considerations, we propose to agree with the 
ODEQ's demonstration that it is not reasonable to meet the URP for the 
Wichita Mountains for this planning period. We also agree with the ODEQ 
that emissions and transport from outside of Oklahoma will severely 
limit the rate of progress achievable at the Wichita Mountains on the 
20% worst days. As the ODEQ itself (and we through our analysis 
detailed in the FIP TSD) have demonstrated, there are large visibility 
impacts at the Wichita Mountains from outside Oklahoma, the largest 
percentage coming from point sources in Texas. In addition, we believe 
the ODEQ has also demonstrated there is the likelihood of a sizeable 
visibility improvement from controlling a subset of these sources, with 
likely cost-effective controls.
5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
    Under Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Oklahoma may not adopt a RPG that 
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from 
implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable 
planning period.
    The RPGs established by Oklahoma are based on CENRAP 2018 modeling 
projections. The modeling projections conducted by CENRAP contain 
projections of the visibility conditions that are anticipated to be 
realized at each Class I area between the 2002 base year and the 2018 
future year. These projections are based on the emission reductions 
resulting from federal and state control programs that are either 
currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction 
schedules that predate 2018, including the long-term strategies of 
Oklahoma, Texas, and other states, and presumptive emission reductions 
expected to result from the submitted Oklahoma BART rule. Since 
CENRAP's 2018 modeling projections are based on local, state, and 
federal control programs that are either currently in effect or with 
mandated future-year emission reduction schedules, we believe that the 
ODEQ's RPGs represent at least as much visibility improvement as is 
expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA 
(i.e., requirements other than regional haze) during the applicable

[[Page 74871]]

planning period. We therefore propose to approve Oklahoma's submission 
under Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi) that its RPG for the Wichita Mountains 
does not represent less visibility improvement than is expected to 
result from the implementation of other requirements of the CAA during 
this planning period.
6. Oklahoma's Assertion That Its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
    Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii) provides that for the period of the SIP, 
if Oklahoma establishes a RPG that provides for a slower rate of 
improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain 
natural conditions by 2064, it must demonstrate based on the factors in 
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) that the rate of progress for the SIP to 
attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the 
progress goal it adopted is reasonable. As part of its SIP assessment, 
Oklahoma must provide to the public for review the number of years it 
would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement 
continues at the rate of progress it selected as reasonable.
    The ODEQ's RPG for the 20% worst days establishes a slower rate of 
progress than the URP for the Wichita Mountains. As shown in Table IX-1 
of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, under the RPG adopted by ODEQ, it 
projected that natural visibility conditions will not be attained at 
the Wichita Mountains by 2064. ODEQ calculated that under the rate of 
progress selected by it as reasonable, it would attain natural 
visibility conditions at the Wichita Mountains in 2102. See Table 29 
above.
    In the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP, the ODEQ states that the RPGs it 
established for the Wichita Mountains are reasonable and that it is not 
reasonable to achieve the URP in 2018. In support of this conclusion, 
it included a discussion of the pollutant contributions and the sources 
of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains (see Sections IX.D 
and E of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP). The ODEQ also took several 
other factors into consideration in determining that it was not 
reasonable to achieve the glide path in 2018 and that the RPG adopted 
by it is reasonable. See our OK TSD for a summary of these factors and 
the CENRAP visibility modeling source apportionment results.
    The ODEQ indicated that Oklahoma's ability to meet the URP is 
impeded primarily by the following: the significant contribution of 
emissions from Texas and other areas outside the ODEQ's jurisdiction; 
the uncertainty in the effect of CAIR; the economic and energy cost of 
additional controls on Oklahoma point sources; the lack of a quality-
assured enhanced Oklahoma emissions inventory and ODEQ's reluctance to 
target area sources for emissions controls until such an emissions 
inventory is developed; the ODEQ's lack of jurisdiction over non-road 
and on-road mobile sources; and, the limitations involved with 
utilizing the default EPA method to determine natural visibility 
conditions. See our OK TSD for a more complete summary of these 
factors.
    We evaluated the analysis provided by the ODEQ along with the 
CENRAP modeling results, CENRAP emission inventories and other 
information in examining the RPGs established by ODEQ. Our review of 
the CENRAP emission inventory, modeling protocol and model results can 
be found in our CENRAP Modeling TSD.
7. Our Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals for the 
Wichita Mountains.
    In the sections above, we discuss how Oklahoma constructed its RPGs 
for the Wichita Mountains, how in doing so it consulted with Texas and 
other states, applied the four reasonable progress factors in 
evaluating sources within Oklahoma for additional controls in the 
development of that RPG, and calculated the URP for the Wichita 
Mountains. In this section we consider those efforts and present our 
evaluation of Oklahoma's RPGs for the Wichita Mountains.
    We believe that with the exception of certain BART sources, 
Oklahoma appropriately concluded that no additional reasonable progress 
measures for Oklahoma sources were necessary during this first planning 
period. However, BART is a component of reasonable progress, and the 
RPGs selected by the ODEQ for the Wichita Mountains do not include the 
level of reductions necessary to meet the requirements under Section 
51.308(e) for BART. In our December 28, 2011 rulemaking, we disapproved 
the SO<INF>2</INF> BART determinations for certain units and 
promulgated a BART FIP to impose controls for these units.\288\ 
Therefore, implementation of our SO<INF>2</INF> BART FIP and the 
revised BART SIP for the AEP units is expected to result in greater 
reasonable progress than is anticipated in Oklahoma's February 19, 
2010, regional haze SIP submit.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011).
    \289\ In our August 21, 2013, proposed approval of Oklahoma's 
June 20, 2013, regional haze SIP revision we proposed to find that 
the SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions associated with Oklahoma's 
revised BART determination for Northeastern Units 3 and 4, when 
combined with enforceable commitments from ODEQ, will be consistent 
with the levels of control assumed in the CENRAP modeling and relied 
on by other States as part of their reasonable progress 
demonstrations (78 FR 51586).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as required by Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), Oklahoma's 
development of its RPGs must be informed by its consultations with 
other states. Oklahoma demonstrated that the unrealistic scenario of 
eliminating all Oklahoma sources would not be sufficient to meet the 
URP for 2018. It realized that efforts to meet the goal of natural 
visibility by 2064 would require further emission reductions from other 
states in the region. The CENRAP modeling, monitoring data and other 
technical analyses that informed consultations demonstrated that 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> are the primary causes of haze at the 
Wichita Mountains with SO<INF>2</INF> from point sources being the 
predominant driver. It also showed that SO<INF>2</INF> point sources in 
Texas were a significant contributor to the haze at the Wichita 
Mountains. Furthermore, the control and cost information developed by 
CENRAP and Alpine Geophysics showed that cost-effective controls on 
Texas sources were likely available, some with a cost-effectiveness on 
a $/ton basis within TCEQ's own benchmark. The Regional Haze Rule 
envisioned that a state would use the consultation processes under 
Sections 51.308(d)(1)(iv) in the development of its RPGs, and 
51.308(d)(3)(i) regarding the development of its long-term strategy, in 
identifying visibility impairing emissions that cross state boundaries, 
and in the coordination of strategies to reduce those emissions. 
However, despite this information in the record about the impact of 
Texas sources on the Wichita Mountains, the ODEQ did not request that 
the TCEQ further investigate these sources, nor did it request 
additional reductions from Texas sources to address this impact. As we 
discuss in Section V.E, we believe that the technical analysis 
developed by Texas did not provide the information necessary to 
identify reasonable reductions from its sources, and inform 
consultations in order to develop coordinated management strategies 
with Oklahoma. Therefore, due to this absence of the development of 
this critical information during consultations, we believe that 
Oklahoma did not have adequate information to establish its RPG for the 
Wichita Mountains, and should have requested that the TCEQ further 
investigate these sources or requested additional reductions from Texas 
sources to ensure that all reasonable measures to improve

[[Page 74872]]

visibility were included in Texas' LTS and incorporated into Oklahoma's 
RPG for the Wichita Mountains. Thus, the basic intent of our 
consultation requirements was not realized.
    In addition to the explicit statutory requirement under Section 
51.308(d)(1)(ii) to consider the four reasonable progress factors, the 
Regional Haze Rule also establishes an analytical requirement to ensure 
that each state considers the emission reduction measures necessary to 
attain the URP. The Regional Haze Rule provides that we will evaluate 
Oklahoma's consideration of the four factors in Section 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), its analysis of the URP required under Section 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) and the demonstration developed pursuant to Section 
51.308(d)(1)(ii), ``[i]n determining whether the State's goal for 
visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress.'' As explained 
in the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, the URP analysis was adopted 
to ensure that states use a common analytical framework and to ensure 
an informed, equitable, and transparent decision making process that 
would, among other things, ensure that the public would be provided 
with the information necessary to understand the emission reductions 
needed, the costs of such measures, and other factors associated with 
improvements in visibility. We note that this analytical requirement is 
met only through consultation and is not restricted to the 
consideration of only those sources within the state with the impacted 
Class I area. As we stated in the Regional Haze Rule regarding this 
requirement: \290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999).

    In doing this analysis, the State must consult with other States 
which are anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the 
Class I area under consideration. Because haze is a regional 
problem, States are encouraged to work together to develop 
acceptable approaches for addressing visibility problems to which 
they jointly contribute. If a contributing State cannot agree with 
the State establishing the reasonable progress goal, the State 
setting the goal must describe the actions taken to resolve the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disagreement.

    However, Oklahoma's consultation was incomplete. While the analyses 
developed by CENRAP provide a great deal of information on 
contributions to visibility impairment and a set of potential available 
add-on controls and cost associated with those controls, the data was 
insufficient to fully assess the impacts and available emission 
reduction measures for Texas sources. Given the large contributions 
from sources in Texas and EGU point sources in particular, Oklahoma 
could not reasonably consider all the emission reductions needed to 
meet or approach the URP without considering emission reduction 
measures available for those sources in Texas that contribute the most 
to visibility impairment at Wichita Mountains. In summary, we propose 
to find the following:
    <bullet> Oklahoma has demonstrated that it is not reasonable to 
require additional emission reductions for its sources for this 
planning period.
    <bullet> BART is a component of developing the RPGs, and the RPGs 
are inadequate because BART controls were not adequately considered. We 
note this deficiency is addressed by our BART FIP and the revised 
Oklahoma SIP.
    <bullet> Oklahoma's consultations with Texas were flawed, which 
prevented it from adequately developing its RPGs for the Wichita 
Mountains.
    <bullet> Also because Oklahoma's consultations with Texas were 
flawed, Oklahoma did not consider the emission reduction measures 
necessary to achieve the URP for the Wichita Mountains and did not 
adequately demonstrate that the RPGs it established were reasonable 
based on the four statutory factors under 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
    In consideration of these flaws, we propose to disapprove 
Oklahoma's submission under Section 51.308(d)(1), except for those 
portions addressing Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we propose to 
approve.

VII. Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas Regional Haze FIPs

    Below, we list all of the portions of Section 51.308 that we 
propose to find that Texas and Oklahoma did not meet, which we have 
discussed above, and more fully in our TX TSD and OK TSD documents.
    We propose to disapprove the parts of the Texas regional haze SIP 
addressing the following requirements:
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable 
progress four factor analysis.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas' calculation 
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the URPs for the Guadalupe 
Mountains and Big Bend.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas' RPGs for the 
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii), regarding Texas' calculation of 
the natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big 
Bend.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A) regarding Texas' calculation 
of natural visibility impairment.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) regarding Texas' long-term 
strategy consultation.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) regarding Texas securing its 
share of reductions in other states' RPGs.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) regarding Texas' technical basis 
for its long-term strategy.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas' emissions 
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big 
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
    We propose to disapprove the RPGs for the Wichita Mountains set by 
Oklahoma in its regional haze SIP. In setting its RPG, we propose to 
find that Oklahoma generally did not meet the requirements of Section 
51.308(d)(1) of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, except for Section 
51.308(d)(1)(vi).
    Below we present a summary of our proposed Texas and Oklahoma FIPs 
and why we believe these FIPs would cure the SIP deficiencies in those 
portions of the Texas and Oklahoma SIPs that we propose to disapprove, 
thereby satisfying our FIP obligation. Please see our FIP TSD and our 
Cost TSD for a full development of the technical basis of our FIPs.

A. Summary of Our Proposed Texas FIP

    We believe our proposed FIP and its rationale as presented here 
provide the technical analysis that was lacking in Texas' development 
of its RPGs for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend, and in its 
consultations with Oklahoma for the development of the RPGs for the 
Wichita Mountains, as well as addressing its long-term strategy. As 
Texas did in the development of its SIP, we have also used the same 
analysis to address both tasks. We began our review of Texas' 
conclusions with an initial analysis of all point sources in Texas and 
an assessment of the visibility impact from those sources with the 
greatest potential to contribute to visibility impairment. A refinement 
of this analysis resulted in our focus on a much smaller group of 
sources that essentially reduced down to an analysis of whether, in 
light of the balance between the cost of control and visibility 
benefits of control at each source, additional SO<INF>2</INF> controls 
should be installed on each of certain large coal fired EGUs in Texas 
in order to improve the visibility at these Class I areas. We conducted 
our analysis using the four reasonable progress factors listed in 
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). We propose to find that this portion of our 
proposed Texas FIP would make whole our disapproval of those portions 
of the Texas SIP intended to meet:
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).

[[Page 74873]]

    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(i).
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C).
    We also establish the natural visibility conditions for the 
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. We then use those values and the 
analysis we have developed above to consider the emission reductions 
needed to achieve the URPs for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend and 
establish their RPGs. We propose that these portions of our Texas FIP, 
developed below, make whole our disapproval of those portions of the 
Texas SIP intended to meet:
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii).
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A).
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii).

B. Summary of Our Proposed Oklahoma FIP

    We believe some of the same portions of our proposed Texas FIP 
would also largely address the portions of the Oklahoma regional haze 
SIP we are proposing to disapprove. We believe that Oklahoma's 
incomplete consultation with Texas denied it the knowledge it needed--
the visibility impacts of individual sources in Texas with the largest 
potential to impact the visibility at the Wichita Mountains and the 
extent to which cost-effective controls were available--in order to 
properly construct its RPG for the Wichita Mountains. As indicated in 
the record, both the ODEQ and the TCEQ acknowledged during the 
development of their respective regional haze SIPs that Texas point 
sources have a significant visibility impact at the Wichita Mountains 
and that cost-effective controls were likely available for these 
sources. However, the ODEQ did not pursue the point in its 
consultations with the TCEQ under Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv). Our 
proposed Oklahoma FIP will address these deficiencies in the Oklahoma's 
consultations by establishing new RPGs for the Wichita Mountains. These 
RPGs are based on our analysis of the proposed controls for Texas 
sources in our proposed Texas FIP. We do not believe that any further 
control measures for sources within Oklahoma are necessary to resolve 
the issues identified above in its SIP.

C. Technical Overview of Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas FIPs

    As discussed in our FIP TSD, we have determined that based on their 
visibility impacts, a smaller subset of the facilities that we have 
initially analyzed should be further evaluated to determine (1) if 
cost-effective controls are available and (2) considering their 
projected visibility benefits, which, if any controls should be 
proposed. With one exception, the PPG Flat Glass plant in Wichita 
Falls, all of the facilities in the smaller subset of Texas sources are 
coal fired power plants. While some of these coal fired power plants 
have scrubbers, all but one are partially bypassed. Also as discussed 
in that section, we are limiting our analyses to the consideration of 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls for these EGU sources, as our modeling 
indicates that the impacts from these sources on the 20% worst days are 
primarily due to sulfate emissions. In our Cost TSD, we conduct a 
SO<INF>2</INF> cost analyses for the following facilities and units:

                Table 30--Sources Undergoing Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facility                    Units       Currently scrubbed?            Currently bypassed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown.........................            1, 2  No.                    .....................................
Sandow 4..........................               1  Yes..................  Yes.
Monticello........................            1, 2  No.                    .....................................
Monticello........................               3  Yes..................  Yes.
Martin Lake.......................         1, 2, 3  Yes..................  Yes.
Coleto Creek......................               1  No.                    .....................................
Limestone.........................            1, 2  Yes..................  Yes.
San Miguel........................               1  Yes..................  No.
Tolk..............................            1, 2  No.                    .....................................
Welsh.............................         1, 2, 3  No.                    .....................................
W. A. Parish......................         5, 6, 7  No.                    .....................................
W. A. Parish......................               8  Yes..................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these sources, we have examined the PPG Flat Glass 
Plant in Wichita Falls, Texas. This is the only non-EGU and the only 
source for which NO<INF>X</INF> controls are considered. For all of the 
sources we examined, visibility impacts were dominated by the impacts 
from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions with the exception of the PPG Flat Glass 
Plant. Because of the proximity of this facility to Wichita Mountains, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the facility were both 
responsible for the visibility impacts at Wichita Mountains. As 
discussed in more detail below, we evaluated these impacts and 
considered recent emissions and permit data in considering the 
potential need for additional controls for this facility.

D. Approach to Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy

    We are simultaneously conducting reasonable progress and long-term 
strategy analyses. These analyses address both (1) the requirements to 
consider the four reasonable progress factors for the Texas Class I 
areas, and (2) the technical basis required to develop the long-term 
strategy for the Texas Class I areas and the Wichita Mountains in 
Oklahoma. We use the ``four factor analysis'' method outlined in 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(A) that states are directed to use in establishing a RPG:

    (1) Reasonable progress goals. For each mandatory Class I 
Federal area located within the State, the State must establish 
goals (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress 
towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable 
progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the 
most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and 
ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over 
the same period.

    (i) In establishing a reasonable progress goal for any mandatory 
Class I Federal area within the State, the State must:

    (A) Consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for 
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these 
factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal.

    To assist in interpreting these reasonable progress factors, we 
will rely

[[Page 74874]]

on our reasonable progress Guidance.\291\ Our Reasonable Progress 
Guidance notes the similarity between some of the reasonable progress 
factors and the BART factors contained in Section 51.308(e)(1)((ii)(A), 
and suggests that the BART Guidelines be consulted regarding cost, 
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and remaining useful 
life. We are therefore relying on our BART Guidelines for assistance in 
interpreting those reasonable progress factors, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, with one exception,\292\ the issues relating to the 
evaluation of three of these factors: (1) Time necessary for 
compliance, (2) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance, and (3) remaining useful life, are common to all the units 
we are analyzing. Thus, we are analyzing these factors for all the 
units simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ For reasons we discuss in our FIP TSD, we believe that the 
Tolk facility may merit a special consideration of the energy and 
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In analyzing the remaining factor, cost of compliance, we are 
including in our evaluation a consideration of any control technology 
that may already be installed at the facility. Also, similar to a BART 
analysis, we are also considering the projected visibility benefit in 
our analysis. As we state in our Arizona proposal: \293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ See 79 FR 9353, footnote 137. We also finalized our 
proposal in 79 FR 52420, using this same reasoning.

    While visibility is not an explicitly listed factor to consider 
when determining whether additional controls are reasonable, the 
purpose of the four-factor analysis is to determine what degree of 
progress toward natural visibility conditions is reasonable. 
Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the projected visibility 
benefit of the controls when determining if the controls are needed 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to make reasonable progress.

    For each unit, we are weighing the cost of compliance against the 
projected visibility benefit.
1. Time Necessary for Compliance, and the Oklahoma and Texas RPGs
    We discuss the time necessary for compliance reasonable progress 
factor in our Reasonable Progress Guidance: \294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007. Page 19.

    It may be appropriate for you to use this factor to adjust the 
RPG to reflect the degree of improvement in visibility achievable 
within the period of the first SIP if the time needed for full 
implementation of a control measure (or measures) will extend beyond 
2018. For example, if you anticipate that constraints on the 
availability of construction labor will preclude the installation of 
controls at all sources of a particular category by 2018, the 
visibility improvement anticipated from installation of controls at 
the percentage of sources that could be controlled within the 
strategy period should be considered in setting the RPG and in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
establishing the SIP requirements to meet the RPG.

    Due to delays in processing the Texas regional haze SIP and the 
remaining portion of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, we cannot assume 
that the SO<INF>2</INF> controls we are proposing will be installed and 
operational within this planning period, which ends in 2018. For 
instance, typical SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber installations can take up to 
five years to plan, construct and bring to operational readiness. This 
would mean that any such controls that we may require in our final 
action may not be operational until after 2018. Therefore, although we 
are proposing revised RPGs for Oklahoma and Texas, we are proposing 
RPGs that only account for the scrubber upgrades included in this FIP 
anticipated to be completed by 2018.
    We request that Oklahoma and Texas consider the additional 
visibility improvements anticipated from any proposed FIP controls 
implemented after 2018 with the submission of their next regional haze 
SIPs due July 13, 2018.
2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance
    Regarding the analysis of energy impacts, the BART Guidelines 
advise, ``You should examine the energy requirements of the control 
technology and determine whether the use of that technology results in 
energy penalties or benefits.'' \295\ As discussed below in our cost 
analyses for Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) and Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA) 
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbers, our cost model allows for the inclusion or 
exclusion of the cost of the additional auxiliary power required for 
the pollution controls we considered to be included in the variable 
operating costs. We chose to include this additional auxiliary power in 
all cases. Consequently, we believe that any energy impacts of 
compliance have been adequately considered in our analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ 70 FR 39168 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the analysis of non-air quality environmental impacts, 
the BART Guidelines advise: \296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ 70 FR 39169 (July 6, 2005).

    Such environmental impacts include solid or hazardous waste 
generation and discharges of polluted water from a control device. 
You should identify any significant or unusual environmental impacts 
associated with a control alternative that have the potential to 
affect the selection or elimination of a control alternative. Some 
control technologies may have potentially significant secondary 
environmental impacts. Scrubber effluent, for example, may affect 
water quality and land use. Alternatively, water availability may 
affect the feasibility and costs of wet scrubbers. Other examples of 
secondary environmental impacts could include hazardous waste 
discharges, such as spent catalysts or contaminated carbon. 
Generally, these types of environmental concerns become important 
when sensitive site-specific receptors exist or when the incremental 
emission reductions potential of the more stringent control is only 
marginally greater than the next most-effective option. However, the 
fact that a control device creates liquid and solid waste that must 
be disposed of does not necessarily argue against selection of that 
technology as BART, particularly if the control device has been 
applied to similar facilities elsewhere and the solid or liquid 
waste is similar to those other applications. On the other hand, 
where you or the source owner can show that unusual circumstances at 
the proposed facility create greater problems than experienced 
elsewhere, this may provide a basis for the elimination of that 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
control alternative as BART.

    The SO<INF>2</INF> control technologies we considered in our 
analysis--DSI and scrubbers--are in wide use in the coal-fired 
electricity generation industry. Both technologies add spent reagent to 
the waste stream already generated by the facilities we analyzed, but 
do not present any unusual environmental impacts. As discussed below in 
our cost analyses for DSI and SDA SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbers, our cost 
model includes waste disposal costs in the variable operating costs. 
Consequently, we believe that with one possible exception, any non-air 
quality environmental impacts have been adequately considered in our 
analyses. An examination of the aerial photo of the Tolk facility, 
which we present in our FIP TSD, does not reveal any obvious source of 
surface water. We therefore assume that well water is used. In light of 
this and its potential relationship to the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance, we limit our SO<INF>2</INF> 
control analysis for Tolk to DSI and dry scrubbers.
3. Remaining Useful Life
    Regarding the analysis of the remaining useful life, the BART 
Guidelines advise:

    The ``remaining useful life'' of a source, if it represents a 
relatively short time period, may affect the annualized costs of 
retrofit controls. For example, the methods for calculating 
annualized costs in EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual require the use

[[Page 74875]]

of a specified time period for amortization that varies based upon 
the type of control. If the remaining useful life will clearly 
exceed this time period, the remaining useful life has essentially 
no effect on control costs and on the BART determination process. 
Where the remaining useful life is less than the time period for 
amortizing costs, you should use this shorter time period in your 
cost calculations.

    In determining the cost of scrubbers in our prior Oklahoma FIP, we 
used a lifetime of 30 years. In so doing, we noted \297\ that scrubber 
vendors indicate that the lifetime of a scrubber is equal to the 
lifetime of the boiler, which might easily be over 60 years. We also 
noted that many scrubbers that were installed between 1975 and 1986 are 
still in operation today (e.g., Coyote Station, H.L. Spurlock Unit 2, 
East Bend Unit 2, Laramie River Unit 3, Cholla 5, Basin Electric, 
Mitchell Unit 33, and all of the units in Table 30 that currently have 
scrubbers). Further, we noted that standard cost estimating handbooks 
and published papers report 30 years as a typical life for a scrubber 
and that many utilities routinely specify 30+ year lifetimes in 
requests for proposal and to evaluate proposals. We have used this 30 
year lifetime approach in prior actions and we therefore adopted the 
same scrubber lifetime in our present analysis. See 76 FR 52388 (Aug. 
22. 2011); 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011); Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201 
(July 19, 2013), cert. denied (U.S. May 27, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ Technical Support Document for the Oklahoma Regional Haze 
State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan. March 
2011, p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We see no reason to assume that a DSI system installation, which is 
a much less complex and costly (capital costs, as opposed to annualized 
costs) technology in comparison to a scrubber installation, should have 
a shorter lifetime. As with a scrubber, we expect the boiler to be the 
limiting factor when considering the lifetime of a coal-fired power 
plant. We have therefore similarly assumed that the lifetime of a DSI 
system is 30 years, as constrained by the boiler lifetime, as noted 
above.
    The BART Guidelines provide further clarification:

    Where this affects the BART determination, this date should be 
assured by a federally- or State-enforceable restriction preventing 
further operation. We recognize that there may be situations where a 
source operator intends to shut down a source by a given date, but 
wishes to retain the flexibility to continue operating beyond that 
date in the event, for example, that market conditions change. Where 
this is the case, your BART analysis may account for this, but it 
must maintain consistency with the statutory requirement to install 
BART within 5 years. Where the source chooses not to accept a 
federally enforceable condition requiring the source to shut down by 
a given date, it is necessary to determine whether a reduced time 
period for the remaining useful life changes the level of controls 
that would have been required as BART.

    As in a BART determination, we propose to adopt the same 
requirement regarding the need for a federally enforceable restriction 
for any DSI or scrubber remaining useful life of less than 30 years.
4. Analysis of the PPG Flat Glass Plant
    The Wichita Falls PPG flat glass plant is located in Wichita Falls, 
Texas. The plant began operations in 1974.\298\ The facility produces 
flat glass on two production lines, each with its own natural gas 
furnace. A furnace typically lasts ten to twelve years until re-
bricking is required. In 2007, PPG applied to the TCEQ for a standard 
permit registration \299\ in order to obtain authorization for the 
implementation of a low-NO<INF>X</INF> oxy-fuel injection conversion to 
its Melting Furnace No. 1. As a result of this upgrade, PPG calculated 
its NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Furnace No. 1 would decrease by 
approximately 1,996 tpy to 894.25 tpy. PPG also further reduced their 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as a result of a fuel conservation project 
which occurred with the rebuilding of Furnace No. 2. This project 
lowered the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions of Furnace No. 2 from an allowable 
annual NO<INF>X</INF> limit of 3,236.82 tpy to 2,947.49 tpy. These 
reductions were incorporated into a permit alteration.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \298\ http://corporate.ppg.com/Our-Company/Worldwide-Operations/North-America/Wichita-Falls.
    \299\ Standard Permit Registration, PPG Industries, Inc., 
Wichita Falls Plant, Account No. WH-0040-R. Submitted by ENVIRON, 
dated October 11, 2007.
    \300\ Permit Alteration, Permit Number: 898, Flat Glass 
Manufacturing Facility, Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Regulated 
Entity Number: RN102522950, Customer Reference Number: CN600124614, 
Account Number: WH-0040-R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 31 below compares the 2018 projected CENRAP emission 
inventory to the 2002 CENRAP emission inventory, the current permit 
limits for the two furnaces, and average actual annual emissions for 
the facility. We projected the visibility impact from this facility at 
the 2018 projected emission level to be 0.635 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> at the 
Wichita Mountains (using source apportionment). Permit allowable 
emissions for NO<INF>X</INF> for the two furnaces are much lower than 
projected and modeled for 2018 and lower than the 2002 emission level. 
The 2018 projected emissions for SO<INF>2</INF> also exceed the 
permitted emissions for furnace No. 2. Average annual emissions are 
only 44% of the projected 2018 emissions for NO<INF>X</INF> and 81% of 
the projected SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Therefore, we estimate that the 
current visibility impact due to the facility is significantly lower 
than the 2018 projected value. We are proposing to find that the 
Wichita Falls PPG flat glass plant is adequately controlled to address 
visibility impacts from this facility for the first planning period. We 
encourage the State of Texas to revisit this issue when Furnace No. 2 
is scheduled for its next re-bricking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \301\ Permit Alteration, Permit Number: 898, Flat Glass 
Manufacturing Facility, Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Regulated 
Entity Number: RN102522950, Customer Reference Number:
    \302\ TCEQ point source emission inventory. Downloaded from 
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/point-source-ei/psei.html and 
available in the docket for this action.

                                                 Table 31--Emission Comparison for PPG Flat Glass Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CENRAP 2002 emission      CENRAP 2018 emission     Permit allowable \301\        Average annual
                                                      inventory  (tpy)          inventory  (tpy)                (tpy)            emissions  (tpy, 2009-
                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------        2012) \302\
                                                                                                                               -------------------------
                                                      NOX          SO2          NOX          SO2          NOX          SO2          NOX          SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace No. 1...................................      2,694.5         48.0      4,526.8         80.7        894.3        180.3  ...........  ...........
Furnace No. 2...................................      2,495.2        279.7      4,191.9        470.0      2,947.5        350.4  ...........  ...........
Furnace No. 1 and No. 2.........................      5,189.7        327.7      8,718.8        550.6      3,841.7        530.7  ...........  ...........
Facility total..................................      5,317.0        371.0      8,929.0        623.0  ...........  ...........      3,887.8        501.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74876]]

E. Use of Confidential Business Information

    Within our Cost TSD, we calculate the SO<INF>2</INF> removal 
efficiencies for the underperforming scrubbers listed in Table 30, and 
present information that discusses how these scrubbers have been 
historically upgraded and what kinds of equipment revisions are 
typically required. In order to assess the potential range of options 
available to upgrade the scrubbers in the facilities listed in Table 
30, we must have an understanding of what upgrades may have already 
been performed. Because most of this information is not available 
publicly, we requested it under authority granted to us under Section 
114(a) of the CAA. For each unit, we then conducted a cost analysis for 
eliminating any scrubber bypass and upgrading the units' overall 
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency to at least 95%. As most of the 
information we received in response to our Section 114(a) requests was 
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B, we are limited in what we are able to publicly state in this 
analyses. Consequently, although our full cost analysis is available on 
a facility-by-facility basis for viewing by the companies who provided 
us with the CBI material, we can only provide a summary of it below.

F. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber and DSI Cost 
Results

    As we discuss in our Cost TSD, we evaluated each unit at its 
maximum recommended level of control, considering the type of 
SO<INF>2</INF> control device:
    <bullet> We evaluated each unit at its maximum recommended DSI 
performance level, according to the IPM DSI documentation, assuming 
milled trona: 80% SO<INF>2</INF> removal for an ESP installation and 
90% SO<INF>2</INF> removal for a baghouse installation. This level of 
control is within the range of control of SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbers, and 
thus allows a better comparison of the costs of DSI and scrubbers.
    <bullet> However, we believe that the maximum performance level for 
DSI can only be determined after an onsite performance test. We believe 
it is useful to evaluate lesser levels of DSI control (and 
correspondingly lower costs). We therefore also evaluated all the units 
at a DSI SO<INF>2</INF> control level of 50%, which we believe is 
likely achievable for any unit.
    <bullet> The SDA level of control was assumed to be a maximum of 
95% not to go below 0.06 lbs/MMBtu.
    <bullet> The wet FGD level of control was assumed to be a maximum 
of 98% not to go below 0.04 lbs/MMBtu.
    Below, we present a summary of our DSI, SDA, and wet FGD cost 
analysis:\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ In this table, the capital cost is the total cost of 
constructing the facility. The annualized cost is the sum of the 
annualized capital cost and the annualized operational cost. See our 
Cost TSD for more information on how these costs were calculated.

                                                Table 32--Summary of DSI, SDA, and Wet FGD Cost Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      SO2
                   Facility                     Unit              Control               Control    Reduction     $/Ton     Capital cost     Annualized
                                                                                       level (%)     (tpy)      reduced                        cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown....................................       1  DSI                                  50.0      15,334      $2,223     $19,096,000     $34,086,871
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      27,600       2,996      33,357,000      82,684,241
                                               ......  SDA                                  95.0      29,134       1,377     226,656,000      40,104,566
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              98.0      30,054       1,255     256,032,000      37,708,999
                                                    2  DSI                                  50.0      15,407       2,201      19,035,000      33,909,822
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      27,733       2,994      32,965,000      81,649,586
                                               ......  SDA                                  95.0      29,273       1,373     229,544,000      40,185,893
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              97.9      30,169       1,257     259,141,000      37,909,708
==============================================
Monticello...................................       1  DSI                                  50.0       8,933       2,728      17,137,000      24,364,819
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      16,079       3,420      23,580,000      54,991,417
                                               ......  SDA                                  95.0      16,972       2,012     224,262,000      34,154,932
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              97.0      17,328       1,937     250,804,000      33,558,169
                                                    2  DSI                                  50.0       8,215       3,086      17,057,000      25,351,370
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      14,786       3,845      23,468,000      56,850,489
                                               ......  SDA                                  95.0      15,608       2,254     227,409,000      35,183,025
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              96.8      15,907       2,170     254,177,000      34,523,884
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coleto Creek.................................       1  DSI                                  50.0       8,030       2,792      15,888,000      22,416,218
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      14,453       3,460      21,863,000      50,001,685
                                               ......  SDA                                  93.5      15,012       2,356     240,408,000      35,366,916
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              95.7      15,361       2,278     262,435,000      34,996,979
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolk.........................................    171B  DSI                                  50.0       5,016       3,084      13,938,000      15,465,578
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0       9,028       3,592      19,179,000      32,426,429
                                               ......  SDA                                  91.7       9,195       3,178     218,306,000      29,218,836
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              94.4       9,474       3,204     243,048,000      30,352,765
                                                 172B  DSI                                  50.0       5,517       2,828      13,873,000      15,600,155
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0       9,931       3,221      19,090,000      31,985,880
                                               ......  SDA                                  90.8      10,015       2,998     226,957,000      30,022,609
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              93.8      10,355       3,019     252,559,000      31,257,301
==============================================
Welsh........................................       1  DSI                                  50.0       4,042       3,718      14,888,000      15,026,538
                                               ......  DSI                                  80.0       6,467       4,019      18,901,000      25,992,966
                                               ......  SDA                                  88.7       7,169       3,489     201,549,000      25,009,785
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              92.5       7,474       3,508     221,282,000      26,216,294
                                                    2  DSI                                  50.0       4,128       3,611      14,775,000      14,906,814
                                               ......  DSI                                  80.0       6,605       3,879      18,758,000      25,622,166
                                               ......  SDA                                  88.2       7,285       3,438     202,108,000      25,045,518
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              92.2       7,608       3,454     221,821,000      26,276,805

[[Page 74877]]

 
                                                    3  DSI                                  50.0       4,305       3,690      15,023,000      15,884,663
                                               ......  DSI                                  80.0       6,887       3,998      19,071,000      27,531,831
                                               ......  SDA                                  88.7       7,634       3,368     204,177,000      25,713,148
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              92.5       7,959       3,379     224,298,000      26,895,390
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. A. Parish.................................       5  DSI                                  50.0       7,079       2,559      15,227,000      18,111,990
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      12,741       2,995      20,953,000      38,161,382
                                               ......  SDA                                  92.5      13,095       2,441     240,112,000      31,970,651
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              95.0      13,449       2,389     260,195,000      32,124,808
                                                    6  DSI                                  50.0       7,654       2,699      15,934,000      20,660,436
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      13,776       3,229      21,924,000      44,478,086
                                               ......  SDA                                  93.1      14,251       2,401     248,503,000      34,220,158
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              95.4      14,603       2,334     270,350,000      34,085,705
                                                    7  DSI                                  50.0       6,168       2,805      14,641,000      17,301,527
                                               ......  DSI                                  90.0      11,102       3,296      20,145,000      36,594,402
                                               ......  SDA                                  92.7      11,432       2,559     211,443,000      29,250,022
                                               ......  Wet FGD                              95.1      11,733       2,542     233,698,000      29,821,127
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber Upgrade Cost 
Results

    In our Cost TSD, we analyze those units listed in Table 30 with an 
existing SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber in order to determine if cost-
effective scrubber upgrades are available. Because all of the scrubber 
systems we evaluate are wet scrubbers, we limit our analyses of 
scrubber upgrades to wet scrubbers. Below, we present a summary of the 
results of that analysis.
    With the exception of San Miguel, we are limited in what 
information we can include in this section, because in developing our 
scrubber cost estimates we used information that was claimed as CBI. 
This information was submitted in response to our Section 114(a) 
requests. We can therefore only present the following summary. With the 
exception of San Miguel, we propose to find that for all the units we 
analyzed:
    <bullet> The absorber system had either already been upgraded to 
perform at an SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency of at least 95%, or it 
could be upgraded to perform at that level using proven equipment and 
techniques.
    <bullet> The SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber bypass could be eliminated, 
and the additional flue gas could be treated by the absorber system 
with at least a 95% removal efficiency.
    <bullet> Additional modifications necessary to eliminate the 
bypass, such as adding fan capacity, upgrading the electrical 
distribution system, and conversion to a wet stack could be performed 
using proven equipment and techniques.
    <bullet> The additional SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions 
resulting from the scrubber upgrade are substantial, ranging from 68% 
to 89% reduction from the current emission levels, and are cost-
effective.
    A summary of our analyses is as follows:

                                  Table 33--Summary of Scrubber Upgrade Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2009-2013 3-Year
                                           avg. SO2       SO2 Emissions at     SO2 Emission    SO2 Emission rate
                Unit                      emissions         95% control      reduction due to    at 95% control
                                        (eliminate max         (tons)        scrubber upgrade     (lbs/MMBtu)
                                       and min) (tons)                            (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. A. Parish WAP8...................              2,586                836              1,750               0.04
Monticello 3........................             13,857              1,571             12,286               0.06
Sandow 4............................             22,289              4,625             17,664               0.20
Martin Lake 1.......................             24,495              3,706             20,789               0.12
Martin Lake 2.......................             21,580              3,664             17,917               0.12
Martin Lake 3.......................             19,940              3,542             16,389               0.11
Limestone 1.........................             10,913              2,466              8,446               0.08
Limestone 2.........................             11,946              2,615              9,331               0.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated the cost-effectiveness for each of these units. 
Because those calculations depended on information claimed by the 
companies as CBI we cannot present it here, except to note that in all 
cases, the cost-effectiveness was less than $600/ton. We invite the 
facilities listed above to make arrangements with us to view the full 
cost analysis for their units.

H. Summary of the Modeled Benefits of Emission Controls

    Prior to doing the control cost evaluations discussed in the 
sections above, we conducted several steps in support of our review 
which was ultimately used in our proposed FIP. We initially conducted a 
Q/D analysis on all facilities in Texas, using the distances to Class I 
areas in Texas and surrounding states. This Q/D analysis narrowed the 
list of over 1,600 facilities to 38 facilities. We chose to use the 
CENRAP photochemical modeling platform with some minor upgrades to 
evaluate the 38 facilities and determine if this smaller subset of 
sources, or individual sources, would yield visibility benefits worth 
considering for reasonable progress analysis. We chose to use the CAMx 
photochemical model instead of

[[Page 74878]]

CALPUFF for several reasons, including:
    <bullet> The large distances between sources and Class I areas are 
outside the typical range of CALPUFF. Because of the range, we were 
concerned that CALPUFF could overestimate impacts.
    <bullet> Using a photochemical model allowed us to assess 
improvements on the 20% worst and the 20% best days.
    <bullet> Using a photochemical model allowed us to use a more 
refined chemistry mechanism and use the same scientific tools used for 
reasonable progress analysis at Class I areas.
    <bullet> CAMx has both PSAT and Plume-In-Grid capabilities, whereas 
the other available photochemical model CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air 
Quality modeling system) did not have these tools.
    Full details of our Q/D and initial evaluation of 38 facilities 
with CAMx are discussed further in Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Based on 
the results of modeling the 38 facilities, we further narrowed the list 
to the smaller group of sources that we evaluated in a second round of 
CAMx modeling. Please see Appendix A of our FIP TSD, where we describe 
in detail the different modeling runs we conducted for our review, our 
methodology and selection of emission rates, our modeling results, and 
our final modeling analysis that we used to evaluate the benefits of 
the proposed controls and their associated emission decreases on 
visibility impairment values. We used modeling results from the initial 
modeling and a second round of modeling to estimate the benefits of 
emission reductions from controls/control upgrades. Below we present a 
summary of our analysis and our proposed findings regarding the 
estimated visibility benefits of emission reductions based on the CAMx 
modeling results.
    Our modeling focused on calculating the extinction and visibility 
impacts and benefits at the Wichita Mountains, the Guadalupe Mountains, 
and Big Bend primarily, but also included analysis at a number of other 
Class I areas in states surrounding Texas. In so doing, we focused on 
the same sources listed in Table 30, above, that we did in our control 
cost evaluations. In evaluating the impacts and benefits of potential 
controls, we utilized a number of metrics, including change in 
deciviews in 2018 and natural conditions situations, change in 
extinction, change in percentage of total extinction, recent actuals 
vs. CENRAP 2018 projections, etc. For a full discussion of our review 
of all the modeling results, and factors that we considered in 
evaluating and weighing all the results, precedents, please see 
Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Below, we present the modeled visibility 
impacts based on their percentage extinction levels for the 20% worst 
days for the Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, and the Guadalupe Mountains:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE14.000


[[Page 74879]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE14.001


[[Page 74880]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE14.002

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    In Figures 1, 2, and 3, above, the visibility impacts from all of 
the units in Table 30 are represented, with the exception of San 
Miguel, for the reasons we discuss below in Section VII.I. In addition, 
the collective visibility impact from the remaining 29 sources which 
included San Miguel and 28 sources we elected not to include in our 
control cost analysis are also represented. As shown by Figure 1, a 
number of these facilities have significant visibility impacts at the 
Wichita Mountains. For instance, using actual emissions, Big Brown 
alone accounts for an impact equivalent to more than \1/3\ of the total 
impact from point sources within the State of Oklahoma. Visibility 
impacts from these sources at Texas' Class I areas are much more 
limited.
    In evaluating benefits of potential controls, we also considered 
estimated deciview improvements based on both a degraded 2018 
background and a ``clean'' background based on average annual natural 
conditions, as shown in the tables below. Because our analysis is based 
on a full photo-chemical grid model that includes modeling all 
emissions in the modeling domain, the model results are inherently a 
degraded background analysis and the results are impacted by emissions 
from other sources. To estimate the full benefit of reductions on a 
source we have estimated the ``clean'' background results based on the 
modeled extinction impact levels for each source and calculated the 
del-dv based on annual average natural conditions. A true ``clean'' 
background model would not include interactions from emissions from 
other sources. Due to the inclusion of all these other sources at 2018 
estimated emission levels, the estimated impacts from a source (or from 
controlling a source) are less than the results that would be obtained 
using emission levels of sources that would exist when natural 
conditions are achieved. We note that CALPUFF based modeling simulates 
`clean' background conditions with no other sources included than the 
source(s) being evaluated. See our FIP TSD for more discussion on this 
issue. The deciview improvement based on the 2018 background conditions 
provides an estimate of the amount of benefit that can be anticipated 
in 2018 and the impact a control may have on the established RPG for 
2018. However, this estimate based on degraded or ``dirty'' background 
conditions underestimates the visibility improvement that would be 
realized for the control options under consideration. Because of the 
non-linear nature of the deciview metric, as a Class I area becomes 
more polluted the visibility impairment from an individual source in 
terms of deciviews becomes geometrically less. Results based solely on 
a degraded background, will rarely if ever demonstrate an appreciable 
effect on incremental visibility improvement in a given area. Rather 
than providing for incremental improvements towards the goal of

[[Page 74881]]

natural visibility, degraded background results will serve to instead 
maintain those current degraded conditions. Therefore, the visibility 
benefit estimated based on natural or ``clean'' conditions is needed to 
assess the full benefit from potential controls. In our final decision 
for our North Dakota SIP and FIP,\304\ we explained this by noting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ 77 FR 20912 (Apr. 6, 2012).

This is true because of the nonlinear nature of visibility 
impairment. In other words, as a Class I area becomes more polluted, 
any individual source's contribution to changes in impairment 
becomes geometrically less. Therefore the more polluted the Class I 
area would become, the less control would seem to be needed from an 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
individual source.

    The Eighth Circuit Court upheld this point in North Dakota v. EPA. 
730 F.3d 750, 766 (8th Cir. 2013).
1. Visibility Benefits of DSI, SDA, and Wet FGD
    We evaluated the visibility benefits of DSI, for the thirteen units 
depicted in Table 30 that currently have no SO<INF>2</INF> control. We 
evaluated all the units using the same control levels we employed in 
our control cost analyses. In summary, we evaluated these units at a 
DSI SO<INF>2</INF> control level of 50%, which we believe is likely 
achievable for any unit. We also evaluated each unit at its maximum 
recommended DSI performance level, of 80% SO<INF>2</INF> removal for an 
ESP installation and 90% SO<INF>2</INF> removal for a baghouse 
installation. As we note in Section VII.F, we believe these are maximum 
performance levels for DSI but we do not know whether a given unit is 
actually capable of achieving these DSI control levels. At the lower 
performance level we assumed, we conclude that the corresponding 
visibility benefits from DSI would also be close to half of the 
benefits from scrubbers resulting in the visibility benefits from 
scrubber retrofits being much more beneficial.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \305\ Our multiple CAMx runs yielded data on three or more 
levels of emissions (controlled and uncontrolled) on a number of 
facilities and based on the data a linear relationship between 
emission level and visibility impairment on a source specific basis 
is a reasonable analytical approach. See FIP TSD Appendix A for more 
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also evaluated the visibility benefits for scrubber retrofits 
(wet FGD and SDA) for these same units, assuming the same control 
levels corresponding to SDA and wet FGD that we used in our control 
cost analyses. The visibility benefits from DSI, SDA, and wet FGD are 
quantified specifically in Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Below, we present 
a summary of some of those visibility benefits:

                               Table 34--Average Change in Deciview Levels at the Wichita Mountains for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Visibility improvement 2018 background  (Environ)     Visibility improvement (average natural conditions)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Unit                                                                    WFGD                                                   WFGD
                                             DSI Low    DSI High     SDA        WFGD     Upgrade    DSI Low    DSI High     SDA        WFGD     Upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown 1...............................      0.045      0.081      0.085      0.088  .........      0.225      0.401      0.423      0.436  .........
Big Brown 2...............................      0.045      0.081      0.086      0.088  .........      0.226      0.403      0.425      0.438  .........
Coleto Creek 1............................      0.021      0.038      0.039      0.040  .........      0.105      0.189      0.196      0.200  .........
Limestone 1...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.027  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.135
Limestone 2...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.030  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.149
Martin Lake 1.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.047  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.234
Martin Lake 2.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.040  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.202
Martin Lake 3.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.037  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.185
Monticello 1..............................      0.026      0.047      0.050      0.051  .........      0.132      0.236      0.249      0.254  .........
Monticello 2..............................      0.024      0.043      0.046      0.047  .........      0.121      0.217      0.229      0.233  .........
Monticello 3..............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.036  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.181
Sandow 4..................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.062  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.312
Tolk 171b.................................      0.004      0.006      0.006      0.007  .........      0.018      0.032      0.033      0.034  .........
Tolk 172b.................................      0.004      0.007      0.007      0.007  .........      0.020      0.035      0.036      0.037  .........
WA Parish 5...............................      0.012      0.022      0.023      0.023  .........      0.062      0.111      0.114      0.117  .........
WA Parish 6...............................      0.013      0.024      0.025      0.025  .........      0.067      0.120      0.124      0.127  .........
WA Parish 7...............................      0.011      0.019      0.020      0.020  .........      0.054      0.097      0.099      0.102  .........
WA Parish 8...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.003  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.015
Welsh 1...................................      0.012      0.019      0.021      0.022  .........      0.059      0.094      0.105      0.109  .........
Welsh 2...................................      0.012      0.019      0.021      0.022  .........      0.060      0.096      0.106      0.111  .........
Welsh 3...................................      0.012      0.020      0.022      0.023  .........      0.063      0.101      0.111      0.116  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Table 35--Average Change in Deciview Levels at Big Bend for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Visibility improvement 2018 background  (Environ)     Visibility improvement (average natural conditions)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Unit                                                                    WFGD                                                   WFGD
                                             DSI low    DSI high     SDA        WFGD     upgrade    DSI low    DSI high     SDA        WFGD     upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown 1...............................      0.012      0.021      0.022      0.023  .........      0.046      0.082      0.086      0.089  .........
Big Brown 2...............................      0.012      0.021      0.022      0.023  .........      0.046      0.082      0.087      0.089  .........
Coleto Creek 1............................      0.018      0.033      0.034      0.035  .........      0.071      0.128      0.133      0.136  .........
Limestone 1...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.008  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.033
Limestone 2...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.009  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.036
Martin Lake 1.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.008  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.030
Martin Lake 2.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.007  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.026
Martin Lake 3.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.006  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.023
Monticello 1..............................      0.003      0.005      0.005      0.006  .........      0.011      0.020      0.021      0.022  .........
Monticello 2..............................      0.003      0.005      0.005      0.005  .........      0.010      0.018      0.019      0.020  .........
Monticello 3..............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.004  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.015

[[Page 74882]]

 
Sandow 4..................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.026  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.102
Tolk 171b.................................      0.002      0.003      0.003      0.003  .........      0.007      0.012      0.013      0.013  .........
Tolk 172b.................................      0.002      0.003      0.003      0.004  .........      0.008      0.014      0.014      0.014  .........
WA Parish 5...............................      0.007      0.013      0.013      0.014  .........      0.028      0.051      0.052      0.054  .........
WA Parish 6...............................      0.008      0.014      0.015      0.015  .........      0.031      0.055      0.057      0.058  .........
WA Parish 7...............................      0.006      0.011      0.012      0.012  .........      0.025      0.044      0.046      0.047  .........
WA Parish 8...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.002  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.007
Welsh 1...................................      0.001      0.002      0.002      0.002  .........      0.005      0.008      0.008      0.009  .........
Welsh 2...................................      0.001      0.002      0.002      0.002  .........      0.005      0.008      0.009      0.009  .........
Welsh 3...................................      0.001      0.002      0.002      0.002  .........      0.005      0.008      0.009      0.009  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Table 36--Average Change in Deciview Levels at the Guadalupe Mountains for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Visibility improvement 2018 background  (Environ)     Visibility improvement (average natural conditions)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Unit                                                                    WFGD                                                   WFGD
                                             DSI Low    DSI High     SDA        WFGD     Upgrade    DSI low    DSI high     SDA        WFGD     upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown 1...............................      0.014      0.024      0.026      0.027  .........      0.054      0.096      0.101      0.105  .........
Big Brown 2...............................      0.014      0.025      0.026      0.027  .........      0.054      0.097      0.102      0.105  .........
Coleto Creek 1............................      0.006      0.010      0.011      0.011  .........      0.023      0.041      0.043      0.044  .........
Limestone 1...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.009  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.037
Limestone 2...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.010  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.041
Martin Lake 1.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.010  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.041
Martin Lake 2.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.009  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.036
Martin Lake 3.............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.008  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.033
Monticello 1..............................      0.004      0.006      0.007      0.007  .........      0.014      0.025      0.027      0.027  .........
Monticello 2..............................      0.003      0.006      0.006      0.006  .........      0.013      0.023      0.024      0.025  .........
Monticello 3..............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.005  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.019
Sandow 4..................................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.017  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.069
Tolk 171b.................................      0.012      0.022      0.022      0.023  .........      0.048      0.085      0.087      0.090  .........
Tolk 172b.................................      0.013      0.024      0.024      0.025  .........      0.052      0.094      0.095      0.098  .........
WA Parish 5...............................      0.003      0.006      0.006      0.006  .........      0.013      0.023      0.024      0.024  .........
WA Parish 6...............................      0.004      0.006      0.007      0.007  .........      0.014      0.025      0.026      0.027  .........
WA Parish 7...............................      0.003      0.005      0.005      0.005  .........      0.011      0.020      0.021      0.021  .........
WA Parish 8...............................  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.001  .........  .........  .........  .........      0.003
Welsh 1...................................      0.002      0.003      0.003      0.003  .........      0.007      0.011      0.012      0.012  .........
Welsh 2...................................      0.002      0.003      0.003      0.003  .........      0.007      0.011      0.012      0.012  .........
Welsh 3...................................      0.002      0.003      0.003      0.003  .........      0.007      0.011      0.012      0.013  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tables above show the estimated benefit (in deciviews) 
anticipated from the evaluated controls at each unit on the 20% worst 
days for each Class I area, considering both ``dirty'' background 
conditions projected in 2018 modeling completed by Environ and the 
``clean'' background conditions consistent with the estimated annual 
average natural conditions. We weighed these del-dv benefits, as well 
as extinction benefits and percentage of total extinction basis 
information, as further discussed in our TSD, in making our proposed 
findings about the benefits of potential controls. For brevity we are 
not including all the information that we considered which is discussed 
in FIP TSD Appendix A. Based on the information presented here and in 
our TSD materials, we propose to find that installing either wet FGD or 
SDA scrubbers on five of these units would yield significant visibility 
improvements at the Wichita Mountains. These five units are: Big Brown 
1 and 2, Coleto Creek, and Monticello 1 and 2. We propose to find that 
scrubber installations on Big Brown 1 and 2 would also yield 
significant benefits at both Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend, and that 
a scrubber installation on the Coleto Creek unit would also yield 
significant visibility benefits at Big Bend.
    In comparison to the above five units, we propose to find that the 
visibility benefits from installing scrubbers on the W. A. Parish 5, 6, 
and 7 units; and Welsh 1, 2, and 3 units would not yield large enough 
visibility benefits to be considered at this time.
    We also evaluated the visibility benefits of installing scrubbers 
on Tolk units 171B and 172B, limiting our analysis to SDA. The 
visibility benefits of SDA scrubbers on the Tolk units are projected to 
occur mainly at the Guadalupe Mountains. We note that the deciview 
visibility benefits projected at the Guadalupe Mountains from controls 
on the Tolk units are smaller than those from scrubber upgrades at W. 
A. Parish or Welsh for impacts at the Wichita Mountains. However, when 
we evaluated other metrics, such as extinction benefit or percent of 
extinction benefits, we believe that the overall visibility benefit for 
installing scrubbers on the Tolk units was superior to either the W. A. 
Parish or the Welsh units. In particular, the Wichita Mountains has a 
much higher total extinction for the baseline and the 2018 projection 
than the Guadalupe Mountains, so the relative improvement

[[Page 74883]]

in extinction levels is higher when the Tolk units are controlled for 
the Guadalupe Mountains, than if the W. A. Parish or the Welsh units 
were controlled for the Wichita Mountains. Therefore, considering all 
the visibility benefits relative to the respective Class I areas, we 
propose to find that the visibility benefits from installation of dry 
scrubbers on the Tolk units would be significant and beneficial towards 
the goal of meeting natural visibility conditions at Guadalupe 
Mountains.
2. Visibility Benefits of Scrubber Upgrades
    We also modeled the visibility benefits of those same units for 
which we conducted control cost analysis for upgrading their existing 
scrubbers. We assumed the same 95% control level we used in our control 
cost analyses. The visibility benefits from these scrubber upgrades are 
quantified specifically in Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Below, we present 
a summary of the del-dv visibility benefits. For the other visibility 
benefit results based on extinction and percentage of extinction see 
Appendix A of our FIP TSD.

                                          Table 37--Deciview Improvement at Class I Areas for Scrubber Upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   SO2                WIMO                      BIBE                      GUMO
                  Emission unit                     Control     Reduction  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      (%)         (tpy)         2018       avg. NC        2018       avg. NC        2018       avg. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limestone 1.....................................           95        8,446        0.027        0.135        0.008        0.033        0.009        0.037
Limestone 2.....................................           95        9,331        0.030        0.149        0.009        0.036        0.010        0.041
Martin Lake 1...................................           95       20,789        0.047        0.234        0.008        0.030        0.010        0.041
Martin Lake 2...................................           95       17,917        0.040        0.202        0.007        0.026        0.009        0.036
Martin Lake 3...................................           95       16,389        0.037        0.185        0.006        0.023        0.008        0.033
Monticello 3....................................           95       12,286        0.036        0.181        0.004        0.015        0.005        0.019
Sandow 4........................................           95       17,664        0.062        0.312        0.026        0.102        0.017        0.069
WA Parish 8.....................................           95        1,750        0.003        0.015        0.002        0.007        0.001        0.003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the impacts/benefits of scrubber upgrades on eight 
units at five facilities show that scrubber upgrades conducted at seven 
of the eight units would result in significant visibility improvements 
at the Wichita Mountains. These seven units are: Limestone 1 and 2; 
Martin Lake 1, 2, and 3; Monticello 3; and Sandow 4. We also project 
some visibility benefit at Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains and other 
Class I areas. We propose to find that the level of visibility 
improvement from a scrubber upgrade on W. A. Parish 8 to be relatively 
small in comparison to the other units we evaluated, and not large 
enough to consider as beneficial at this time.

I. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determinations

    Below, we present our proposed reasonable progress and long-term 
strategy determinations for our Texas and Oklahoma FIPs. This includes 
proposed determinations for those units with no SO<INF>2</INF> controls 
for which we conducted DSI, SDA, and wet FGD cost analysis and 
visibility modeling. This also includes proposed determinations for 
those units already scrubbed to some degree, for which we conducted 
scrubber upgrade cost analysis and visibility modeling. Please see our 
FIP and Cost TSDs for more information.
1. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination 
for San Miguel
    We propose to find that the San Miguel facility has upgraded its 
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber system to perform at the reasonably highest 
level that can be expected (94% based on a 2009-2013 average) based on 
the extremely high sulfur content of the coal being burned, and the 
technology currently available. We thus do not propose any further 
control. We propose to find that the San Miguel facility maintain a 30 
Boiler Operating Day rolling average SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate of 
0.60 lbs/MMBtu based on the most recent actual emissions data. We 
believe that based on the scrubber upgrades it has recently performed 
and its demonstrated ability to maintain an emission rate below this 
value on a monthly basis from December 2013 to June 2014 that it can 
consistently achieve this emission level. See our Cost TSD for more 
details about our analysis of the scrubber upgrades that San Miguel has 
performed on its unit. We are specifically soliciting comments on this 
proposed emission limit and the potential need for a slightly higher 
limit to provide sufficient operational headroom to demonstrate 
compliance.
2. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination 
for Units Other Than San Miguel
    In Section VII.F, we present the results of our SO<INF>2</INF> 
control cost analysis for those units listed in Table 30 with no 
SO<INF>2</INF> control. In Section VII.G, we present the results of our 
control cost analysis for upgrading those units equipped with 
underperforming wet FGD scrubbers. In Section VII.H, we present the 
results of our modeled visibility benefits for these controls. We 
believe that we have provided the technical analysis that was lacking 
in Texas' development of its RPGs for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big 
Bend, and in its consultations with Oklahoma for the development of the 
RPG for the Wichita Mountains. Further, we believe that our proposed 
control set, which we discuss below, developed through our reasonable 
progress four factor analysis, would ensure that Texas secures its 
share of the reductions needed for the RPGs of the Wichita Mountains, 
the Guadalupe Mountains, and Big Bend. Specifically, we propose to find 
that our technical analysis and control set makes whole our disapproval 
of:
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable 
progress four factor analysis.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas' calculation 
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the URPs for the Guadalupe 
Mountains and Big Bend.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas' RPGs for the 
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) regarding Texas' long-term 
strategy consultation.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) regarding Texas securing its 
share of reductions in other states' RPGs.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) regarding Texas' technical basis 
for its long-term strategy.
    <bullet> Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas' emissions 
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big 
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
    We also believe that this technical analysis and control set makes 
whole our proposed disapproval of Oklahoma's submission under Section 
51.308(d)(1), except for Section

[[Page 74884]]

51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we propose to approve. We believe our technical 
analysis provides the information that Oklahoma should have had during 
its consultations with Texas in order to determine whether sources in 
Texas should have been controlled to improve the visibility at the 
Wichita Mountains. We believe our proposed control set would ensure 
that Texas' share of the emission reductions are incorporated into 
Oklahoma's RPGs.
    For all but one of the units we analyzed that currently have no 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls, even at the lower level of control of 50%, the 
cost-effectiveness of DSI was worse (higher $/ton) than either SDA or 
wet FGD, even with the latter options offering much greater levels of 
control and visibility benefit. At the higher 80% or 90% level of 
control, the cost-effectiveness of DSI was worse than either SDA or wet 
FGD in all cases. Consequently, we are not proposing that DSI be 
installed at any unit.
    With the exception of Tolk,\306\ all of the scrubber retrofits were 
analyzed on the basis of both SDA and wet scrubbers. The SDA level of 
control was assumed to be a maximum of 95% not to go below 0.06 lbs/
MMBtu. The wet FGD level of control was assumed to be a maximum of 98% 
not to go below 0.04 lbs/MMBtu. As we discuss in our Cost TSD, the 
cost-effectiveness ($/ton) of wet FGD was better than SDA in all cases 
except for the Tolk and Welsh units, which burn Power River Basin (PRB) 
coal. However, even in those cases, the cost-effectiveness of wet FGD 
was only 0.5 to 0.8% greater than SDA. Given the greater visibility 
improvement of wet FGD over SDA, we propose to base our cost/benefit 
reasonable progress and long-term strategy determination on wet FGD, 
except for the Tolk units, due to their potential water issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ As we discuss in section VII.D.2, we are only considering 
SDA in our cost/benefit analysis for Tolk due to a potential water 
issue that may have energy and non-air quality impact 
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination 
for Scrubber Upgrades
    We propose to find that the cost-effectiveness of the scrubber 
upgrades ($600/ton or less) to be reasonable, and that on an individual 
basis, any reasonable amount of visibility improvement due to their 
installation justifies their cost. We believe this is the case for all 
of the scrubber upgrades except for the Parish 8 unit. Despite the same 
level of cost-effectiveness of the Parish 8 unit, we do not believe 
that the visibility benefits are large enough to justify the 
implementation of a scrubber upgrade on that unit. Therefore we propose 
that the scrubbers for the Sandow 4; Martin Lake 1, 2, 3; Monticello 3, 
and Limestone 1 and 2 units be upgraded to perform at a 95% control 
level. This level of control corresponds to the emission limits listed 
in Table 38, below.
4. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination 
for Scrubber Retrofits
    The cost-effectiveness of the scrubber retrofits for the Welsh and 
Parish units are within a $/ton range that we have previously found to 
be cost-effective in BART determinations. However, we do not believe 
that their individual projected visibility improvements merit the 
installation of scrubbers at this time. We encourage the State of Texas 
to re-evaluate this determination as part of its next regional haze SIP 
submittal.
    Similar to the scrubber upgrades, we believe the scrubber retrofits 
for the Big Brown units to be cost-effective and we find the projected 
visibility benefits from them to be significant. We therefore propose 
that the Big Brown units meet emission limits corresponding to this 
evaluation. Our proposed SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits for the Big 
Brown units are shown in Table 38.
    In comparison to the Big Brown units, the cost-effectiveness of the 
scrubber retrofits for the Monticello, Coleto Creek, and Tolk units are 
less, although still well within the range that we have found 
acceptable for BART. Also, in comparison to the Big Brown units, the 
visibility improvements projected to occur due to the installation of 
the scrubber retrofits are less. For instance, as we discuss above in 
Section VII.H, the visibility benefits of SDA scrubbers on the Tolk 
units are projected to occur mainly at the Guadalupe Mountains. Those 
visibility benefits are smaller than the visibility benefits at Wichita 
Mountains from scrubber upgrades at W. A. Parish or Welsh, which we are 
not proposing to control. However, when we evaluated other metrics, 
such as extinction benefit or percent of extinction benefits, we 
concluded that the overall visibility benefit for installing scrubbers 
on the Tolk units was superior to either the W. A. Parish or the Welsh 
units. Thus, we consider these visibility benefits to be significant. 
Consequently, we propose that the Monticello, Coleto Creek, and Tolk 
units meet SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits corresponding to this 
evaluation. Our proposed SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits for these units 
are shown in Table 38. In recognition of their lesser cost/benefit 
ratio, we are specifically soliciting comments on the appropriateness 
of one or more of these scrubber retrofits.
    We propose that compliance be based on a 30 Boiler Operating Day 
(BOD) period. As the BART Guidelines direct, ``[y]ou should consider a 
boiler operating day to be any 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight 
and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any 
time at the steam generating unit.''\307\ To calculate a 30 day rolling 
average based on boiler operating day, the average of the last 30 
``boiler operating days'' is used. In other words, days are skipped 
when the unit is down, as for maintenance. This, in effect, provides a 
margin of safety by eliminating spikes that occur at the beginning and 
end of outages. Although we are not conducting BART determinations, our 
reasonable progress guidance notes the similarity between some of the 
reasonable progress factors and the BART factors contained in Section 
51.308(e)(1)((ii)(A), and suggests that the BART Guidelines be 
consulted regarding cost, energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts, and remaining useful life. We are therefore relying on our 
BART Guidelines for assistance in establishing the emission limit 
averaging period as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ 70 FR 39172 (July 6, 2005).

     Table 38--Proposed 30 Boiler Operating Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed SO2
                          Unit                            emission limit
                                                            (lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades:
    Sandow 4............................................            0.20
    Martin Lake 1.......................................            0.12
    Martin Lake 2.......................................            0.12
    Martin Lake 3.......................................            0.11
    Monticello 3........................................            0,06
    Limestone 2.........................................            0.08
    Limestone 1.........................................            0.08
    San Miguel*.........................................            0.60
Scrubber Retrofits:
    Big Brown 1.........................................            0.04
    Big Brown 2.........................................            0.04
    Monticello 1........................................            0.04
    Monticello 2........................................            0.04
    Coleto Creek 1......................................            0.04
    Tolk 172B...........................................            0.06
    Tolk 171B...........................................            0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
  to install any additional control in order to comply with this
  emission limit.

J. Treatment of Potential Error in Scrubber Upgrade Efficiency 
Calculations

    In our Cost TSD, we discuss how we calculated the SO<INF>2</INF> 
removal efficiency of the units we analyzed for scrubber upgrades. We 
note that due to a number

[[Page 74885]]

of factors we could not accurately quantify, our calculations of 
scrubber efficiency may contain some error. Based on the results of our 
scrubber upgrade cost analysis, we do not believe that any reasonable 
error in calculating the true tons of SO<INF>2</INF> removed affects 
our proposed decision to require emission reductions, as all of the 
scrubber upgrades we analyzed are cost-effective (low $/ton). In other 
words, were we to make reasonable adjustments in the tons removed to 
account for any potential error in our scrubber efficiency calculation, 
we would still propose to upgrade these SO<INF>2</INF> scrubbers. We 
believe we have demonstrated that upgrading an underperforming 
SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber is one of the most cost-effective pollution 
control upgrades a coal fired power plant can implement to improve the 
visibility at Class I areas.
    However, our proposed FIP does specify a SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limit that is based on 95% removal in all cases. This is below the 
upper end of what an upgraded wet SO<INF>2</INF> scrubber can achieve, 
which is 98-99%, as we have noted in our Cost TSD. We believe that a 
95% control assumption provides an adequate margin of error for any of 
the units for which we have proposed scrubber upgrades, such that they 
should be able to comfortably attain the emission limits we have 
proposed. However, for the operator of any unit that disagrees with us 
on this point, we propose the following:
    (1) The affected unit should comment why it believes it cannot 
attain the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit we have proposed, based on a 
scrubber upgrade that includes the kinds of improvements (e.g., 
elimination of bypass, wet stack conversion, installation of trays or 
rings, upgraded spray headers, upgraded ID fans, using all recycle 
pumps, etc.) typically included in a scrubber upgrade.
    (2) After considering those comments, and responding to all 
relevant comments in a final rulemaking action, should we still require 
a scrubber upgrade in our final decision making action we will provide 
the company the following option to seek a revised emission limit after 
taking the following steps:
    (a) Install a CEMS at the inlet to the scrubber.
    (b) Pre-approval of a scrubber upgrade plan conducted by a third 
party engineering firm that considers the kinds of improvements 
(e.g., elimination of bypass, wet stack conversion, installation of 
trays or rings, upgraded spray headers, upgraded ID fans, using all 
recycle pumps, etc.) typically performed during a scrubber upgrade. 
The goal of this plan will be to maximize the unit's overall 
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency.
    (c) Installation of the scrubber upgrades.
    (d) Pre-approval of a performance testing plan, followed by the 
performance testing itself.
    (e) A pre-approved schedule for 2.a through 2.d.
    (f) Should we determine that a revision of the SO<INF>2</INF> 
emission limit is appropriate, we will have to propose a 
modification to our decision making to do so. It should be noted 
that any proposal to modify the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit will 
be based largely on the performance testing and may result in a 
proposed increase or decrease of that value.

K. Proposed Natural Conditions for the Texas Class I Areas

    As discussed in Section V.B.1, we propose to disapprove Texas' 
calculation of the natural visibility conditions for the Big Bend and 
Guadalupe Class I areas under Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii). The TCEQ used 
a refined approach to calculating the natural conditions for the 
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. This approach, among other things, 
requires knowledge about the amount of coarse mass and soil that is 
attributable to natural sources. The TCEQ has provided data that 
supports the conclusion that a large portion of dust impacting 
visibility at its Class I areas is likely due to natural sources. We 
agree that dust storms and other blown dust from deserts are a 
significant contributor to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I 
areas that may not be captured accurately by our default method. 
However, we do not believe, as the TCEQ asserts, that all coarse mass 
and soil can be attributable to 100% natural sources.
    Although we believe that some coarse mass and soil should be 
attributable to natural sources, we do not have the information 
necessary to determine how much should be attributable to natural 
sources. We therefore acknowledge that like the TCEQ, we cannot 
accurately reset the natural conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and 
Big Bend by using the TCEQ's methodology, which depends on this 
information. In lieu of this, we propose to rely on the adjusted 
default estimates for the new IMPROVE equation from the Natural 
Conditions II committee,\308\ which was the starting point for the 
Texas natural visibility calculations, but solicit comment on the 
acceptability of alternate estimates in the range between our default 
estimates and the Texas estimates. We propose that the natural 
conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend be set as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the 
Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed Light Extinction Algorithm, 
Copeland, S. A., et al, Final Paper # 48, available in our docket.; 
NC II, or new IMPROVE natural visibility conditions are available 
at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Docs/IMPROVE/Aerosol/NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_v2.xls, for which we 
have filtered the data for Texas Class I areas and which is also 
available in our docket.

Table 39--Natural Conditions (NC II) for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
                                  Bend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  20% Best    20% Worst
                 Class 1 area                    days (dv)    days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains...........................         0.99         6.65
Big Bend......................................         1.62         7.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recommend that the State of Texas re-evaluate the natural 
conditions for its Class I areas in the next regional haze SIP.

L. Calculation of Visibility Impairment for the Texas Class I Areas

    Using our proposed natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe 
Mountains and Big Bend, we propose to reset the amount of natural 
visibility impairment for these Class I areas under Section 
51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). We do this by modifying the table we present in 
our TX TSD. We replace Texas' calculations of natural visibility for 
its Class I areas, with the adjusted default values (NC II), discussed 
above. We retain the baseline visibility values we proposed to approve, 
then recalculate the amount the baseline values exceed the natural 
visibility conditions. We propose that the natural visibility 
impairment for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend be set as follows:

[[Page 74886]]



   Table 40--Revised Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Haze index (deciviews)
             Class I area              ---------------------------------
                                         Most impaired    Least impaired
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend..............................            7.16             1.62
Guadalupe Mountains...................            6.65             0.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Baseline Visibility Conditions, 2000-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend..............................           17.30             5.78
Guadalupe Mountains...................           17.19             5.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimate of Extent Baseline Exceeds Natural Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend..............................           10.14             4.16
Guadalupe Mountains...................           10.54             4.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Uniform Rates of Progress and the Emission Reductions Needed To 
Achieve Them

    Section 308(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that we analyze and determine the 
rates of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by the 
year 2064 and consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility 
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve them. Below, we 
present the URPs for the 20% worst days for the Guadalupe Mountains and 
Big Bend, using the natural conditions we propose to establish above:

                                           Table 41--URP for Big Bend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Annual improvement
 Baseline conditions     needed to meet URP     Visibility at 2018   Improvement needed by   Natural conditions
         (dv)                   (dv)                   (dv)                2018  (dv)           at 2064  (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            17.30                   0.17                  14.93                   2.37                   7.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table 42--URP for the Guadalupe Mountains
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Annual improvement
 Baseline conditions     needed to meet URP     Visibility at 2018   Improvement needed by   Natural conditions
         (dv)                   (dv)                   (dv)                2018  (dv)           at 2064  (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            17.19                   0.18                  14.73                   2.46                   6.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see our FIP TSD for graphical representations of these URPs. 
We propose to find that it is not reasonable to provide for rates of 
progress at Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or Guadalupe Mountains that 
would attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 (i.e., the URP). Our 
demonstration that a slower rate of progress is reasonable is based on 
the reasonable progress analyses performed by us and Texas that 
considered the four statutory reasonable progress factors, as described 
above.

N. Reasonable Progress Goals and Demonstration

    We are quantifying proposed RPGs (in deciviews) for the 20-percent 
worst days in 2018. The proposed RPGs for Oklahoma's Class I area, the 
Wichita Mountains, and Texas' two Class I areas, Big Bend and the 
Guadalupe Mountains, account for the emission reductions from the 
reasonable progress control measures identified above in our proposed 
regional haze FIPs. The proposed RPGs reflect the results of our 
reasonable progress analysis of point sources as described in detail in 
our FIP TSD. These proposed RPGs are established based on an adjustment 
of the 2018 RPGs established by Texas and Oklahoma that were based on 
the 2018 CENRAP modeling. We note that we do not anticipate 
implementation of the identified scrubber retrofits by the end of 2018. 
Therefore, we are only adjusting the RPGs established by the states to 
reflect the additional anticipated visibility benefit from the scrubber 
upgrades over the 2018 projected visibility conditions. The tables 
below show the new adjusted RPGs as well as the additional improvement 
that is anticipated once all the scrubber retrofits have been 
implemented sometime after 2018. These new RPGs provide for an 
improvement in visibility on the worst days during this planning 
period. Table 44 below estimates the RPG if all proposed controls were 
implemented by 2018.

[[Page 74887]]



     Table 43--Proposed Rpgs For 20% Worst Days Based On Predicted Benefit Of Scrubber Upgrades Beyond 2018 CENRAP Projected Visibility Conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Predicted
                                                                                            additional                                       Number of
                                                                            2018 CENRAP     benefit due    Proposed RPG       Natural      years needed
                                                          Baseline  (dv)    Projection      only to FIP        (dv)         visibility       to reach
                                                                               (dv)          scrubber                                         natural
                                                                                          upgrades  (dv)                                    visibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains.......................................           23.81           21.47            0.14           21.33            7.58              92
Big Bend................................................           17.30            16.6            0.03           16.57            7.16             194
Guadalupe Mountains.....................................           17.19            16.3            0.04           16.26            6.65             159
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 44--Calculated RPGS for 20% Worst Days Based on Predicted Benefit of all Proposed Controls Beyond 2018 CENRAP Projected Visibility Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Predicted    Additional
                                                                       additional      benefit                                                Number of
                                                         2018 CENRAP   benefit due    predicted       Total     RPG Assuming                years needed
                                            Baseline     Projection    only to FIP   due to FIP   benefit from  all controls     Natural      to reach
                                              (dv)          (dv)        scrubber      scrubber      proposed     in place by   visibility      natural
                                                                        upgrades      retrofits     controls        2018                     visibility
                                                                          (dv)          (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains.......................         23.81         21.47          0.14          0.30          0.45         21.03          7.58            82
Big Bend................................          17.3          16.6          0.03          0.09          0.12         16.48          7.16           173
Guadalupe Mountains.....................         17.19          16.3          0.04          0.12          0.15         16.14          6.65           141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail in the FIP TSD, current actual 
emissions for many of the units that we propose to control are higher 
than the projected CENRAP 2018 emission rate. Therefore, the actual 
visibility impact due to emissions from these sources and the 
anticipated benefit from controls are larger than the benefits 
calculated above based on the 2018 CENRAP projected visibility 
conditions. The table below summarizes the amount of visibility benefit 
we anticipate will occur from the implementation of our proposed FIP 
controls and the resulting emission reductions from the current actual 
average annual emissions.

         Table 45--Anticipated Visibility Benefit due to Emission Reductions From Actual Emission Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Predicted          Benefit
                                                             benefit due to   predicted due to    Total benefit
                                                              FIP scrubber      FIP scrubber      from proposed
                                                              upgrades (dv)    retrofits (dv)     controls (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains.........................................              0.28              0.33              0.62
Big Bend..................................................              0.07              0.10              0.17
Guadalupe Mountains.......................................              0.07              0.12              0.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that it is not reasonable to provide for rates 
of progress at the Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or the Guadalupe 
Mountains that would attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(i.e., the URP). Our demonstration that a slower rate of progress is 
reasonable is based on the reasonable progress analyses performed by us 
and the states that considered the four statutory reasonable progress 
factors, as described above. Although progress is slower than the URP, 
the proposed FIP would provide for RPGs that reflect an improved rate 
of progress and a shorter time period to reach natural visibility 
conditions at each of the Class I areas, compared with the RPGs 
established by Texas and Oklahoma in their regional haze SIPs. We have 
provided an estimate of the number of years needed to meet natural 
visibility conditions at the rate of progress proposed by us as 
reasonable. We have also estimated the RPG and the number of years to 
meet natural visibility conditions if all proposed controls were in 
place by 2018. We note that this does not take into account the 
visibility benefit from scrubber retrofits included in this proposed 
FIP that will be implemented after 2018.

VIII. Our Evaluation of the Texas Infrastructure SIP Submittals for 
Interstate Transport and Visibility Protection

    To determine whether the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement 
for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must address the 
potential for interference with visibility protection caused by the 
pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS 
applies. Pollutants which could interfere with visibility protection 
include: (1) SO<INF>2</INF> (which is also a precursor for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>), (2) nitrogen oxides (which includes NO<INF>2</INF> 
and are precursors for ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and (3) particulate 
matter.\309\ An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the 
regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the requirement 
for visibility protection as it ensures that emissions from the state 
will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state 
SIPs to protect visibility. In the infrastructure SIP submittals for 
the ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>2</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS 
Texas indicated that the Regional Haze SIP fulfilled its obligation for 
addressing emissions that would interfere with measures required to be 
included in the SIP for any other state to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ Section II.A.3 of Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for 
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule and 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(i)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we note above, we gave limited disapproval to the Texas Regional 
Haze SIP based on its reliance on CAIR. As

[[Page 74888]]

explained in our limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP, 
many states (including Texas) relied on the improvement in visibility 
expected to result from the implementation of CAIR in developing their 
long-term strategy.\310\ Texas relied on its own CAIR SIP as legal 
justification for these planned controls and did not include separate 
enforceable measures in its regional haze SIP to ensure these EGU 
reductions. As CAIR has been replaced by CSAPR, and CSAPR is going into 
effect in 2015, we propose to determine that Texas may not rely on its 
regional haze SIP to ensure that emissions from Texas do not interfere 
with the measures to protect visibility in nearby states. We propose to 
disapprove Texas' SIP submittals for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> and 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, with respect to interstate transport of air 
pollution and visibility protection. CSAPR and our proposed FIP, which 
relies on emission reductions from the implementation of CSAPR in lieu 
of BART, addresses this deficiency in the Texas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ 77 FR 33643 (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional reason for our proposed disapproval of the submittals 
for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS is our proposed conclusion that additional control 
of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in Texas is needed to prevent interference 
with measures required to be included in the Oklahoma SIP to protect 
visibility. Our proposed FIP addresses this deficiency in the Texas 
SIP.

IX. Proposed Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of 
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by 
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions 
for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of ``nationally 
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the 
Administrator'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally 
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds 
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' 
\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7607(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find and publish that this rule is based on a 
determination of nationwide scope and effect. The rule discusses our 
interpretation of multiple provisions of the Regional Haze Rule and 
explains how those provisions operate in the visibility-transport 
context. Our interpretation of our regulations is applicable to all 
states, not just Texas and Oklahoma. Consequently, our determination of 
nationwide scope and effect is ``consistent with the legislative 
history of the CAA, which evinces a clear congressional intent to 
`centralize review of `national' SIP issues in the D.C. Circuit.' '' 
\312\ This determination is also appropriate because in the 1977 CAA 
Amendments that revised CAA Section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the 
Administrator's determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope 
or effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has ``scope or 
effect beyond a single judicial circuit.'' \313\ Here, the scope and 
effect of this rulemaking extends to two judicial circuits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ Texas v. EPA, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654 at *15 (5th Cir. 
Feb. 14, 2011) (citing Admin. Conference of the U.S., 
Recommendations on Judicial Review Under the Clean Air Act, 41 FR 
56767, 56769 (Dec. 30, 1976) (Comments of G. William Frick)).
    \313\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-24, reprinted in 1977 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we propose to determine that this is a rulemaking of 
nationwide scope or effect such that any petitions for review must be 
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit.

X. Proposed Action

    A listing of our proposed actions is provided below.

A. Texas Regional Haze

    We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove a revision 
to the Texas SIP received from the State of Texas on March 31, 2009, 
that intended to address regional haze for the first planning period 
from 2008 through 2018. This revision was intended to address the 
requirements of the CAA and our rules that require states to prevent 
any future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility 
in mandatory Class I areas. We propose to approve a portion of this SIP 
revision as meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program 
and to disapprove portions addressing the requirements related to RP, 
the long-term strategy and the calculation of natural visibility 
conditions. We propose a FIP to implement SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limits on fifteen Texas sources, and to establish the natural 
visibility conditions at two Class I areas in Texas to address these 
issues. Specifically, we propose to disapprove the portions of the 
Texas regional haze SIP addressing the following regional haze rule 
requirements:
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(1)(ii)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(2)(iii)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(3)(i)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(3)(ii)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(3)(iii)
    <bullet> 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C)
    We propose a FIP to cure these defects in the Texas regional haze 
SIP. We propose to approve all other sections of the Texas regional 
haze SIP.
    With regard to Texas' BART Rules, we propose a FIP to replace 
Texas' reliance on CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d) with reliance on CSAPR. 
We propose to approve the remainder of the provisions in Texas' BART 
rules.
    Our proposed regional haze FIP relies on the already promulgated 
CSAPR FIP for Texas at 40 CFR 52.2283-84 to satisfy the BART 
requirement for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs.
    Our proposed FIP requires that the following SO<INF>2</INF> 
emission limits be met on a 30 BOD period.

     Table 46--Proposed 30 Boiler Operating Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed SO2
                          Unit                            emission limit
                                                            (lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades:
  Sandow 4..............................................            0.20
  Martin Lake 1.........................................            0.12
  Martin Lake 2.........................................            0.12
  Martin Lake 3.........................................            0.11
  Monticello 3..........................................            0.06
  Limestone 2...........................................            0.08
  Limestone 1...........................................            0.08
  San Miguel *..........................................            0.60
Scrubber Retrofits:
  Big Brown 1...........................................            0.04
  Big Brown 2...........................................            0.04
  Monticello 1..........................................            0.04
  Monticello 2..........................................            0.04
  Coleto Creek 1........................................            0.04
  Tolk 172B.............................................            0.06
  Tolk 171B.............................................            0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
  to install any additional control in order to comply with this
  emission limit.

    We propose that compliance with these limits be within five years 
of the effective date of our final rule for Big Brown Units 1 and 2, 
Monticello Units 1 and 2, Coleto Creek Unit 1, and Tolk Units 171B and 
172B. Although this is not a BART action, this is the maximum amount of 
time allowed under the regional haze Rule for BART compliance. We based 
our cost analysis on the installation of wet FGD and SDA scrubbers for 
these units, and in the past we have typically required that scrubber 
retrofits under BART be operational within five years.

[[Page 74889]]

    We propose that compliance with these limits be within three years 
of the effective date of our final rule for Sandow 4; Martin Lake Units 
1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 3; and Limestone Units 1 and 2. We believe 
that three years is appropriate for these units, as we based our cost 
analysis on upgrading the existing wet FGD scrubbers of these units, 
which we believe to be less complex and time consuming that the 
construction of a new scrubber. We solicit comments on alternative 
timeframes, of from two years up to five years from the effective date 
of our final rule.
    We propose that compliance with these limits be within one year for 
San Miguel. We believe that one year is appropriate for this unit 
because we based our analysis on scrubber upgrades that San Miguel has 
already performed, and because it has demonstrated its ability to meet 
this emission limit. We are specifically soliciting comments on this 
proposed emission limit and the potential need for a slightly higher 
limit to provide sufficient operational headroom to demonstrate 
compliance.
    Our proposed FIP also resets the natural conditions and the URPs 
for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend Class I areas, and establishes 
new RPGs for the 20% worst days for these Class I areas.
    We propose that this FIP will fully satisfy the FIP obligation 
stemming from our proposed disapproval of portions of the Texas SIP.

B. Oklahoma Regional Haze

    We are also proposing to partially disapprove a portion of a 
revision to the Oklahoma SIP submitted by the State of Oklahoma on 
February 19, 2010. Specifically, we propose to disapprove the portion 
of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP that addresses the requirements of 
Section 51.308(d)(1), except for Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
    We propose a FIP to reset Oklahoma's RPGs based on our analysis 
conducted in support of our proposed Texas FIP. We propose to find that 
the same controls we have proposed above in our Texas FIP also serve to 
cure the defects in these sections of Oklahoma's regional haze SIP as 
well, thus satisfying the FIP obligation stemming from our proposed 
disapproval of portions of the Oklahoma SIP.

C. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution and Visibility Protection

    We propose to disapprove portions of Texas SIP submittals that 
address CAA provisions for prohibiting air pollutant emissions from 
interfering with measures required to protect visibility in any other 
state for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 1997 ozone, 
2008 ozone, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS (CAA 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and visibility protection). Specifically, 
we propose to disapprove portions of the following SIP submittals made 
by Texas for new or revised NAAQS:
    <bullet> April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
(24-hour and annual)
    <bullet> May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> (24-
hour and annual)
    <bullet> November 23, 2009: 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
    <bullet> December 7, 2012: 2010 NO<INF>2</INF>
    <bullet> December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour Ozone
    <bullet> May 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> (Primary NAAQS)
    We propose to determine that our regional haze FIP will satisfy our 
FIP obligation for interstate transport of air pollution and visibility 
protection.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 \314\ and is therefore not 
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.\315\ The 
proposed FIP applies to only eight facilities. It is therefore not a 
rule of general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \314\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
    \315\ 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
Section 3501 et seq. Because it does not contain any information 
collection activities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 
5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In making this 
determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse 
economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net 
burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any 
requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP 
action under Section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create 
any new requirements on small entities but simply approves or 
disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 
Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small 
entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that 
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., emission 
limitations) may or will flow from this action does not mean that the 
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for 
this action. We have therefore concluded that, this action will have no 
net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA 
rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of UMRA 
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable

[[Page 74890]]

number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 of UMRA do not 
apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 
205 of UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
Section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that Title II of UMRA does not apply to this 
proposed rule. In 2 U.S.C. Section 1502(1) all terms in Title II of 
UMRA have the meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. Section 658, which further 
provides that the terms ``regulation'' and ``rule'' have the meanings 
set forth in 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2), 
``the term `rule' does not include a rule of particular applicability 
relating to . . . facilities.'' Because this proposed rule is a rule of 
particular applicability relating to eight named facilities, EPA has 
determined that it is not a ``rule'' for the purposes of Title II of 
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, because the 
SIP submittals the EPA is proposing to approve or disapprove would not 
have a substantial direct effect on any Indian reservation land or in 
any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this proposed 
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 
13175 \316\, nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA policy the EPA 
nonetheless is offering consultation to tribes regarding this 
rulemaking action. The EPA will respond to relevant comments in the 
final rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks \317\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive 
Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk 
that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 
required under Section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence 
the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive 
Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress 
in statutes. However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> the rule will have a beneficial effect on 
children's health by reducing air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 \318\ 
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. 
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities 
conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 \319\ establishes federal executive policy on 
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States. We have determined that this proposed rule, if 
finalized, will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 
because it increases the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population. This proposed federal 
rule limits emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> from eight facilities in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, 
Best available control technology.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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


[[Page 74891]]


0
2. Part 52 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (d) in Section 
52.2284 and paragraphs (d) and (e) in Section 52.2304.
    The additions read as follows:

Subpart SS--Texas


Sec.  52.2284  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the 
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide?

* * * * *
    (d) Requirements for Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello 
Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow Unit 4; Big Brown 
Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and San Miguel 
affecting visibility.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to 
each owner or operator, or successive owners or operators, of the coal 
burning equipment designated as: Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; 
Monticello Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow Unit 4; 
Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and 
San Miguel.
    (2) Compliance Dates. Compliance with the requirements of this 
section is required within 3 years of the effective date of this rule 
for Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 3, Limestone Units 1 
and 2; and Sandow Unit 4. Compliance with the requirements of this 
section is required within 5 years of the effective date of this rule 
for Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Monticello Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek 
Unit 1; and Tolk Units 1 and 2. Compliance with the requirements of 
this section is required within one year for San Miguel. These 
compliance dates apply unless otherwise indicated by compliance dates 
contained in specific provisions.
    (3) Definitions. All terms used in this part but not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and in parts 51 
and 60 of this title. For the purposes of this section:
    24-hour period means the period of time between 12:01 a.m. and 12 
midnight.
    Air pollution control equipment includes selective catalytic 
control units, baghouses, particulate or gaseous scrubbers, and any 
other apparatus utilized to control emissions of regulated air 
contaminants which would be emitted to the atmosphere.
    Boiler-operating-day means any 24-hour period between 12:00 
midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted 
at any time at the steam generating unit.
    Daily average means the arithmetic average of the hourly values 
measured in a 24-hour period.
    Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a unit and 
does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air, 
recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources. Heat 
input shall be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 75.
    Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls, or supervises any of the coal burning equipment designated in 
paragraph (a).
    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA 
Region 6 or his/her authorized representative.
    Unit means one of the coal fired boilers covered under paragraph 
(a) of this section.
    (4) Emissions Limitations. SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit. The 
individual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a unit shall be as listed 
in the following table in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/
MMBtu) as averaged over a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           SO2 Emission
                          Unit                             limit  (lbs/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandow 4................................................            0.20
Martin Lake 1...........................................            0.12
Martin Lake 2...........................................            0.12
Martin Lake 3...........................................            0.11
Monticello 3............................................            0.06
Limestone 2.............................................            0.08
Limestone 1.............................................            0.08
Big Brown 1.............................................            0.04
Big Brown 2.............................................            0.04
Monticello 1............................................            0.04
Monticello 2............................................            0.04
Coleto Creek 1..........................................            0.04
Tolk 172B...............................................            0.06
Tolk 171B...............................................            0.06
San Miguel..............................................            0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each unit, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for each calendar day shall 
be determined by summing the hourly emissions measured in pounds of 
SO<INF>2</INF>. For each unit, heat input for each boiler-operating-day 
shall be determined by adding together all hourly heat inputs, in 
millions of BTU. Each boiler-operating-day of the thirty-day rolling 
average for a unit shall be determined by adding together the pounds of 
SO<INF>2</INF> from that day and the preceding 29 boiler-operating-days 
and dividing the total pounds of SO<INF>2</INF> by the sum of the heat 
input during the same 30 boiler-operating-day period. The result shall 
be the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average in terms of lb/MMBtu 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>. If a valid SO<INF>2</INF> pounds per hour 
or heat input is not available for any hour for a unit, that heat input 
and SO<INF>2</INF> pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation 
of the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average for SO<INF>2</INF>.
    (5) Testing and monitoring.
    (i) No later than the compliance date of this regulation, the owner 
or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate Continuous 
Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for SO<INF>2</INF> on the units 
listed in Section (1) in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), 
and (h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply 
with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. 
Compliance with the emission limits for SO<INF>2</INF> shall be 
determined by using data from a CEMS.
    (ii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods 
of operation of the coal burning equipment, including periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, 
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous 
monitoring systems for measuring SO<INF>2</INF> and diluent gas shall 
complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and 
data recording) for each successive 15-minute period. Hourly averages 
shall be computed using at least one data point in each fifteen minute 
quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this requirement, an hourly 
average may be computed from at least two data points separated by a 
minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates for more than one 
quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a result of performance 
of calibration, quality assurance, preventive maintenance activities, 
or backups of data from data acquisition and handling system, and 
recertification events. When valid SO<INF>2</INF> pounds per hour, or 
SO<INF>2</INF> pounds per million Btu emission data are not obtained 
because of continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 
calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be 
obtained by using other monitoring systems approved by the EPA to 
provide emission data for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour period 
and at least 22 out of 30 successive boiler operating days.
    (6) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. Unless otherwise 
stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications, and other 
communications to the Regional Administrator required by this section 
shall be submitted, unless instructed otherwise, to the Director, 
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 6, to the attention of Mail Code: 6PD, at 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. For each unit 
subject to the emissions limitation in this section and upon completion 
of the installation of CEMS as required in this section, the

[[Page 74892]]

owner or operator shall comply with the following requirements:
    (i) For each emissions limit in this section, comply with the 
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for CEMS 
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d).
    (ii) For each day, provide the total SO<INF>2</INF> emitted that 
day by each emission unit. For any hours on any unit where data for 
hourly pounds or heat input is missing, identify the unit number and 
monitoring device that did not produce valid data that caused the 
missing hour.
    (7) Equipment Operations. At all times, including periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the 
extent practicable, maintain and operate the unit including associated 
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of 
whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used 
will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator 
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 
operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the unit.
    (8) Enforcement.
    (i) Notwithstanding any other provision in this implementation 
plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as to whether the 
unit would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the 
appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, can be 
used to establish whether or not the owner or operator has violated or 
is in violation of any standard or applicable emission limit in the 
plan.
    (ii) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission 
limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a 
violation of the applicable emission limit.
* * * * *


Sec.  52.2304  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) Portions of SIPs addressing noninterference with measures 
required to protect visibility in any other state are disapproved for 
the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 1997 ozone, 2008 
ozone, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
    (e) Measures Addressing Disapproval Associated with NO<INF>X</INF> 
and SO<INF>2.</INF>
    (1) The deficiencies associated with NO<INF>X</INF> identified in 
EPA's disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Texas on March 
31, 2009, are satisfied by Section 52.2283
    (2) The deficiencies associated with SO<INF>2</INF> identified in 
EPA's disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Texas on March 
31, 2009, are satisfied by Section 52.2284.

[FR Doc. 2014-28930 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>