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

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 NOX or
SO2 (or combined NOX and SO2), located
more than 50 kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that emitted
less than 1,000 tons per year of NOX or SO2 (or
combined NOX and SO2) 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 SO2 and NOX and 15 tons/yr for
PM10. 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

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, NOX and
SO2 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   ............  ............  ............

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   ............  ............

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 SO2
and NOX 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 NOX and SO2. 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

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 NOX and SO2.'' \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
NOX and SO2. 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

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

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 SO2 emissions from point sources,
impact a number of Class I areas outside of Texas. Texas SO2
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

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
NOX, PM, SO2, 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 NH3
impair visibility in their Class I area(s).\259\ CENRAP performed
modeling sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of VOC and NH3 do not significantly impair
visibility in the CENRAP region. Therefore, Texas did not consider
NH3 among visibility-impairing pollutants and did not
further evaluate NH3 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
SO2 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 SO2 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.

                                                        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:
     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:
     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, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory modeling
studies.
     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.
     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,

respectively.\265\ Visibility impairment at Big Bend in 2002 on the
worst 20% days is largely due to SO4 from point sources that
contributes 17.7 Mm-\1\ of the total extinction of 47.79
Mm-\1\. The largest contributions of SO4 come
from Texas (5.50 Mm-\1\ from all source categories),
boundary conditions outside the modeling domain (5.82
Mm-\1\) and Mexico (8.28 Mm-\1\). Overall, the
largest source region contributions to visibility impairment in 2002
are from Mexico (12.75 Mm-\1\), Texas (11.87
Mm-\1\), and outside the modeling domain (12.27
Mm-\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 (SO4), nitrate (NO3),
primary organic aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC), soil dust,
and coarse mass (CM). These species' precursors are SO2,
NOX, and in some cases, NH3 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-\1\, a
reduction of approximately 8% from 2002 levels. Anticipated reductions
of SO2 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-\1\ in total light
extinction (1.55 Mm-\1\ decrease from Texas point sources).
Even with these expected reductions in SO2 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-\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 SO4 from point
sources and course material from natural and area sources. The largest
contributions of SO4 come from Texas (4.28 Mm-\1\
from all source categories), boundary conditions outside the modeling
domain (1.90 Mm-\1\) and Mexico (3.21 Mm-\1\).
Overall, the largest source region contributions to visibility
impairment in 2002 are from Texas (16.62 Mm-\1\), New Mexico
(3.49 Mm-\1\), Mexico (7.90 Mm-\1\), and source
outside the modeling domain (4.16 Mm-\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-\1\, a reduction of approximately 7% from 2002 levels.
Anticipated reductions of SO2 emissions primarily from point
sources in Texas, the Eastern United States, Indiana, Alabama and Ohio
will account for a decrease of 2.02 Mm-\1\ in total light
extinction (0.68 Mm-\1\ decrease from Texas point sources).
Even with these expected reductions in SO2 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-\1\, primarily due to expected reductions from point
sources.

                             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

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

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.
     The TCEQ implements CAIR.
     The TCEQ implements a number of federal and state rules
related to mobile source emissions.
     The TCEQ implements some major point sources
NOX 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 NOX emission
reductions related to ozone SIP revisions for the Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria area, Beaumont-Port Arthur area, Austin, Northeast Texas, and
East Texas.
     A number of miscellaneous programs including
SO2 reductions under our refinery consent decrees; the Texas
Low Emissions Diesel Program; the Texas Emission Reduction Plan to
reduce NOX 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

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,

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
NOX, SO2, and PM BART determinations. We
disapproved Oklahoma's submitted SO2 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 SO2 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

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 SO2 BART
determinations for six EGUs at three power plants in Oklahoma and
promulgated a FIP setting more stringent SO2 emission limits