>> Questions or Comments: execdir@tceq.texas.gov
You are here:

2003-2009: TCEQ National Comments Log Relating to Air Issues

Official statements of the TCEQ's position regarding national policies and activities relating to air issues prior to 2010.

Date
Submitted
Short Title
12/15/09 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
12/07/09 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by the Federal PSD Permit Program
11/25/09 Proposed Rulemaking To Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
11/23/09 Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Modification of Existing Qualified Facilities Program
11/23/09 Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment NSR for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, NSR Reform, and a Standard Permit
11/23/09 Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Flexible Permits
11/18/09 Review of the Draft Document Related to NAAQS for Carbon Monoxide
09/28/09 Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder
09/11/09 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide
07/23/09 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program
07/01/09 NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
06/26/09 Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments
06/23/09 Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
06/09/09 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
02/23/09 Proposed Rule to Implement the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
02/11/09 Approval and Promulgation of Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
01/27/09 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Public Participation on Permits for New and Modified Sources
09/05/08 Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG)
08/26/08 EPA Classification of Ozone Nonattainment Areas Under the New Ozone NAAQS
08/20/08 EPA's Proposed Rule to Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
08/12/08 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) From Stationary Sources
06/23/08 New Source Performance Standards Review for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants
05/27/08 NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories
04/14/08 Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations
02/20/08 Final Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Designations for the Early Action Compact Areas
02/07/08 Midlothian Area Air Quality Part 1: Volatile Organic Compounds & Metals
01/30/08 Clean Air Act Reclassification of the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas
01/16/08 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead
11/30/07 Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
11/19/07 Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
10/31/07 NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries
10/16/07 NESHAP: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
10/09/07 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
08/07/07 Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source Review: Refinement of Increment Modeling Procedures
08/01/07 Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries
07/19/07 Model-Based Analysis and Tracking of Airborne Mercury Emissions to Assist in Watershed Planning
07/02/07 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
06/14/07 Revisions to Definitions in CAIR/CAMR Program Rules
05/31/07 Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
04/10/07 Public Hearings and Submission of Plans
03/22/07 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines—Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Standards; Onboard Diagnostic Requirements
03/08/07 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General Provisions
03/06/07 Revisions of Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources
01/08/07 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories
10/03/06 EPA’s Proposed 30% cut in the IMPROVE Monitoring Network
09/05/06 Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Printing Materials, Coatings, and Cleaning Solvents
09/05/06 Electric Generating Unit NOx Annual and Season Allocations for the Clean Air Interstate Rule Federal Implementation Plan Trading Programs
08/11/06 Boutique Fuels List Under Section 1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act
07/10/06 Transition to New or Revised Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
06/05/06 Alternative Work Practice to Detect Leaks from Equipment
05/09/06 Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events
05/03/06 Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR)
04/17/06 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
04/17/06 EPA's 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58, Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations
03/24/06 EPA's Draft 2006-11 Strategic Plan Architecture
01/31/06 Draft Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress under the Regional Haze Program
01/31/06 Proposed 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Rule To Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards
12/19/05 Revision of Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
10/28/05 Strategic Petroleum Reserve Expansion
10/24/05 Petition from North Carolina to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Revisions to the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Acid Rain Program
10/17/05 Determining the Emissions Reductions Achieved in Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas from the Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC Content of AIM Coatings
07/06/05 Extension of the Deferred Effective Date for 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early Action Compact Areas
06/07/05 Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal
05/26/05 Proposal to Exempt Area Sources Subject to NESHAP From Federal and State Operating Permit Programs
05/09/05 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Nitrogen Oxides
05/04/05 EPA’s Draft Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants
04/28/05 Comments on Potentially Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act Applicable Requirements and on Methods To Improve Such Monitoring
03/31/05 Second Draft Staff Paper for Particulate Matter; Notice of Draft for Public Review
03/21/05 8-Hour Implementation Rule Reconsideration
03/21/05 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
03/07/05 Information Collection Request (ICR) for Source Compliance and State Action Reporting
02/07/05 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration Units
01/31/05 Proposed Rule on Options for PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New PM2.5 and Existing PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
12/21/04 Legislative Report on Rider 15, Big Bend Air Haze Study
10/29/04 Test Procedures for Testing Highway and Nonroad Engines and Omnibus Technical Amendments; Proposed Rule
10/05/04 Nitrogen Oxides Exemption Guidance for the Proposed Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
09/30/04 Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems Issues Paper
08/31/04 Proposed Rules for Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Locomotive Engines and New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder
08/16/04 Proposed Rule on Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles
07/27/04 Supplemental Proposal for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule)
07/15/04 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Proposed Rule in 40 CFR 51
06/29/04 Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units published in the March 16, 2004 Federal Register.
06/29/04 Proposed Rule for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units published in the January 30, 2004 Federal Register.
03/30/04 Proposed Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule)
01/20/04 Air Toxic Assessment Library
01/15/04 Deferral of Effective Date of Nonattainment Designations for 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early Action Compact Areas.
01/13/04 Transportation Conformity Rule Revision
12/16/03 Proposed rule to control Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines.
11/05/03 Response to EPA's 8-hour Implementation Rule Reopening Regarding Classification Alternatives
10/28/03 First Draft Staff Paper For Particulate Matter
10/17/03 Executive Management Review and Signature for a TDH Letter of Support regarding an application to EPA for the Children's Environmental Health Protection State Level Collaboration to Address Childhood Asthma Initiative
10/8/03 Comments on Documents cited in 68 FR 52934: USEPA, "Comparison of Regulatory Design Concentrations: AERMOD vs. ISCST3, CTDMPLUS, ISC-PRIME" and USEPA, "AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results"
09/05/03 Draft Regulatory Text to Accompany the 8-hour Implementation Rule Proposal
08/20/03 Proposal to Reclassify the Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA) Ozone Nonattainment Area
08/20/03 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel, a proposed rule
08/01/03 8-hour Implementation Rule Proposal
05/02/03 Proposed Changes to the Routine Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Exclusion to the New Source Review in 40 CFR 51 and 52
02/21/03 Comments on the American Trucking Assoc. Petition for Reconsideration of the Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Vehicles rule
01/15/03 EPA's Proposed 8-hour Designation Recommendation Schedule

DATE SUBMITTED: 12/15/09

SHORT TITLE: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Michael Wilhoit

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ does not support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) actions to regulate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The TCEQ believes the administrative and fiscal impacts of the proposed rule would be highly burdensome on both the TCEQ and on the regulated community, and that there are other methods the federal government could apply to reduce GHG emissions without regulation under the CAA. In addition, the proposed tailoring rule goes beyond the authority granted in CAA § 110(k)(6) by also amending federal rules and unilaterally applying those changes to the states through their Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) state implementation plans. The TCEQ suggests EPA could use the same rationale that justifies the Tailoring Rule and apply it to a delay in stationary source GHG regulation until full development of a federal New Source Review permitting program for GHG emissions occurs. The TCEQ does not support EPA’s proposed implementation schedule, under which PSD permitting for GHG could begin as early as March 2010. The TCEQ recommends that EPA reexamine the need for stationary source GHG regulation as a result of the GHG Light Duty Vehicle Rule.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 12/07/09

SHORT TITLE: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by the Federal PSD Permit Program

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Dom Ruggeri

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ supports allowing the necessary time to evaluate emission characteristics and control options before making a pollutant subject to PSD requirements through promulgation of control requirements. The TCEQ supports the conclusion of the EPA’s December 18, 2008, memo that the phrase "subject to regulation" as used in 40 CFR § 52.21(b)(50) is based on the concept of control, and that PSD permitting of GHG pollutants is not triggered by the existence of rules that require monitoring and reporting (but not control) of GHG emissions. The TCEQ supports an amendment to § 52.21(b)(50)(iv) to clarify that a pollutant is not subject to PSD unless the emissions of that pollutant are controlled by an applicable regulation.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 11/25/09

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Rulemaking To Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Morris Brown

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ has implemented a number of regulatory air quality control strategies in its State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to reduce VOC and NOX emissions from light-duty vehicles in the areas of Texas that have been designated by the EPA as nonattainment for ground level ozone. Staff is concerned that the adoption of the proposed rules for new GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles will have a negative impact on the efforts to meet SIP goals. Staff recommends the TCEQ comment on the potential negative impact that the new GHG standards will have on criteria pollutant emissions that are of critical importance for compliance with the NAAQS, primarily the expected increase in VOC and NOX emissions. The recommendation is for the EPA to take action to compensate for the anticipated increase in criteria pollutants from the rebound effect by lowering the light-duty vehicle manufacturer's fleet average NOx emission standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile under the Tier 2 emission standards for light-duty vehicles specified in 40 CFR Part 86 to a tighter fleet average NOX emission standard of 0.04 grams of NOX per mile. This action would offset any increases in criteria pollutants resulting from the rebound effect associated with the proposed new GHG emissions standards. The current fleet average NOX emission standard of 0.07 grams per mile is equivalent to the Tier 2 Bin 5 standard, the recommended lower standard would be equivalent to the Tier 2 Bin 4 standard. Lowering the fleet average NOX emission standard to a Tier 2 Bin 4 equivalent should not be much of a technological burden on vehicle manufacturers since approximately 15 percent of all new model year 2010 Tier 2 vehicles are certified to a Tier 2 Bin 4 emission standard.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 11/23/09

SHORT TITLE: Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Modification of Existing Qualified Facilities Program

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Dom Ruggeri

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The Texas Qualified Facilities program does not circumvent federal NSR permitting requirements. The Qualified Facilities program has only been applied to minor NSR, not major NSR, and does not supersede or negate federal requirements. The TCEQ will work with EPA to clarify applicable rule language to ensure that qualified facilities projects are specifically limited to minor NSR changes. TCEQ believes that EPA has misunderstood the key term "facility" as used in Texas air quality regulations. TCEQ supports EPA’s proposal to approve the definitions of grandfathered facility, maximum allowable emission rate table, and new facility. TCEQ will consider EPA’s comments concerning EPA’s proposed disapproval of the definitions of best available control technology, actual emissions, allowable emissions, and the other definitions for which EPA has proposed disapproval. TCEQ will consider rulemaking to address a number of issues relating to qualified facilities.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 11/23/09

SHORT TITLE: Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment NSR for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, NSR Reform, and a Standard Permit

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Dom Ruggeri

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ will work with EPA to ensure that commission rules concerning backsliding and PSD requirements will be brought up-to-date. TCEQ reiterates that the Texas PSD program does not circumvent federal NSR requirements and does not allow control technology that is less than best available control technology as defined in federal rule. TCEQ believes that EPA has misunderstood the key term "facility" as used in Texas air quality regulations. TCEQ has concerns about including malfunction emissions when determining actual baseline emissions under federal NSR, but TCEQ is willing to work with EPA to clarify the inclusion of startup and shutdown emissions when determining baseline actual emissions. TCEQ will clarify aspects of the Plantwide Applicability Limits rules that EPA stated are missing or unclear. With respect to the Pollution Control Standard Permit, TCEQ understands EPA’s comments and will work with EPA to develop approvable authorization(s) that will achieve the same goals and emission reductions.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 11/23/09

SHORT TITLE: Revisions to the New Source Review State Implementation Plan; Flexible Permits

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Dom Ruggeri

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The Texas Flexible Permits program does not circumvent federal NSR permitting requirements. Substantial emission reductions have been achieved under the Flexible Permits program, resulting in improved air quality. TCEQ believes that EPA has misunderstood the key terms "facility" and "source" as used in Texas air quality regulations. While TCEQ does not believe that the Flexible Permits program circumvents federal requirements, TCEQ will propose a number of changes to improve the clarity and enforceability of the regulations.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 11/18/09

SHORT TITLE: Review of the Draft Document Related to NAAQS for Carbon Monoxide

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Carla Kinslow

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

There are two main concerns regarding the information contained in this Draft Review. First, the authors discuss the extreme limitations of the monitoring and human study data. TCEQ suggests that the limitations of the current body of literature regarding CO and human health strictly impedes the ability of the EPA to create a standard that is scientifically based, thus there will be a lack of confidence in any change in the current standard which is based on such limited and conflicting data. Second, by the author’s own admission, the APEX exposure model has a tendency to overestimate exposure and dose. The authors go on to say that applying the APEX exposure model to assess the adequacy of the current standards is limited. TCEQ suggests that a more appropriate model should be used to assess the adequacy of the current standards and a new risk and exposure assessment should be completed before EPA conducts a review of the current CO standard.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 09/28/09

SHORT TITLE: Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Morris Brown

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ encourages the EPA to adopt the new emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines as proposed. In addition, the TCEQ encourages the EPA to adopt the proposed diesel fuel rules that would prohibit the production and sale of marine fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in any marine diesel vessel operating within U.S. waters. This proposal would eliminate the current 500 ppm sulfur standard for locomotive and Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel, thereby requiring all diesel fuel, except for marine fuel oil to be used in Category 3 marine diesel engines, to meet a 15 ppm sulfur standard after 2014. The TCEQ believes that the adoption of the proposed emissions standards for new Category 3 marine diesel engines and changes to the federal diesel fuel program would provide a significant reduction of NOx, particulate matter, and sulfur oxides emissions from marine vessels and would contribute to the air quality goals of Texas and the U.S.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 09/11/09

SHORT TITLE: Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Brian Foster

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:<

The U.S. EPA is proposing to establish a new one-hour NO2 standard that would focus on short-term exposures to NO2, which are generally highest on and near major roads. The EPA is also proposing to retain the current annual average NO2 standard and is requesting comment on supplementing the current annual standard with a community-wide one-hour NO2 standard. Finally, the EPA is proposing to change the monitoring network to capture both peak NO2 concentrations that occur near roadways and community-wide NO2 concentrations.

The TCEQ:

  1. Agrees on retaining NO2 as the indicator for ambient oxides of nitrogen
  2. Agrees that the one-hour daily maximum is the appropriate short-term averaging time
  3. Recommends the fourth highest daily maximum concentration averaged over three years as the form of the standard
  4. Recommends that the level of the one-hour NO2 standard be no lower than 100 parts per billion (ppb)
  5. Does not agree with the proposed alternative standard levels as low as 65 ppb
  6. Does not agree with the proposed alternative approach of establishing an area-wide one-hour maximum NO2 standard of 50-75 ppb
  7. Disagrees with the proposal to locate new air quality monitors on or near roadways
  8. Recommends that monitoring be limited to neighborhood and area-wide special scales

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/23/09

SHORT TITLE: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Morris Brown

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ has implemented a number of regulatory air quality control strategies under the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOx emissions in the areas of Texas that have been designated by the EPA as being in violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground level ozone. Ground level ozone is created by a photochemical reaction of VOC and NOx emissions in the presence of sunlight. TCEQ recognizes the potential negative impact that increased use of renewable fuels will have on criteria pollutant emissions that are of critical importance for compliance with the NAAQS, primarily the expected increase in VOC and NOX emissions. The recommendation is for the EPA to reevaluate the appropriateness of requiring an increased use of renewable fuels in areas of the nation that are already designated by the EPA as nonattainment areas under the NAAQS for ground level ozone or in areas that are considered to be near-nonattainment areas.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/01/09

SHORT TITLE: NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Martin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ supports the proposed rule and is submitting specific recommendations on various aspects of the proposed rule. The TCEQ suggests that certain changes to the EPAs proposal would simplify and reduce the cost of compliance for sources subject to this rule, which are predominately small businesses employing fewer than ten persons, while simultaneously improving the sources ability to continuously achieve the stated emissions reductions of certain metal HAPs. Specifically, the TCEQ Air Permits Division is offering comments on three areas of the proposed rule: 1) six specific comments regarding the particulate matter control systems and compliance monitoring thereof; 2) one comment regarding aligning the compliance deadlines of this rule with other similar federal rules; and 3) three comments on recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/26/09

SHORT TITLE: Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Margie McAllister

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The EPA proposes three options for setting an updated baseline year for conformity purposes. The baseline is used for interim conformity tests when there is no applicable motor vehicle emissions budget. Option 1 would set the baseline at 2008, option 2 would define the baseline at whatever year is used to meet other air quality planning requirements, and option 3 would set the baseline at 2005. The TCEQ believes option 2 is the best choice because it would provide needed flexibility for implementing the rule and decrease the need for revising the rule in the future.

TCEQ also believes EPAs rule language should provide interagency consultation partners (which includes EPA regional staff) flexibility in selecting the best conformity baseline year for air quality purposes for the specific nonattainment area. Option 2 should apply to all national ambient air quality standards that are incorporated into the EPAs transportation conformity rule, not just the standards referenced in the proposal (particulate matter). The rest of the proposed rule revision incorporates the 2006 PM2.5 and PM10 national ambient air quality standards into existing conformity requirements, and provides a minor clarification of existing hot-spot conformity requirements.

Although the proposed rule revision does not affect the current conformity situation in Texas, comments are provided to encourage consistency and efficiency in anticipation of implementing transportation conformity for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/23/09

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Minor Hibbs

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) believes the Clean Air Act (CAA) is not an appropriate vehicle to regulate Greenhouse Gases (GHG). For the most part, the CAA assumes that state and local governments are able through regulations and permit requirements to implement emission controls that will improve air quality. GHG are distributed relatively uniformly throughout the world and state and local emission controls would have little or no impact on global concentrations.

The Executive Director does not believe that any regulatory mechanisms under the CAA are suited for control of substances which, like GHG, are uniformly distributed throughout the world. The result would be the imposition of expensive, burdensome regulations with little or no chance of success without similar controls implemented worldwide.

The Executive Director strongly believes it is inappropriate for EPA to move forward on the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings without consideration of the regulatory mechanisms to be used to implement the findings and without consideration of the economic impacts on Texas and the nation as a result of such regulations.

The Executive Director believes that the Administrator should withdraw the endangerment finding and conduct a thoughtful review of the totality of scientific research as well as conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. At the very least, the Administrator should provide additional time for reviewers to conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of this information. The ramifications of this endangerment finding are too significant to be based on such a limited analysis.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/09/09

SHORT TITLE: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Brian Foster

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The Executive Director of TCEQ provided detailed comments on the following various aspects of the proposal: Delegation to States; Implications for Current State Administered Federal Programs; Role of States; Verification Option; Reporting Burden; Impact on Small Business and Local Governments; Characterization and Unintended Consequences of Reporting; State and Local Transportation Data; and, Vehicle Fleets.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 02/23/09

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Rule to Implement the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Margaret Earnest

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ comments address three issues:

1. Reclassification of Subpart 1 eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas
Comment: Support for proposal that areas originally covered under Subpart 1 that have been redesignated to attainment not be affected by the reclassifications; and support for language in the preamble limiting the reclassifications under Subpart 2 to this rulemaking only, leaving open the possibility that classifications for other ozone standards could occur under Subpart 1 in the future.

2. Anti-backsliding provisions relating to the one-hour ozone standard
New Source Review Permitting Requirement and Federal Clean Air Act, §185 Penalty Fee Requirement
Comment: Removal of the provision to allow New Source Review permits to be processed without concurrent proposal of regulations regarding how to implement New Source Review anti-backsliding creates an unreasonable administrative burden for states. The EPA should move quickly to propose guidance and/or regulations to states to prevent misalignment between federal and state rules.

Contingency Measures Requirement
Comment: Comment that the use of the Clean Data Policy does not resolve one-hour ozone planning requirements adequately; and that the revocation of the standard does not remove the EPAs authority to make redesignations to attainment, given that anti-backsliding requirements still apply.

3. Deletion of an obsolete provision in the one-hour ozone standard (40 CFR §50.9)
Comment: None.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 02/11/09

SHORT TITLE: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Martin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ Air Permits Division staff recommend that the EPA modify a perceived outdated and inaccurate exemption provision that is currently contained within Subpart Ec, §60.50c(e). The current exemption concerns Subparts Cb, Ea, or Eb, but should be amended to include units subject to exemptions for Subpart AAAA or Subpart BBBB.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/27/09

SHORT TITLE: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Public Participation on Permits for New and Modified Sources

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Legal Services

STAFF CONTACT: Janis Hudson

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQs notice rules are consistent with earlier versions of the public participation rules that have been SIP-approved by EPA. TCEQs rules, in some cases, exceed federal requirements. TCEQs basis for this position is that: (1) EPA has provided states great latitude in developing their minor new source review programs, including public participation for those programs, and therefore full and fair notice should be given if EPA wants to impose specific requirements for TCEQs rules; and, (2) EPA should provide Texas the same deference as other states (which occurred after TCEQs rules were adopted in 1999) regarding the flexibility of Texas program. However, the comments acknowledge that some rule amendments are needed to: ensure the rule text adequately and completely reflect our notice practice; address miscellaneous specific requirements that are not included; and, provide updates and correct cross-references.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 09/05/08

SHORT TITLE: Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG)

SUBMITTED TO: National Park Service

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Martin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff supports all efforts to refine the FLAG Phase I Report - Revised. The TCEQ agrees that a consistent, transparent approach is needed and TCEQ comments are intended to provide the state perspective as well as update the FLM on comments made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on related rule packages - Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source Review: Refinement of Increment Modeling Procedures and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC). The TCEQ has targeted 11 areas of interest and included the necessary, specific supporting information.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/26/08

SHORT TITLE: EPA Classification of Ozone Nonattainment Areas Under the New Ozone NAAQS

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Susana Hildebrand, P.E.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ requests that the U.S. EPA develop a more sensible classification system and proposes an option developed by TCEQ staff that would allow nonattainment areas a more reasonable amount of time to attain the standard.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/20/08

SHORT TITLE: EPA's Proposed Rule to Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Santos Olizarez

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ finds that the proposal does not address how General Conformity will be treated under the new requirements. Although similar to Transportation Conformity requirements in that General Conformity is only required in nonattainment and maintenance areas, General Conformity determinations are based on emissions budgets adopted in state implementation plans. The TCEQ recommends developing comments requesting clarity on how General Conformity is to be addressed in the Phase 2 rule.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/12/08

SHORT TITLE: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) From Stationary Sources

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Vincent Meiller

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

EPA made a number of incorrect references in the Federal Register notice that could imply that certain pre-existing Chapter 117 rules were revised with substantive changes during the rulemaking or were associated with the DFW eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision when in reality were associated with other nonattainment areas. In several instances EPA refers to rules that only apply in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment area when discussing rules that result in reductions that will help the DFW area. The proposal also makes overlapping references to the new Chapter 117 East Texas Combustion rule for stationary rich-burn gas-fired engines and to the existing Chapter 117 Utility Electric Generation in East and Central Texas rules for electric generation facilities in East and Central Texas. These incorrect references may cause affected parties to assume substantive changes were made to parts of Chapter 117 where no changes were made.

EPA proposed to approve the NOx emission specifications for stationary diesel engines at major sources in DFW. However, EPA excluded the diesel engine NOx emission specifications for the new Chapter 117 DFW eight-hour ozone nonattainment area Minor Source Rule.

In the list of sections to be excluded from the Texas SIP, a non-existent subsection, §117.3010(e), is listed as being withheld from the SIP. This error is the result of a typographical error in the adoption preamble of the Chapter 117 reorganization rulemaking and the appropriate citation from that section that should have been withheld is §117.3010(2).

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/23/08

SHORT TITLE: New Source Performance Standards Review for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Compliance and Enforcement

STAFF CONTACT: Joe Janecka

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ submitted edits to several portions of the proposed rule to improve the practical enforceability of the following details: proposed definition of "saturated material", 7-day notice on Method 9 tests, Table 2 readability (EPA is soliciting comments and TCEQ submits an opinion), periodic water spray inspection and corrections, electronic-only records, and clarification of synthetic gypsum as a non-metallic mineral.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/27/08

SHORT TITLE: NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Martin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ supports the proposed rule and submits specific comments to streamline the requirements for existing sources and make the requirements more stringent for new sources. Specific comments include suggestions regarding general applicability and compliance with the proposed rule as well as comments regarding the specific control requirements for dry abrasive blasting, dry grinding, and spray painting operations.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 04/14/08

SHORT TITLE: Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Koy Howard

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

EPA is proposing to add a new section to allow for a facility-wide emission budget approach. Once this budget is approved, minor actions under the control of the facility where an analysis determines that the emissions are below a de minimis threshold could proceed with no conformity determination. If the emissions were determined to be above the de minimis threshold, the facility could demonstrate that the emissions from the proposed action along with the emissions at the facility are within the EPA approved facility-wide emission budget and that no conformity determination was necessary. The TCEQ supports this proposal which provides facilities with flexibility in determining if new activities at the facility are within their approved budget and within thresholds that would not require conformity determinations.

EPA is proposing a new section to establish an early emission reduction credit program and incorporate the use of early emissions reduction credits into the regulations. If the credits are issued, then a federal agency can use the credits to reduce the total of direct and indirect emissions from a proposed action.

The TCEQ supports this proposal as the reduction credits would have to be quantifiable, consistent with the SIP attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations, enforceable and permanent within the timeframe established by the credit program.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 02/20/08

SHORT TITLE: Final Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Designations for the Early Action Compact Areas

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Walker Williamson

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) supports the San Antonio areas designation as attainment for eight-hour ozone. The TCEQ acknowledges and praises the areas proactive efforts, which enabled it to reach attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard without the restrictions of nonattainment status, and the areas commitment to the protection of public health through improved air quality.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 02/07/08

SHORT TITLE: Midlothian Area Air Quality Part 1: Volatile Organic Compounds & Metals

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Tracie Phillips, Ph.D.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
In general, there appear to be major errors in the interpretation of TCEQs air monitoring data throughout the document, as well as discrepancies with the numbers used for the evaluation. Comments specific to the four reasons for the DSHS classification are:
1. These eighteen chemicals do not have toxicity values available as they are considered relatively non-toxic. However, they can be evaluated via other means (i.e., chemical surrogate and Cramer Classification). The Toxicology Section (TS) conducted these evaluations and found no adverse health effects would be expected in association with these chemicals. Results of the TS evaluations will be provided to DSHS.
2. The TS has previously provided DSHS with evidence (references and data) showing it is not reasonable to assume that chromium(VI) accounts for 100% of the total chromium concentration. EPA has determined that the range which chromium(VI) represents of total chromium is 0.4 to 70%. Also, ATSDR states that chromium(VI) is rapidly reduced to chromium(III) in the atmosphere.
3. DSHS should be able to make conclusions regarding the constituents included in this report (i.e., volatile organic compounds, inorganic compounds, and metals) without additional information relating to NAAQS compounds, which are to be included in a separate report.
4. Routine VOC monitoring began in the Midlothian area in 1993 as part of the Community Air Toxics Monitoring Network, and has continued at up to three sites. Routine metals monitoring in that area has been conducted for various periods of time (1981 to present), depending at least in part on the particle size of federal regulatory emphasis. Data gaps notwithstanding, the VOC and metals air monitoring data from the Midlothian area compose an impressively rich data set.

POTENTIAL IMPACT ON TCEQ:
The Indeterminate Public Health Hazard finding regarding air toxics in Midlothian may lead citizens and elected officials to believe the air quality is causing health impacts when air toxics monitoring in the Midlothian area not only indicates acceptable air quality but also better air quality than most monitored areas of the country. This concern could lead to pressure on TCEQ to shift resources from areas of concern in order to expend more resources in the Midlothian area.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/30/08

SHORT TITLE: Clean Air Act Reclassification of the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Lola Brown

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
The TCEQ supports the EPAs proposal to grant a voluntary reclassification in accordance with the FCAA, §181(b)(3). The TCEQ supports an April 2010 HGB SIP submittal date and attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than June 15, 2019. The TCEQ does not support an earlier submittal deadline. A December 2008 deadline would mean that all technical work on the HGB SIP would be discontinued. The SIP revision would contain little more than outdated modeling (2000 episode) and a control strategy package that relies solely on fleet turnover from federal rules.

It is imperative that the EPA provide the TCEQ adequate time to develop a comprehensive and technically sound HGB eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration. If the TCEQ does not have sufficient time to include 2006 data, the HGB SIP and improvement in air quality in the HGB area may be delayed because the TCEQ will not have adequate data to support implementing appropriate rules as expeditiously as practicable.

There are three principal components that are critical in developing the eight-hour attainment demonstration for the HGB area: photochemical modeling demonstration, control strategy development, and the stakeholder process. The TCEQ plans to complete these activities by April 2010.

SIP-relevant analyses from data collected as a part of TexAQS II (Texas Air Quality Study) in 2005 and 2006 are now becoming available. The April 2010 submittal date allows the state to incorporate TexAQS II data related to emission inventory, photochemistry, and meteorology into the technical work.

The TCEQ will use the 2006 Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) and VOC Emissions Inventory (EI) year for control strategy development. However, processing and quality assuring the 2006 EI, which is being expedited for the HGB area, will not be complete until early 2008, meaning some of the early aspects of control strategy development cannot begin until spring 2008. The 2006 EI year will represent the most accurate VOC EI for the HGB area to date, which is critical considering the under representation of VOC emissions in previous HGB SIP modeling.

Since the air quality challenges in the HGB area require emissions reduction from all source categories and from local governments, broad involvement and participation from different sectors of the community will be needed. Providing enough time to prepare for and involve interested parties will result in a more defensible SIP.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/16/08

SHORT TITLE: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Jim Price

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
There are multiple pathways for lead exposure, including lead in food, consumer products, lead paint in old housing, and ambient air. Because there are multiple pathways, meeting a NAAQS for lead, no matter how low the standard is, cannot ensure protection of public health from lead toxicity. Instead, a NAAQS for lead is only one of a number of risk reduction steps that must be combined to protect public health. If the EPA establishes a more stringent NAAQS, the EPA should select a reasonable level that does not divert public health resources from effective efforts to reduce public exposure to lead from paint in houses, consumer products, and contaminated soil.

Whether the EPA reaffirms the current NAAQS for lead, makes it more stringent, or revokes it, EPA should adopt appropriate, cost-effective monitoring requirements for ambient air at potentially significant industrial sources, mainly primary and secondary lead smelters, to ensure against toxicologically significant exposure to lead through ambient air. If the EPA does not have the authority to require this monitoring without a NAAQS for lead, the EPA should retain a NAAQS for lead.

The EPA should either continue using the current calendar quarter averaging period or change to a rolling three-month averaging time whether the EPA keeps or changes the level of the standard. Instead of shortening the NAAQS averaging time, a more appropriate way to address the need for a quick response to short-term high ambient air lead concentrations and to sudden increases in lead concentrations is prompt enforcement of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and state/local rules and permit requirements for upsets.

Depending on EPA's final action, enhanced monitoring may be required which could increase capital and operating costs and work load, affecting the TCEQs Monitoring Operations Division and regional offices. A lowering of the standard could result in nonattainment areas in Texas, and these nonattainment areas would require SIP revisions.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 11/30/07

SHORT TITLE: Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Walker Williamson

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
The TCEQ recognizes that the 2004, 2005, and 2006 eight-hour ozone data indicate that the BPA areas design value was not below 0.08 parts per million (ppm). For any SIP revision, the most current and robust technical work is optimal. However, due to the short timeframe for submittal, if the TCEQ is required to submit an attainment demonstration SIP revision for the area by January 1, 2009, use of existing and somewhat outdated technical work would be necessary. The commission notes that the 2005, 2006, and 2007 eight-hour ozone data indicate that the area now attains the standard.

While the TCEQ anticipates continued monitored attainment, the TCEQ requests clarification regarding the following:

If, after notice and comment rulemaking, EPA determines that the area does attain the standard at the end of 2007, the requirement to submit SIPs related to attainment of the standard shall be suspended until such time as (1) the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or (2) EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.918).

It is unclear whether the EPA would publish notice and take comment regarding a new SIP submittal deadline should the BPA area violate the standard after the determination has been made that SIP requirements are suspended.

Return to TopBack to top

DATE SUBMITTED: 11/19/07

SHORT TITLE: Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Beryl Thatcher

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
Due to the complexity of the issues contained in the proposed rule notice, the TCEQ has developed a detailed response that includes comments on various issues. These issues include: options to establish increments for PM2.5, SILs, options for PM2.5 SMC, and the proposed effective dates and deadlines.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/31/07

SHORT TITLE: NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Vincent Meiller

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
EPA included language that appears to indicate that EPA would allow the use of air stripping methods that determine strippable volatile organic compounds (VOC) as an alternative surrogate approach to monitoring. An air stripping method is commonly used in TCEQ permitting requirements and in some TCEQ rules, e.g., 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115, §115.764, for cooling tower monitoring of VOC. However, while one such air stripping method is frequently referred to as the "El Paso Method," the term "VOC El Paso" is not defined. TCEQ recommends that if EPA's intent is to allow such air stripping methods then EPA should specifically cite such methods or define "VOC El Paso."

EPA stated (Federal Register 50723) that existing industry monitoring of surrogate parameters will only detect large leaks. In general, TCEQ agrees with regard to surrogate parameters such as total organic carbon, chlorine usage, and other similar methods. However, TCEQ disagrees with EPA's characterization with regard to air stripping methods such as the procedures mentioned above. Air stripping systems coupled with gas chromatography analysis of the stripped gas sample can achieve detection limits in some cases less than 1.0 part-per-billion by weight in the cooling water. In addition, air stripping systems have the advantage of being enclosed stripping systems that eliminate potential loss of highly volatile compounds such as 1,3-butadiene that could be lost during the sample collection procedure of 40 CFR 61, §61.355(c)(1) cited by EPA in the proposed regulation. TCEQ suggests that EPA consider allowing air stripping methods coupled with speciation techniques as an alternative to EPA Method 8260B for compounds that the regulated entity can demonstrate comparable sensitivity to EPA Method 8260B.

Some of the compounds listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 63 Subpart CC are not listed on the target list of EPA Method 8260B. TCEQ recommends that EPA reevaluate the appropriateness of Method 8260B for the compounds on Table 1 and, if necessary, specify suitable alternative methods for compounds that Method 8260B is not appropriate.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/16/07

SHORT TITLE: NESHAP: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Beryl Thatcher

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
Due to the complexity of the issues contained in the proposed rule notice, the TCEQ has developed a detailed response that includes comments on various issues, including the requirements to install paint booths, testing methods, insufficient types of coating application equipment allowed, and the cost of training for operators.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/09/07

SHORT TITLE: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Neeraja Erraguntla

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
Texas could experience significant economic impacts if the standard is lowered. However, the epidemiological and clinical studies used by EPA to support lowering the ozone NAAQS do not adequately demonstrate attributing the adverse effects only to ozone.

Texas currently has twenty counties in three designated ozone nonattainment areas, three counties in one deferred nonattainment area with an Early Action Compact, and, ten counties in two other areas with Early Action Compacts. (Increasing the precision of the current standard would mean that an additional five counties would exceed the standard.)

If the standard is lowered to 0.075 ppm, ten additional counties would exceed the standard, resulting in four new nonattainment areas. However, if the standard is lowered to 0.060 ppm, every county in Texas that has an ozone monitor would exceed the standard, resulting in twelve nonattainment areas.

Texas is using every opportunity to address its ozone problems. New standards would be difficult to meet. The EPA should recognize that much of the remaining emissions sources are mobile sources which states are largely preempted from regulating.

At proposed levels, background ozone levels in Texas are already high enough to make it difficult for many areas to attain the proposed standard.

This proposal does not contain implementation guidance. The current State Implementation Plan process must be thoroughly reconsidered and revised to have any hope in meeting a new standard in a timely manner. The process will need to place greater accountability on the federal government to do their share to address interstate transport and mobile sources. Because of the increased complexities with the proposed standard, current funding provided to states from the EPA will not be adequate to address any expected implementation requirements.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/07/07

SHORT TITLE: Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source Review: Refinement of Increment Modeling Procedures

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Beryl Thatcher

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
Due to the complexity of the issues contained in the proposed rule notice, the TCEQ has developed a detailed response that includes comments on various issues including the eight areas summarized on page 31379 of the preamble and the 14 proposals contained in the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) Recommendations for Improving the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program, May 2005. These issues range from procedures that address air dispersion modeling techniques and guidance to rule changes that amend the process used to calculate emission rates and require the inclusion of mobile source and area source emissions in addition to stationary source emissions in increment analyses.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/01/07

SHORT TITLE: Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Tara Capobianco

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
The TCEQ recommends a total particulate matter (PM) standard be used in best available control technology (BACT) determinations when permitting fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) in Texas. TCEQ supports a control requirement of 1.0 lb. total PM (condensable and non-condensable) per 1000 lbs. coke burn and encourages the EPA to continue to improve Method 202.

The TCEQ requests the EPA to clarify whether the intent is to set stricter standards for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides when oxygen enrichment is used for FCCUs. The EPA acknowledged the availability of oxygen enrichment for FCCUs and has adjusted the coke burnoff determination methods to accommodate that possibility. However, the impact that oxygen enrichment might have on concentrations of other pollutants has not been considered, and the equation as written would result in stricter standards when using oxygen enrichment. The TCEQ also requests the EPA to clarify the intent in cases where oxygen enrichment is used for sulfur recovery units.

The emission limitations include several long-term averaging periods, including 7-day and 365-day periods. The TCEQ requests the EPA clarify how compliance with these limitations should be determined when startup, shutdown, and malfunction activities occur during the averaging of time.

Regarding the coke burn-off rate Equation 2 on page 27210, the definition of the K2 constant appears to incorrectly reference "%" (concentration), when there is no "%" multiplier in the term K2Qa in Equation 2 (Qa is a volumetric flow rate).

The TCEQ recommends that § 60.107a(b), Exemption from H2S monitoring requirement for low-sulfur gas streams located on page 27217, be authorized with mandated records and testing instead of being approved by the administrator.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/19/07

SHORT TITLE: Model-Based Analysis and Tracking of Airborne Mercury Emissions to Assist in Watershed Planning

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Dave Harper

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
The EPA plans to conduct additional modeling with updated emissions from the 1999 2002 period modeled previously to represent the 2001 base year. The TCEQ is concerned that these emissions data are outdated, and believes that any further mercury modeling conducted by the EPA for this study should be based on emissions inventory data developed and quality assured by the states for recent years.

The TCEQ also has concerns about the methodology the EPA employed for assigning mercury speciation profiles to sources, particularly for electric generating units (EGUs). The EPAs methodology for assigning speciation profiles to EGUs having stack test data appears to be inappropriate in some cases, in that the EPA used speciation profile averaging techniques instead of explicitly using stack test data for each unit. For some units or plants, the EPAs speciation procedure is not clear. The TCEQ recommends that EPA should make documentation available explaining how speciation profiles were developed for individual EGUs, units of other source types, and plant-wide composites.

The TCEQ recognizes the EPAs report provides a demonstration of a potentially useful source tagging methodology that can be used for assessing mercury deposition attributable to specific sources or source categories. The TCEQ looks forward to having the opportunity to use the associated graphical analysis tool to determine its usefulness for future planning.

The TCEQ recommends that the EPA caution users of information from the study that the modeling is based on emissions inventory information that is outdated, and that the reported results should thus be regarded as largely a demonstration of the source tagging methodology and not necessarily applicable to current mercury deposition values or deposition spatial distributions. Additionally, the TCEQ recommends that the EPA emphasize that recent emissions inventories should be used for regulatory planning.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/02/07

SHORT TITLE: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Morris Brown

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
The EPA requested comment on whether to set emission standards for existing large marine diesel engines when they are remanufactured. The TCEQ supports establishing emission standards for remanufactured compression-ignition marine engines with per-cylinder displacement below 30.0 liters per cylinder that would be similar to the emission standards proposed for remanufactured and/or refurbished locomotive engines.

The EPA also requested comment on whether refurbished locomotives should be required to meet more stringent standards than locomotives that are simply remanufactured. The TCEQ believes the emission standards for refurbished locomotives should be consistent with those applicable to remanufactured locomotives since the only real difference between these classifications is the amount of previously used engine components being exchanged. The TCEQ supports establishing emission standards that would require both refurbished and remanufactured locomotives to meet the highest tier of emission standards applicable to new line-haul or switch locomotives as appropriate at the time of the locomotives refurbishment.

The TCEQ encourages the EPA to proceed expeditiously toward final adoption of the rules to provide states working toward compliance with the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 much needed emissions reductions as soon as possible.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/14/07

SHORT TITLE: Revisions to Definitions in CAIR/CAMR Program Rules

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

General Comment
State specific air shed analysis for the effects of the proposed rule was not provided. For Texas to make an informed decision and meaningfully comment as to the proposed rule makings impacts on the Texas air shed, analysis should have been provided to show the impacts on the air shed of excluding biomass electric generating units with the proposed revised efficiency exemption from participation in CAIR and CAMR. In particular, there is no information as to the number of existing units in the neighboring states that may qualify for the proposed revised efficiency exemption that would impact the Texas air shed.

Timing of the Proposed Rule Change
If additional rule changes to CAIR and CAMR are required for states, Texas would need additional time to incorporate any federal rule changes. The proposed rule would still require states to provide allowance allocations to the EPA by October 31, 2007. However, if this rule package is not finalized until sometime during the summer or fall of 2007, Texas would not have adequate time to make the necessary revisions. The plan and rule revision process for Texas requires a minimum of nine months and that would only allow a few months between finalizing EPAs rules and the required submission date of the CAIR and CAMR allowance allocations to the EPAs Clean Air Markets Division. If adequate time is not provided to make the necessary changes, Texas will be forced to continue under federal plans for both CAIR and CAMR. This result is inconsistent with Texas' desired program for implementing these important initiatives.

Allocation Amendments for CAIR and CAMR
The EPA has requested comments on the possibility of revisions to states CAIR and CAMR budgets. Texas is opposed to any additional changes to states budgets. The potential effect would cause Texas to make amendments to our plans, as well as allocations that have already been distributed to Texas sources. Texas sources have already been made aware of their allocations and have planned accordingly.

Definition Clarification for Total Energy Input
The EPA did not propose to change the model rule definition of total energy input that is currently defined as with regard to cogeneration unit, total energy of all forms supplied to the cogeneration unit, excluding energy produced by the cogeneration unit itself. Therefore, the rule text was changed, but not the definition in the model rule. It is unclear if this would mean total energy input equals only the input from fossil fuels if the proposed conditions are met. If this is the case, both the definition and the use of the definition in the rule text should be revised to reflect this.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/31/07

SHORT TITLE: Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Margie McAllister

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ supports inclusion in the federal conformity rule of the SAFETEA-LU flexibilities and streamlining, and other changes. These changes should provide nonattainment and maintenance areas more time to plan, identify, and implement air quality strategies.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 04/10/07

SHORT TITLE: Public Hearings and Submission of Plans

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ generally supports EPA’s recommended changes. However, clarity needs to be provided to determine whether states will have the option to hold hearings without providing an opportunity to request a hearing, as the state deems appropriate.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/22/07

SHORT TITLE: Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines—Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Standards; Onboard Diagnostic Requirements

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Bob Wierzowiecki

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ supports the proposed rule by requiring a standardized emissions control monitoring system such as OBD for gasoline and diesel vehicles weighing over 14,000 pounds. Since heavy-duty vehicles, especially diesel vehicles, have an extended useful life often lasting hundreds of thousands of miles, the need to detect emissions-related problems throughout the operational period is important in reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. This Heavy-Duty OBD rulemaking will provide an option for states to consider in meeting their State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements. However, the current Mobile6.2 model and the new mobile model under development, Motor Vehicles Emissions Simulator (MOVES) do not provide any credit for conducting diesel testing. The mobile model should be designed so that states are able to take SIP credits for implementing a diesel I/M program.

TCEQ also supports the consideration of future rulemaking that would require OBD systems on non-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Non-road heavy-duty vehicles are a source of NOx and PM and, similar to heavy-duty vehicles, have an extended useful life lasting many years. The implementation of OBD on non-road heavy-duty vehicles would assist in the maintenance and repair of these vehicles and provide a means to ensure these vehicles continue to emit at low emissions levels.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/08/07

SHORT TITLE: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General Provisions

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration

STAFF CONTACT: Tara Capobianco

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The primary purpose of the proposal is to allow major sources to become area sources by limiting emissions to area source emission levels at any time, regardless of the compliance date. Staff agrees with this initiative, since it would enhance compliance understanding by simplifying applicability determinations, and eliminate resource costs of tracking historic applicability dates and emissions for this purpose. Owners and operators may also be encouraged to reduce emissions beyond the MACT applicability thresholds. The initiative would also allow staff to plan outreach based on need and workload, instead of compliance dates of MACT standards. Some groups have expressed opposition in the past when EPA previously proposed to change the policy. Therefore, staff recommends submitting a comment letter in support of the initiative. Further, some entities support the May 2003 proposal, which allowed sites to avoid MACT requirements only for sources that completely eliminate HAPs. Eliminating HAP emissions completely may not be realistic for all industries.

The EPA has also included in the proposal concepts of case-by-case analysis and inquiry on changes between major and area source status. Because these changes impact commission resources and can impact environmental protection, staff recommends submitting specific comments on the initiative. The areas of interest include (1) when owners and operators must comply with area source standards when changing from major to area source status, (2) when that source must comply if it changes again to be a major source, and (3) the proposals to use case-by-case analysis.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/06/07

SHORT TITLE: Revisions of Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

Modifications to the baseline for determining allowance allocations
The EPA has not provided a clear delineation of how the proposed change of using a different baseline heat input period for calculating state unit allocations – from 2000-2004 to 2001-2005 - would take effect. The EPA should clarify if the revised baseline period would apply to state allocation calculations under the CAMR model rule or if it would be used only to calculate unit allocations under the proposed federal plan. The EPA should clarify if, when submitting an approvable plan, states will be required to change the baseline (2001-2005) for determining allowance allocations or if the CAMR model rule baseline (2000-2004) would apply.

National set-aside for states and Indian Country that did not previously receive mercury emissions budgets
The EPA is proposing to create a 300-pound annual set-aside for new unit generation in states and Indian Country that did not receive initial mercury emissions budgets for CAMR. The EPA is proposing to reduce each state’s mercury emission budget by 0.4 percent for years 2012-2017 and by one percent in 2018 and thereafter, to create the annual set-aside budget. The EPA is proposing that states would begin using their revised budgets in 2012. The EPA is proposing to distribute mercury allowances from the set-aside on a pro-rata basis to new units in states and Indian Country without mercury emissions budgets. However, the EPA is proposing to not redistribute excess allowances to the states or to make them available for purchase. The proposed rule does not specify how unused mercury allowances will be used. States currently participating in the EPA’s CAMR model trading rule are required to reallocate any remaining mercury allowances from the state set-asides. Any excess allowances in the federal set-aside should be made available as per the established distribution methodology for states in the model rule at 41 CFR 60.4142(d), as long as the nationwide budget is not increased.

If the national mercury budget for states is revised to create the 300-pound set-aside, states would be required to revise rules and plans, and re-submit a revised plan to the EPA. If the proposed CAMR federal plan is adopted, the EPA would be required to record 2012 allocations by December 1, 2009. This deadline would require the EPA to finalize all changes associated with the CAMR federal plan and the subsequent rule changes as well as revisions to state budgets prior to October 31, 2009, for states to be able to submit their allocations. To accommodate the proposed changes in the CAMR state plans and the associated rules, Texas would need at least a year to make the needed revisions to its state plan and associated rule in addition to the time necessary for the EPA to approve a plan or allowance allocation methodology.

Recording of mercury allowances by the EPA
The proposal is unclear if October 31 is the deadline in each future year in which states would be required to submit their own mercury allocations, or if the October 31 date would only apply for states submitting allocations to the EPA in 2007.

Timing Concerns
The EPA needs to ensure that states receive adequate time to make the necessary changes to rules and revisions to state plans to limit the amount of time states will be under a federal plan. This process takes approximately one year to complete in Texas.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/08/07

SHORT TITLE: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Danielle Nesvacil

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The referenced storage tank requirements do not adequately address floating-roof tank landing loss emissions from bulk terminals, bulk plants, and pipeline facilities. TCEQ supports the three-year compliance period for the submerged fill requirements at bulk plants and at gasoline dispensing facilities in urban areas.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/03/06

SHORT TITLE: EPA’s Proposed 30% cut in the IMPROVE Monitoring Network

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Jim Price

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has learned through the Central Regional Planning Association (CENRAP) about the U.S. EPA’s plans to reduce its funding of the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility monitoring used to determine visibility impairment at national parks and other Class 1 areas. The proposed funding cut would reduce the number of monitoring sites by 30 percent. The TCEQ strongly recommends that EPA continue full funding the IMPROVE visibility monitoring network.

The long-term federal visibility improvement program under the regional haze rule is now getting under way. For this reason, it seems especially inappropriate for the EPA to consider cutting funding for the monitoring on which the clean air visibility rule is based. Similarly, given increasing demands on state and local air quality programs, it would also be inappropriate for EPA to obtain the funding to continue the IMPROVE monitoring by cutting funding to states, regional associations of states, or tribes. IMPROVE monitoring should continue to be a federal responsibility since the monitoring supports the federal visibility protection program for federal lands that are Class 1 areas.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 09/05/06

SHORT TITLE: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Printing Materials, Coatings, and Cleaning Solvents

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Teresa Hurley

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

EPA proposes to allow states only one year from the date the CTGs are finalized to submit SIP revisions incorporating the CTGs to EPA. One year is not enough time to review the CTG documents, determine what rule changes need to be made, communicate with stakeholders regarding the changes, and fulfill all the necessary steps in the rulemaking process. The task will be even more difficult because staff resources during this time period will be focused on preparing attainment demonstrations, which are due to EPA in June 2007. The VOC reductions that would be achieved in Texas by adopting the new CTGs would be minimal.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 09/05/06

SHORT TITLE: Electric Generating Unit NOx Annual and Season Allocations for the Clean Air Interstate Rule Federal Implementation Plan Trading Programs

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The CAIR EGUs units that EPA is proposing to distribute NOx allocations do not match those EGUs that the TCEQ has listed as participating EGUs in the CAIR program. TCEQ found the following discrepancies in the NODA: eight EGUs are listed twice under different names; two EGUs are exempt from CAIR because of their megawatt capacity; one EGU is listed as an existing unit, but is considered new by EPA's definition; one EGU has the wrong unit number listed; one unit is not a CAIR unit because it does not supply power to the grid; one unit is not a CAIR unit; and, two units that are covered by CAIR are not on EPA's allocation list. If the state for any reason has to function under a CAIR FIP in the future, these NOx allocations need to be representative of the state's sources. If the EPA does not make the needed changes there is potential for EGUs not receiving the proper NOx allowance allocation if the state must function under a CAIR FIP. TCEQ strongly recommends that EPA make the changes highlighted above to accurately reflect Texas’ NOx allocations.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/11/06

SHORT TITLE: Boutique Fuels List Under Section 1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Guy Hoffman

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ offers the following comment to correct the affected area covered by the list of fuels approved in State Implementation Plans. Regarding the approved low emission diesel program, the list should be corrected to indicate the program applies to "Central & Eastern Texas (110 county area)." (The list published June 6 indicates incorrectly that the program applies only to "Houston & Dallas, TX.")

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/10/06

SHORT TITLE: Transition to New or Revised Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Erik Gribbin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ comments focus on: schedules for any transitions to new PM NAAQS; suggestions and requests for additional Emissions Inventory resources that EPA could provide; and, suggestions for establishing new NSR and PSD requirements to account for the revocation of existing PM10 standards and adoption of new PM2.5 and PMcoarse standards.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/05/06

SHORT TITLE: Alternative Work Practice to Detect Leaks from Equipment

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Vincent Meiller

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ is opposed to the proposed approach of only incorporating the amendatory language in 40 CFR §60.18 and not revising the applicable subparts in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 63, and 65.
A training and certification program should be required.
Comments/concerns identified regarding the daily instrument check and leak survey procedure include: personnel performing daily instrument check and leak surveys; documentation and changes to user-adjustable settings and parameters; ambient conditions and location of the daily instrument check; the compounds used for the daily instrument check; documentation of the daily instrument check; and, overall adequacy of the procedure as well as the dwell time per component, appropriate background, contrast, and proper view of components.
Method 21 should be used to verify leaks as well as repaired components.
Recordkeeping and notification requirements are not adequate.
The alternative work practice is not compatible with EPA’s stated preferred use of correlation equations for emissions inventory purposes.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/09/06

SHORT TITLE: Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Erik Gribbin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ staff prepared comments which focus on: the relationship between existing policy and the proposed rule and the applicability of the proposed rule to regional haze data; the types of events experienced by Texas that should be considered exceptional events; the proposed criteria for an event to be considered exceptional; time lines for flagging data and submitting supporting technical documentation, as content requirements for that technical support; requirements for public participation in the data flagging process; and, comments on the appropriate level of additional actions needed by states to protect public health.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/03/06

SHORT TITLE: Air Emissions Reporting Requirements

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Kevin Cauble

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

TCEQ staff prepared comments which focus on: the burden the agency would experience in meeting the accelerated reporting deadlines; the burden that industry would experience in quantifying and reporting emissions inventories within the shorter reporting time frames; the deterioration of the quality of emissions inventory data submitted to EPA due to the accelerated reporting deadlines; whether the agency should be required to submit model inputs in lieu of certain emissions inventory data; and, the omission or inclusion of certain data elements that the agency reports to the EPA.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 04/17/06

SHORT TITLE: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Erik Gribbin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

Comments contain suggestions on: The appropriateness of a possible secondary PM2.5 standard for visibility; The practical difficulties of distinguishing between included and excluded sources on the proposed PMCoarse standard; Several comments on the form and data handling requirements for the PM standards; Comments on the design specifications for the Federal Reference Method PMCoarse monitoring instruments; and, A comment on an alternative approach for determining the appropriate number of required PMCoarse monitoring sites.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 04/17/06

SHORT TITLE: EPA's 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58, Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Compliance and Enforcement

STAFF CONTACT: Scott Mgebroff

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

The TCEQ is recommending that the EPA provide cost estimates for deploying, operating, and maintaining the new networks before adopting the rules.
Due to the lack of opportunities for reductions in current monitoring networks; which would be needed to fund the new monitoring costs, the TECQ is recommending that the rule not be adopted and implemented until the federal government provides 100% funding for the proposed monitoring and quality assurance activities.
The proposed monitoring will require new staff positions. The TCEQ is recommending that the EPA take staffing issues into account before recommending and adopting new monitoring initiatives.
The EPA is proposing up to 27 new monitoring sites. TCEQ staff believes that only 17 sites will be required to meet monitoring objectives. The TCEQ is recommending that the EPA consult with TCEQ staff on the number and location of required monitoring sites before final adoption of the proposed rules.
The TCEQ is also making specific comments on issues related to delaying deadlines for implementing the rules, changing data reporting deadlines, changing relationships between state and local programs, and monitoring methodologies.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/24/06

SHORT TITLE: EPA's Draft 2006-11 Strategic Plan Architecture

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Intergovernmental Relations Division

STAFF CONTACT: Linda Haynie

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
In general, the strategic targets under Sub-objectives 1.1.1: Ozone and PM2.5 and Sub-objective 1.1.2 Air Toxics, imply mechanisms to reach the targets as well as expectations of the performance by states. Those mechanisms and state expectations are not included in the Strategic Architecture document and as such,the efficacy of the targets is difficult to evaluate.
With regard to the above strategic target, Texas has several 8-hourozone nonattainment areas, (e.g., the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas), that are impacted by emissions from other states per EPA’s CAIR modeling. Compliance with CAIR will not result in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the referenced Texas areas.

Sub-objective 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink
This objective lacks an acknowledgement under Objective 2.1 (Protect Human Health) that a large portion of the rural population in the United States is not protected under the public drinking water program and is utilizing groundwater as a source of drinking water, i.e. domestic drinking water wells. In Texas, state law now requires that notice be given to the owner of a private drinking water well that may be affected by contamination. Through the notification effort, we are becoming aware of a significant number of households in both rural and urban areas using private wells that could be affected by groundwater contamination. Some of these areas are surrounded by public drinking water supply systems.

Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
The current wording of this objective implies that groundwater is not part of the waters that should have protection under this objective. This is probably an oversight rather than telegraphing direct intent as to funding and future direction under EPA’s implementation of the Clean Water Act. Texas suggests rewording the text to read "Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, streams and groundwater on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters" for the following reasons.

Sub-objective 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore U.S. – Mexico Border Environmental Health

TCEQ recommends consistency and definition of the term "US-Mexico Border", "US-Mexico Border area", and "Mexico Border area" to reflect the La Paz agreements’ 100-km zone on either side of the boundary. It is important to note that current year funding for the Border Environmental infrastructure Fund (BEIF) was reduced 50 per cent over the previous year funding, which may make it difficult to achieve this goal. Achieving this particular target is very ambitious, considering the expanding population, water quality infrastructure shortfalls, and pollutant source assessment needs existing on both sides of the border. It may be critical for the TCEQ and EPA to re-double our efforts to collaborate between the two agencies and with the Border 2012 partners on specific water quality restoration strategies to achieve the target.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/31/06

SHORT TITLE: Draft Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress under the Regional Haze Program

SUBMITTED TO:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: David C. Schanbacher, P.E.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

EPA's draft guidance document states that "...the State should adopt a rate of progress greater than the uniform rate of progress if this is found to be reasonable according to the statutory factors."
We do not believe EPA has the regulatory authority to require that states develop emission reductions in excess of what is needed to meet the uniform rate of progress (the "glide slope"). The regulation itself, in Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), provides that the State must justify, based on the statutory factors, that the progress goal is reasonable if the progress goal is below the uniform rate of progress. Thus, it appears inconsistent for the guidance to specify that the state must justify why further improvement in visibility is not reasonable, even if a proposed progress goal would provide for a rate of improvement sufficient for reaching natural background by 2064. Staff recommends that EPA remove this requirement from the guidance.
The guidance also notes that EPA expects that only under unusual circumstances would it be necessary for a State to justify a Reasonable Progress Goal below that required to meet the uniform rate of progress. Staff recommends that EPA clarify this statement.

Effect of International Emissions on Developing the Uniform Rate of Guidance.
Visibility in Texas and other states can be impacted by emissions from regions outside the United States, as we experience with smoke from Central American fires and dust particles from Africa. Foreign sources are addressed in the Regional Haze rule with regard to the five-year progress reports requirement (sec. 51.308(h)(3)). Also, EPA's "Guidance on Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule" (September 2003) allows States to factor in international sources when addressing causes of a deficiency in visibility progress. However, the draft Reasonable Progress Goals guidance document does not consider international sources when Reasonable Progress Goals are initially established. Staff believes international sources must be accounted for up front in establishing Reasonable Progress Goals, and thus recommends that EPA include guidance on this subject in the final guidance document.

Determination of Natural Visibility Conditions
EPA's draft guidance states that one of the steps in setting a Reasonable Progress Goal is to identify the uniform rate of progress to natural conditions by 2064 for each Class I area. The guidance indicates that identifying the uniform rate of progress is accomplished by determining the linear rate of improvement from baseline to natural conditions using EPA default values for natural conditions. However, EPA's "Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program" (September 2003) allows for the use of case-by-case, non-default procedures for estimating natural background. Staff recommends that EPA refer to this document, allowing for the use of non-default procedures for determining natural background.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/31/06

SHORT TITLE: Proposed 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Rule To Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards

SUBMITTED TO:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: David C. Schanbacher, P.E.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:

Handling of Natural and Exceptional Events in Attainment/Nonattainment Determinations
The first threshold question concerning a fine particle SIP submission is whether the area is nonattainment for the fine particle NAAQS. A critical part of this determination is identification and appropriate treatment of days affected by natural or exceptional events. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ ) submitted formal comments on Staff Work Paper On the Use of Air Quality Data Related to Exceptional and Natural Events for the Particulate Matter Standards on September 2, 2005. Since a revised Staff Work Paper has not yet been issued, we are enclosing a copy of our September 2, 2005, comments for your consideration.

Consideration of SIP Submittals Whether or not They Follow the Prescriptive Approach in the Rule
While the approaches the U.S. EPA is proposing, such as requiring consideration of SO2 as a fine PM precursor in many part of the U.S., are reasonable, we strongly recommend that the final rule allow states to submit SIPs based on other approaches as long as the attainment demonstration includes all reasonably available control measures (RACM) and shows that the plan will produce attainment as quickly as practicable. In some areas slightly over the annual average PM fine standard, implementation of already adopted controls plus RACM may quickly reduce ambient concentrations to a concentration below the standard. Allowing the flexibility to use this approach in preparing a SIP submission is necessary to allow efficient use of state resources.

Application of Section 179B of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The proposed rule does not discuss the application of Section 179B of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990, which provides that the Administrator shall approve an implementation plan or plan revision that meets applicable provisions and would demonstrate attainment by the appropriate date "but for emissions emanating from outside the United States." This is an important omission from Texas’ point of view since Texas is impacted by natural and exceptional events that emanate from outside the United States. Since the EPA’s handling of these matters is critical for Texas, we urge that there be an opportunity for public comment on any EPA proposal to handle these situations for PM fine.

Integrating PM2.5 and Ozone Attainment Planning
The proposed rule states that ozone, PM, and regional haze ought to be modeled together because they are intimately linked chemically and physically, but the SIP requirements for each are separate with separate attainment dates and separate attainment demonstrations resulting in serious impediments to the "One Atmosphere Modeling" approach. The attainment dates for ozone and fine PM are not flexible and apparently cannot be changed in order to synchronize the attainment demonstrations. We urge the EPA to work urgently and creatively to find ways to make "One Atmosphere Modeling" practical and workable within a legal and administrative framework to encourage rather than penalize states and communities that choose to pursue this approach.

Relief for States That Have Already Implemented Very Large NOx Reductions
Regarding the control of NOx as a PM2.5 precursor, EPA should give relief to states that have already implemented very large NOx reductions to control ozone (e.g., 80 percent or more in some areas). In some cases, further NOx reductions may be beyond technical feasibility. Appropriate relief could be exemption from the requirement for further reductions or the ability to take credit for reductions already required for ozone SIPs.

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Requirements
A generally linear reduction process may not be practicable or possible. Emission reduction control strategies may necessarily provide different rates of progression throughout a sector or impact formation of PM2.5 differently in the case of precursor reduction. The Act requires "reasonable progress," which would be more appropriately demonstrated in each SIP case-by-case. Unlike ozone, there is no statutory requirement for three percent per year rate of progress (ROP) reductions. There is no policy justification for imposing linear progress where Congress has not seen fit to do so.

Mid-Course Review Requirements and SIP Submittal
Time Lines We recommend eliminating Mid Course Review (MCR) requirements for any area with less than seven years between SIP submittal and attainment. Only if there is that much time between submittal of a SIP revision and attainment is the added burden of an MCR justified. The comments detail why the EPA's proposal on Mid Course Reviews (MCRs) is unworkable.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 12/19/05

SHORT TITLE: Revision of Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units

SUBMITTED TO:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: David C. Schanbacher, P.E.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Subcategorization of Subbituminous New Coal-Fired Units
The EPA's proposal to revise its basis for subcategorization of subbituminous new coal-fired units is dependent upon whether the mean annual precipitation of the geographic area is more than 25 inches per year based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture 30-year data. However, the proposed rule is unclear if this 30-year data is fixed or a rolling average. This proposal is also unclear as to its definition of "geographic area" when looking at rainfall totals to make determinations. As written, the geographic area could be interpreted to mean county, region of a state, state-wide, or even a broader area. The EPA needs to provide clarification on these two issues for states to effectively enforce CAMR.
Timing Issues
The proposed changes to CAMR do not set a deadline when they will have to be implemented by states. Texas must adopt the initial CAMR program that was finalized on May 18, 2005, before any changes can be implemented based on the current proposal. Therefore, it would not be feasible to require the changes to become effective immediately. Texas will not be able to conduct state rulemaking prior to the deadline for the state plan submittal once the federal rule is finalized. Additionally, requiring states to submit a final state plan without the benefit of reviewing the final EPA promulgated rules may require further state plan revisions to bring state plans in agreement with the final rule. This would require additional EPA review and additional state resources. The EPA needs to provide clarification on this issue to allow states to incorporate changes into their state plans in a timely manner.
If mercury emission limits are revised by the EPA as proposed in this reconsideration, Texas should receive a larger mercury allowance allocation. However, the redefined budgets are not part of this proposal and it is unclear when they will be available. The EPA needs to provide clarification if new budgets will be made available, and if budgets are redefined, clarify which mercury allowance allocations will be due November 17, 2006.
Definition of an Electric Generating Unit (EGU)
The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of electric generating unit or EGU in 40 CFR 60.24(h) to include only stationary, coal-fired combustion turbines serving, at any time after November 15, 1990, a generator with a nameplate capacity of more than 25 megawatt electrical (MWe) producing electricity for sale. This date would be consistent with the dates used in the Acid Rain program and proposed changes to CAIR. The TCEQ supports this revision.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES: The proposed revisions to the NSPS standards for mercury would increase the limits for units burning subbituminous or lignite coal approximately 20 - 57%, depending on the coal type and the geographic area's 30-year annual rainfall. If the EPA does adopt he revised NSPS standards, it may be argued the EPA should revise the coal-type factors used for mercury allocations in the CAMR model rule to reflect the proposed changes. This could impact state mercury allocations. If the allocation factors are changed to reflect the higher NSPS standards for lignite and subbituminous coal-fired units, the Texas annual budget would be increased because those are the primary coal-types used by electric generating units (EGUs) in Texas. However, the TCEQ believes that comments that support or oppose an increased mercury budget would be more appropriately initiated by the affected entities and other stakeholders.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/28/05

SHORT TITLE: Strategic Petroleum Reserve Expansion

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Quality Planning and Implementation Division

STAFF CONTACT: Ken Gathright

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ is providing comments that inform the DOE about general conformity and request that the construction and operational emissions be quantified.

General Conformity

The existing Big Hill SPR site is located in Jefferson County which is designated as a marginal nonattainment area for ozone, while Stratton Ridge is located in Brazoria County which is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone. In nonattainment areas, major federal actions are subject to the general conformity rule.
The emissions that will result from the expansion of the Big Hill site will need to be documented in the EIS and if the total emissions are estimated to be above 100 tons per year, then a general conformity determination is needed.
Emissions will also need to be estimated for the new Stratton Ridge SPR site only if it is the preferred alternative in the EIS. If the total emissions are estimated to be above 100 tons per year, then a another general conformity determination is needed.

Construction Emissions

TCEQ is requesting that emissions be estimated for; All nonroad and onroad equipment used for the construction of all onsite infrastructure needed for the water supply, brine disposal, and oil distribution systems.
The pumps needed for the cavern leaching process.
The construction of water supply, brine disposal, and oil distribution pipelines.

Operational Emissions

TCEQ is requesting that emissions be estimated for the emissions that will result from the filling of the caverns with crude oil.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/24/05

SHORT TITLE: Petition from North Carolina to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Revisions to the Clean Air Interstate and the Acid Rain Program

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Quality Planning and Implementation Division

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Availability of additional time for submittal - EPA justifies the extension to March 31, 2007, for an abbreviated SIP submission based on the expectation that they will be able to complete the approval process for abbreviated SIPs more quickly due to their narrower scope. SIPs submitted that incorporate the CAIR model trading rules by reference should not require any additional time for review than an abbreviated SIP since the state will be adopting and submitting what will mirror EPA’s promulgated rules. Although the proposal does not address incorporation by reference, staff believes that states incorporating the CAIR model trading rules by reference should qualify for this extension as well.

Timing of NOX allocation submittals to EPA - States incorporating by reference should also qualify for the December 1, 2007, extension for submittal of NOX allocations.

Proposed data sources for federal NOX allocations - Data related to heat input and fuel type available on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website is only based on the source level and not on a unit-by-unit basis. If EPA used unit-by-unit data from the EIA for developing the state NOX budgets for CAIR, they should make this data available.

Small entity allocation relief - Allocating additional allowances to small entities will reduce the amount of allowances available from the state budget for all other sources and increase the reductions that these other sources will have to make. The proposed rule preamble is unclear as to what size source would qualify as a "small entity."

Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP) distribution method - In the proposed rule preamble, EPA does not provide any basis for their proposal to use 0.25 lb/MMBtu as the emission rate by which early reductions are to be compared. To ensure early achievement of the CAIR reductions, early reductions qualifying for CSP allowances should be beyond the emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu used for establishing the 2009 - 2014 CAIR regional NOX budget.

The definition of Electric Generating Units (EGU) relating to MWCs and units not serving a generator > 25 MW since November 15, 1990 - The TCEQ supports the revision to the EGU definition related to units not serving a generator > 25 MW since November 15, 1990.

Removal of deadline for recordation of allowances - EPA proposes to remove the December 1, 2006, deadline for recording CAIR NOX allowances submitted by states for the 2009 - 2014 control periods but fails to set an alternative deadline. Staff believes that there should be a deadline by which CAIR NOX sources can reasonably expect to have their allocation recorded in their compliance account.

HB 2481 Requirement for the West Texas and El Paso Region Petition of Reconsideration - HB 2481 requires the TCEQ to take "all reasonable and appropriate steps to exclude West Texas and the El Paso Region" from any requirements of CAIR. Therefore, staff will reiterate the need for exclusion of West Texas and the El Paso Region.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/17/05

SHORT TITLE: Determining the Emissions Reductions Achieved in Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas from the Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC Content of AIM Coatings

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Quality Planning and Implementation Division

STAFF CONTACT: Teresa Hurley

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ has no specific comments or data on the calculation methodology, but would like to caution EPA that work on developing control strategies for the eight-hour ozone attainment demonstrations is already underway. Any changes in calculation methodology that are proposed before the attainment demonstrations are adopted could lead to unnecessary and untimely rework if the revised methodology would result in different estimates of emission reductions.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/06/05

SHORT TITLE: Deferred Effective Date for 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early Action Compact Areas

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Quality Planning and Implementation Division

STAFF CONTACT: Erik Gribbin

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Texas favors extension of effective dates for Early Action Compact areas that have met their milestone obligations and supports processes like the Early Action Compact that allow states and local areas to approach air quality problems in a manner that is flexible and proactive.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/07/05

SHORT TITLE: Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Coast Guard

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Quality Planning and Implementation Division

STAFF CONTACT: Ken Gathright

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:TCEQ is providing comments encouraging the Coast Guard (Deepwater Ports Standards Division) to assure that the applicant will minimize emissions during the construction and operation of the proposed terminal facility. Construction

  • require that both land and marine construction equipment will be low-emission diesel equipment during construction;
  • require that the applicant establish bidding conditions to award construction contracts based on lowest nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rather than lowest price; and
  • require that the applicant establish through provisions included in its construction contracts that construction contractors exercise Best Management Practices relating to air quality. Operational
  • encourage the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to further reduce emissions .
  • use support vessels that will have the latest technology and cleaner engines; and,
  • if vaporization of LNG is achieved through heat from natural gas combustion, then TCEQ encourages the use of shell and tube vaporization (STV) closed-loop technology.

 

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/26/05

SHORT TITLE: Proposal to Exempt Area Sources Subject to NESHAP From Federal and State Operating Permit Programs

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Permits Division

STAFF CONTACT: Phil Harwell

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) supports permanently exempting these five area sources from Title V operating permits as allowed under § 502(a) of the Federal Clean Air Act. The TCEQ agrees with the EPA that subjecting any source to Title V permitting imposes burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the Title V program. These area sources are generally subject to a single NESHAP and, therefore, do not fit the primary purpose of a Title V permit to consolidate various and complex requirements in a single document. The TCEQ agrees that requiring a Title V permit would not add any new monitoring or recordkeeping benefits and would be unnecessary for these area sources. The TCEQ agrees that, due to the number of these area sources, requiring a Title V permit would cause permitting authorities to shift resources away from major sources. The TCEQ does not support the use of a general operating permit for these sources. The burdens and costs would also be unreasonable and would not add any compliance gains that may be achieved through permitting. TCEQ believes that outreach programs developed for these area sources such as the dry cleaning program, do more for compliance than requiring complex permitting.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/09/05

SHORT TITLE: 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Nitrogen Oxides

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Permits Division

STAFF CONTACT: Robert Opiela

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The TCEQ generally supports the concept of states having flexibility in implementing the PSD program. The TCEQ reserves full support pending more details from EPA.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/04/05

SHORT TITLE: EPA’s Draft Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Quality Planning and Implementation Division

STAFF CONTACT: Candy Garrett

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: "Based on our review of EPA’s draft report, we agree that scientific information about ozone formation has improved in recent years. However, we disagree with the statement on page 2-23 that the meteorological processes associated with ozone episodes have not changed over the past several years. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is still learning about the complex meteorological interactions with the largest petrochemical complex in the U.S., which is located in Texas. Without a more in-depth understanding of ozone formation which includes such interactions, efforts to decrease ambient ozone would be less effective."

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 04/28/05

SHORT TITLE: Comments on Potentially Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act Applicable Requirements and on Methods To Improve Such Monitoring

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Permits Division

STAFF CONTACT: Richard A. Hyde, P.E.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ supports EPA’s strategy for improving existing monitoring in federal regulations where necessary on a programmatic basis. We are supportive of EPA’s changes regarding monitoring through rulemaking instead of relying on the state to provide for any gaps in monitoring. This would save agency resources. However, TCEQ supports flexibility for addressing monitoring in state implementation plan (SIP) rules. In most cases, TCEQ has already developed monitoring requirements for Title V permits that would address SIP rules. Also, we would disagree with requiring both continuous PM mass monitoring and opacity monitoring for particulate sources. Finally, no comments are provided regarding existing monitoring requirements for NSPS and NESHAP due to the scope of this request and inadequate review time.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/31/05

SHORT TITLE: Second Draft Staff Paper for Particulate Matter; Notice of Draft for Public Review

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: David Schanbacher, P.E.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ is concerned about the lack of scientific evidence for EPA’s selection of specific levels for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS . TCEQ is concerned about the subjective nature of using such visual representations as a basis to select a value for a visibility-based secondary standard for PM2.5. TCEQ believes that EPA is unclear in its need to create a new NAAQS using PM10-2.5 as the coarse particulate matter indicator. TCEQ is concerned about the validity of PM10-2.5 monitoring data issues in conjunction with the review of health effects data. TCEQ agrees with the EPA Staff Paper that insufficient data is available to support derivation of an annual PM10-2.5 standard. TCEQ believes that to revise the PM2.5 NAAQS during the initial attainment date demonstrations for PM2.5 NAAQS would create confusion among the regulated community.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/21/05

SHORT TITLE: 8-Hour Implementation Rule Reconsideration

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Keel

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The section 185 fee should not continue to apply to an area based upon its 1-hour attainment date once the 1-hour ozone standard is revoked. The TCEQ does not have a preference in timing for determining which 1-hour control measures should apply for purposes of anti-backsliding once the 1-hour ozone standard has been revoked. However, anti-backsliding measures should not preclude the TCEQ from removing or shifting to contingency any of these requirements if a 110 (l) demonstration can be met. The TCEQ should retain the ability to remove or shift to contingency requirements that it can demonstrate are not needed to attain or maintain the 8-hour ozone standard. The TCEQ supports EPA's proposal that contingency measures triggered under failure to attain the 1-hour ozone standard or meet reasonable progress requirements will no longer be required once the 1-hour ozone standard is revoked. The TCEQ supports the EPA's efforts to clarify the rule and provide consistency among sections.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/21/05

SHORT TITLE: Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: Zarena Post

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Substantive comments included in the response addressed several areas. EPA asked whether the attainment test should be based on values modeled at a single grid cell or an array of grid cells. TCEQ commented that the specific methodology should take into consideration the density of monitors sited in an area under review. EPA asked whether the screening test (a test evaluating the potential for non-monitored areas to exceed the standard) should be retained. TCEQ agreed that the test has value, but commented that the new definition of grid cells that would undergo the test is more stringent than had been discussed in earlier drafts of the guidance. TCEQ also commented that the screening test should not be applied outside the nonattainment area. EPA asked for input on an appropriate modeled concentration cut-off for determining which days to use in the attainment test. TCEQ requested that EPA remain open to scientifically-defensible methods that, for example, might distinguish locally- and regionally-influenced days. EPA also asked for input on how many days should be modeled for each nonattainment area. TCEQ noted that it spends a great amount of effort in validating the model, i.e., assuring the model predicts the right ozone concentrations for the right reasons. If the quantity of days modeled increases, the quality of the modeling results would likely be compromised. TCEQ requested that EPA give special consideration to those areas that do thorough model validation.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/07/05

SHORT TITLE: Information Collection Request (ICR) for Source Compliance and State Action Reporting

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Compliance and Enforcement

STAFF CONTACT: Russ Baier

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The proposed deadline of October 1, 2005 for implementation of ICR actions will not allow sufficient time to make the necessary changes to TCEQ's data systems or to revise the investigator's business processes, train staff, and fully implement the collection of certain data not currently captured. Recommend extending effective date to March 2007. Significant changes will be required to the TCEQ Central Registry and the Consolidated Compliance and Enforcement Data System (CCEDS). Field Operations is currently seeking a State and Tribal Assistance Grant for Fiscal Year 2006 to add certain data to CCEDS and to investigate the impact of new data elements being considered. A preliminary estimate for adding data proposed in the ICR is approximately $55,000. The ICR indicates that "day zero" for the "Violation Discovered" date for High Priority Violators (HPV) should be the investigation date. TCEQ currently defines "day zero" as the date that the investigation report is approved and signed by management. This change will impact the agency's ability to meet the 270 day requirement to resolve the HPV violation.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 02/07/05

SHORT TITLE: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste Incineration Units

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Permits Division

STAFF CONTACT: Blake Stewart

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ recommends the emission limits be consistent with previous waste incineration unit standards. TCEQ recommends a performance testing requirement every two years. If three consecutive tests are successfully completed, then performance testing every five years. If a test is failed, the entity would be required to begin the cycle again. TCEQ recommends EPA clarify the requirement for portable air curtain destructors, specifically trench burners, to obtain a Title V permits. These are small portable sources. The proposed rules are inconsistent with previous standards on requiring Title V permits for these small sources. TCEQ recommends that EPA address any requirements applying to the burning of drug packaging.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/31/05

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Rule on Options for PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New PM2.5 and Existing PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Environmental Planning and Implementation Division

STAFF CONTACT: Margie McAllister

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ recommends EPA require PM hot-spot analyses only if EPA determines scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates the existence of transportation-related PM2.5 hot spots. EPA's proposals note its review of key studies are ongoing, and indicate results are inconclusive as to whether or not transportation-related PM2.5 hot spots exist or would exist in the future.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 12/21/04

SHORT TITLE: Legislative Report on Rider 15, Big Bend Air Haze Study

SUBMITTED TO: Texas Legislature

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Herb Williams

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The draft report summarizes the TCEQ's participation in the Big Bend Regional Aerosol Visibility Observational (BRAVO) study which was designed to understand the transport of emissions from a variety of regional sources and their effects on visibility in Big Bend National Park. The study was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States National Park Service (NPS), and managed by staff from the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with active participation by the staff of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in partial fulfillment of the intent of Rider 15. The draft report also summarizes the TCEQ's implementation of programs to reduce emissions that contribute to air pollution/haze along the Texas/Mexico border area and the Big Bend National Park

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/29/04

SHORT TITLE: Test Procedures for Testing Highway and Nonroad Engines and Omnibus Technical Amendments; Proposed Rule

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Technical Analysis

STAFF CONTACT: Scott Carpenter

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Provide support and encouragement for EPA's continued efforts to consolidate testing requirements and procedures for nonroad and highway engines. Provide support for EPA's effort to certify low-power engines in locomotives.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/05/04

SHORT TITLE: Nitrogen Oxides Exemption Guidance for the Proposed Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Environmental Law

STAFF CONTACT: Laura Pfefferle

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Alternatives to photochemical modeling to support an exemption should not be eliminated. More specific guidance needs to be provided regarding the standards and criteria on what an area can become exempt from, and under what conditions. Guidance needs to be provided on how frequent and how extensive additional support will need to be to maintain an exemption.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 09/30/04

SHORT TITLE: Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems Issues Paper

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Environmental Planning and Implementation

STAFF CONTACT: Ashley Forbes

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Phase-out of Stage II systems once widespread use is determined. Simply ceasing to investigate gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) with Stage II would have a negative effect as numerous vacuum-assist systems would remain in service without maintenance or oversight. Actual in-use efficiency (IUE) for ORVR systems. The EPA issue paper notes an ORVR efficiency of 98% without referencing any studies undertaken to determine the actual IUE. Will EPA mandate ORVR compatibility for states choosing to continue Stage II after widespread use? If so, how does EPA recommend states determine ORVR compatibility of current systems outside of CARB's EVR certification program? The issues paper notes that the Houston-Galveston area of Texas has a vacuum-assist system percentage of 64%. The actual percentage is approximately 92%. If the proposed widespread use definition is adopted, would the EPA provide guidelines on the accurate determination of in-use efficiency for existing Stage II systems? Will guidance on exemptions for facilities dispensing 100% of fuel to ORVR-equipped vehicles (rental car facilities and car dealerships) be forthcoming? From a modeling standpoint, definition "b" would be the easiest, and the most realistic way to determine widespread use. Any widespread use definition requiring data on percent of gasoline dispensed would be very difficult to implement. TCEQ agrees with the EPA regarding the need for new emission factors. Currently, only Stage I and Stage II factors allow for local input (others are generic). It may be more beneficial to also allow local inputs for such things as liquid temperature and Reid vapor pressure.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/31/04

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Rules for Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Locomotive Engines and New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Policy and Regulations

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ strongly supports the locomotive and marine controls that EPA is proposing. EPA has pointed out in this notice that marine and locomotive engines have many similarities to large mobile generator engines which are already subject to a 0.5 g/bhp-hr NOx standard in 2011, and recommendations to control these engines are the next logical step in EPA's 3-prong diesel strategy: (1) highways; (2) nonroad diesel engines; and (3) marine and locomotive engines. It will be difficult for Texas to attain the 8-hour ozone standard, in some parts of the state, unless cleaner engines are federally mandated and implementation of those standards begins before the EPA mandated attainment dates. The commission recommends mandatory use of idle shutdown technology for both new and in-use locomotives, as well as mandatory idle emission reduction technology for in-use and new marine equipment in 2011. Mandatory introduction of cleaner engines and technologies may have the additional benefit for Texas of freeing up TERP dollars for supporting other new technology opportunities.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/16/04

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Rule on Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Policy and Regulations

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Provide strong support for the in-use not to exceed (NTE) testing proposal for heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Provide support and encouragement for EPA's continued efforts to draft similar in-use testing requirements using portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) for the non-road sector.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/27/04

SHORT TITLE: Supplemental Proposal for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule)

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: David Schanbacher

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ is concerned with the .05% threshold requirements proposed in the CAIR SNPR. TCEQ is concerned about the initial compliance date of 2010, and its benefit to the State's nonattainment areas. TCEQ is concerned regarding the relationship the proposed CAIR will have with existing TCEQ programs such as the Section 126 petitions, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and the agency's existing cap-and-trade program. TCEQ is concerned with potential modeling issues associated with the challenges to measure and model attainment of the ozone standard due to the implementation of CAIR's cap-and-trade program. TCEQ responded to proposed changes of the CERR for point, area, non-road, and on-road emission sources. TCEQ has requested that EPA continue to consider TCEQ's previous comments regarding the initial proposal of the CAIR program published in January 30, 2004 Federal Register.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 07/15/04

SHORT TITLE: Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Proposed Rule in 40 CFR 51.

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer's Office

STAFF CONTACT: David Schanbacher

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ is requesting that existing emission reduction requirements be considered as satisfying BART requirements. Modeling issues associated with the use of CALPUFF. TCEQ resource concerns regarding state implementation plan (SIP) submittals, as well as the engineering analysis that will be associated with BART determinations. TCEQ's support for establishing de minimis levels for pollutants.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/29/04

SHORT TITLE: Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units published in the March 16, 2004 Federal Register.

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Policy and Regulations

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ supports the flexibility of states to determine their participation in a cap-and-trade program. TCEQ is concerned about the safety-valve proposal to cap mercury allowances at $2,187.50/oz. TCEQ is concerned that the use of serial numbers for credits would create an undue burden for allowance holders and the program authority. TCEQ is concerned that EPA should maintain consistency between states as to whether or not units continue to receive allowances upon the retirement of the facility. TCEQ is concerned about the allocation of credits for Electric Generating Units (EGUs). The TCEQ feels that states should be allowed the flexibility in allocating allowances to each unit regardless of whether the state is participating in the interstate trading program. However, new sources and shutdown sources, the restrictions on banking of allowances, and any restrictions on trading allowances should be treated consistently by EPA. TCEQ feels that three years in advance of program implementation is sufficient to allocate allowances to EGUs.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 06/29/04

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Rule for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units published in the January 30, 2004 Federal Register.

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Policy and Regulations

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ supports the flexibility of states to determine their participation in a cap-and-trade program. TCEQ supports a national approach to control mercury emissions. TCEQ is concerned about the proposals lack of requirements for the disposal mercury. TCEQ supports that the requirements for emissions testing and record-keeping should not be weakened. The proposed requirements appear to provide a rich source of data for development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TCEQ is concerned that the proposal does not fulfill the requirements of Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks. Since, in the case of mercury, the link to children's health is water quality and fish contamination, more than air quality. TCEQ is concerned that the proposal does not offer a strategy if the proposed approach aggravates hot spots. TCEQ is concerned how new sources will treated under the cap-and-trade program. EPA is also unclear in its proposal what will be the proposed baseline for new sources. TCEQ is concerned that the co-benefit from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide controls is unknown in regards to the cap-and-trade program. TCEQ is concerned that the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) option of this proposal required that "any non-air quality health and environmental impacts" should be considered, but the same reference could not be found under the cap-and-trade proposal. TCEQ is concerned about the type of plan states will have to submit to regulate existing mercury sources. EPA is not specific.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 03/30/04

SHORT TITLE: Proposed Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule)

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Policy and Regulations

STAFF CONTACT: Kim Herndon

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ supports the concepts embodied by the IAQR proposal. TCEQ is concerned about the initial compliance date of 2010, and its benefit to the State's nonattainment areas. TCEQ is concerned with the use of the NOx SIP Call as a model for how the IAQR was developed. In order for the IAQR to be an effective strategy, EPA must provide affected states a chance to review and agree with the model inputs this effort is based. Staff is concerned that a thorough technical analysis is not possible without additional regulatory text and information from EPA. The proposal does not include specific regulatory text, fine grid modeling allowing an assessment of upwind impact on Texas, or a final determination of whether Texas is an upwind state for ozone. TCEQ is also concerned regarding the relationship the proposed IAQR will have with existing TCEQ programs such as: the Section 126 petitions; 8-hour/PM 2.5 State Implementation Plans; previous reductions from EGUs from Senate Bill 7; Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART); and the agency's existing cap-and-trade program.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/20/2004

SHORT TITLE: Air Toxic Assessment Library

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Chief Engineer

STAFF CONTACT: Michael Honeycutt

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Since air concentrations of benzene may be higher in any area in any state with petroleum refineries compared to an area without petroleum refineries, we suggest modifying the example language to not single out any state. The TCEQ recommends that instead of evaluating a "subsistence farmer" assumed to be located at the site where maximum deposition occurs for each PB-HAP compound as the example Tier 2 approach for the multipathway risk assessment, a resident or farmer should be defined and assessed at the actual locations where they live (i.e., the recommendations in Section 4.7.7 Potential Refinements of a Tier 2 Approach). The TCEQ recommends that a discussion of how a commercial/industrial facility should be evaluated in the multipathway risk assessment be included in the document. Lead is listed as a PB-HAP. TCEQ suggests a discussion on how lead should be evaluated in the multipathway risk assessment be included since lead is usually evaluated differently from other chemicals. Various clerical and reference-based suggestions and comments.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/15/04

SHORT TITLE: Deferral of Effective Date of Nonattainment Designations for 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early Action Compact Areas.

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Environmental Planning and Implementation

STAFF CONTACT: Kate Williams

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: For the last few years, TCEQ has been working with EPA on the innovative Early Action Compact process. EPA has now proposed a rule for "Deferral of Effective Date of Nonattainment Designations for 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early Action Compact Areas." In the proposal, EPA discusses how it intends to address situations where compact areas are attaining the 8-hour standard in April 2004, and are therefore designated attainment, but then later violate the 8-hour standard. The TCEQ suggested that the language be modified to indicate that EPA would commit to not redesignate the area to nonattainment for so long as the area continues to comply with the compact requirements and meet all compact milestones. This will clarify that compact areas retain the benefits of the EAC even if they later violate the standard. TCEQ also requested that the final rule make clear that a local area (and a state) continue to have flexibility in determining the best "mix" of control measures to address air quality concerns.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/13/04

SHORT TITLE: Transportation Conformity Rule Revision

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Environmental Planning and Implementation

STAFF CONTACT: Margie McAllister

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The proposed TCEQ comment letter supports the use of 1-hour budgets where 8-hour budgets are not yet in place. Furthermore, where there is no budget in place, the TCEQ draft letter supports use of the less-than-2002-baseline test for moderate and above areas and the no-greater-than-2002- baseline test for marginal and below areas, and elimination of the build-no-build test and the build-no-greater-than-no-build test. The build-no-build tests provide no assessment of air quality. Furthermore, for all large urban areas nationwide, the build-no-build tests are nearly impossible to pass. The proposed response supports use of applicable 1-hour budgets in lieu of 8-hour budgets. The proposed response also supports for moderate and above areas, option 3, specifying the less-than-2002-baseline test, of the following three options in the proposed rule: (1) complete both the build-less-than-no-build test and less than baseline year tests; (2) complete either the build-less-than-no-build or less-than-baseline year test; or (3) require that only one of these tests be met and eliminate the remaining test as an option altogether. For marginal and below areas, the proposed response supports use of the no-greater-than-2002-baseline test and elimination of the build-no-greater-than-no-build test.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 12/16/03

SHORT TITLE: Proposed rule to control Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines.

SUBMITTED TO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Environmental Planning and Implementation

STAFF CONTACT: Chuck Mueller

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The TCEQ has adopted control strategies on every category of source which it has control over in order to address the state's air quality issues. Aircraft engines are a source category which we have no control over and must rely on EPA to address. It is imperative that as states implement their strategies, significantly increasing the proportional share of emissions from sources which can only be regulated at the federal level, EPA take a more aggressive leadership role in developing standards in time to meet the clean air act deadlines for attainment.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 11/05/03

SHORT TITLE: Response to EPA's 8-hour Implementation Rule Reopening Regarding Classification Alternatives

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Heather Evans

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The TCEQ supports an approach to classification that provides flexibility for states and allows areas to be classified under subpart 1 or subpart 2. The TCEQ disagrees with classifying areas in subpart 2 based on 1-hour design values. The TCEQ recommends subpart 2 classification be based on attainment/nonattainment status at the time of 8-hour designations. The TCEQ suggested is own classification scheme which classifies areas as follows: If a county is designated attainment for the 1-hour standard, at the time of 8-hour designations, then the county would be classified under subpart 1. If a county is designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, at the time of 8-hour designations, and its 8-hour design value is less than 0.091 ppm, then the county would be classified under subpart 1. If a county is designated nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, at the time of 8-hour designations, and its 8-hour design value is 0.091 ppm or greater, then the county would be classified under subpart 2, using the revised classification table which translates the thresholds using one-half of the percentage above the standard.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/28/03

SHORT TITLE: First Draft Staff Paper For Particulate Matter

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Herb Williams

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: 1. Current health effects studies are not sufficient to support the proposed changes to PM2.5 standard levels. 2. Timing of revisions to the PM2.5 standard is not reasonable, because the current PM2.5 standard has not yet been implemented so the results of that implementation have not been deteremined. 3. Current health effects studies are not sufficient to support the PMcoarse standard or proposed levels. 4. PMcoarse monitoring data, monitoring network or approved federal monitoring reference method do not exist and should be obtained prior to implementation of such a standard.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/17/03

SHORT TITLE: Executive Management Review and Signature for a TDH Letter of Support regarding an application to EPA for the Children's Environmental Health Protection State Level Collaboration to Address Childhood Asthma Initiative

SUBMITTED TO: Texas Department of Health (TDH)

OFFICE PREPARING: Policy and Regulations

STAFF CONTACT: Janet Pichette

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The Texas Department of Health (TDH) is applying for an Environmental Protection Agency grant for the Children's Environmental Health Protection State Level Collaboration to Address Childhood Health Initiative. The grant, which requires a collaboration between the state health and environmental agencies, will support efforts to minimize the risk of environmental factors that exacerbate asthma symptoms in children. TDH will partner with the TCEQ in developing outreach programs addressing environmental factors that contribute to asthma in children. This outreach program will include enhancing the existing ozone alert systems to include 20 Texas Education Agency regional sites. By educating school officials, the best practices and methods can be encourage to eliminate or avoid environmental exposures or triggers that contribute to childhood asthma.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 10/08/03

SHORT TITLE: Comments on Documents cited in 68 FR 52934: USEPA, "Comparison of Regulatory Design Concentrations: AERMOD vs. ISCST3, CTDMPLUS, ISC-PRIME" and USEPA, "AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results"

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Permits

STAFF CONTACT: Robert Opiela

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: General Comments TCEQ staff supports EPA's progress in developing a new air dispersion model (AERMOD). AERMOD is potentially more representative of air pollution transport than the currently preferred regulatory model (ISC3). AERMOD performs much better than ISC3 when terrain is an issue. Staff is concerned that AERMOD is incomplete. Does not contain some basic features of the model it is to replace. These features are necessary for some NSR reviews. Staff's preference is for EPA to delay final promulgation of AERMOD until it is a complete product Comments on EPA Documents Purpose of EPA Analysis: Give states a measure of the regulatory impact of changing to a new model. Provide guidance for implementation of new model. TCEQ staff is concerned about the impact of implementation of the new model. EPA's analysis appeared incomplete and not fully documented. EPA's analysis appeared inconsistent with cited EPA implementation guidance documents and technical procedures regarding minimum data requirements. Staff's preference is for states to be allowed to used technical judgment when data are limited.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 09/05/03

SHORT TITLE: Draft Regulatory Text to Accompany the 8-hour Implementation Rule Proposal

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Strategic Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Heather Evans

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The TCEQ encourage EPA to provide an opportunity for public comment on the final regulatory text and requests that EPA consider the TCEQ's comments on the implementation rule when developing the regulatory text. The TCEQ also comments on a number of topics for which EPA has provided rule language including, but not limited to, the revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard; the timeframe for obtaining the necessary reductions required for reasonable further progress and attainment; the definition of attainment year ozone season; classification of areas under subpart 1 and subpart 2; 1year extensions to attainment dates; maintenance plan requirements; and RACT obligations. The comments strongly object to the draft language requiring that modeling be consistent with EPA guidance without also discussing the requirements of the guidance and providing sufficient opportunity to comment on the text of the guidance. The comments also oppose an arbitrary requirement for states to submit, within 1 year after the effective date of designations, an 8-hour SIP with a 10% emission reduction in NOx and/or VOC for areas designated nonattainment of both the 1-hour and 8-hour standards. The comments on the draft regulatory text are consistent with the comments the TCEQ submitted on the implementation rule and the comments in response to the implementation rule are also included in these comments.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/20/03

SHORT TITLE: Proposal to Reclassify the Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA) Ozone Nonattainment Area

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Strategic Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Mike Magee

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The commission supports moving directly to early 8-hour SIPs in lieu of 1-hour SIP revisions. However, if EPA proceeds with the reclassification ("bump-up"), the commission recommends Option 2, which would only bump up BPA to serious, compared to Option 1, which would bump up BPA to serious, then to severe. The commission's suggested approach is justified by the fact that: Substantial point source nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions are being made in the area; Monitored ozone values are decreasing, with only one monitor recording "marginal" nonattainment under the 8-hour standard; EPA's proposed November 2005 attainment date under either Option 1 or 2 for the 1-hour standard would be seven months after it is expected to revoke the 1-hour standard. The area has made a good faith effort under the rules in effect at the time, and no backsliding or delays will be allowed.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/20/03

SHORT TITLE: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel, a proposed rule

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Strategic Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Eve Hou

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: In general the TCEQ supports this rule since it sets stringent standards on a federally-preempted source category. We believe the proposed standards will lead to improved health and air quality. We propose making the following comments: We suggest a single-step ramp-down of nonroad diesel sulfur levels to 15 ppm in 2008 for all categories (including locomotive and marine diesel) instead of a two-step ramp-down. We would like earlier final compliance dates for exhaust emission standards. We would like EPA to commit in the final nonroad rule to additional rulemaking and a timely schedule to tighten emission standards for locomotive and marine engines. We expressed concerns about difficulties administering the nonroad retrofit credit portion of the Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) program.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 08/01/03

SHORT TITLE: 8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule Proposal

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Strategic Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Heather Evans

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: At the public hearing in June, TCEQ provided oral comments on the following points: support of the flexible planning approach to move towards implementation of the 8-hour standard; support of the option to allow states flexibility in classifying areas for nonattainment; suggesting that EPA revise the attainment dates from the April/May timeframe of the attainment year, to after the end of the ozone season in order to allow states to use that year's ozone season date in its three year average; and a suggestion to implement a strong national policy regarding transport. These points have also been reiterated in the written comments. In addition, the written comments cover numerous other topics as outlined in EPA's proposal including, but not limited to the following: incorporation of the Clear Skies legislation, reasonably available control technology requirements, timing and issues associated with revoking the 1-hour ozone standard; timeframe for obtaining the necessary reductions required for attainment; and the impact to Early Action Compact areas.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 05/02/03

SHORT TITLE:Proposed Changes to the Routine Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Exclusion to the New Source Review in 40 CFR 51 and 52

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Air Permits

STAFF CONTACT: Kurt Kind

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ does not agree with EPA's proposed approaches to resolving the issues associated with RMRR and Federal NSR. EPA's proposed rules look at RMRR only from the standpoint of the RMRR activity and the cost of the project, without any correlation to improvement to air quality. The proposed rules will increase the difficulties associated with an already complex applicability determination process. TCEQ requests that the RMRR rules keep the focus of RMRR applicability decisions on the emissions associated with the activities. RMRR rules should also mesh with the concepts, such as Clean Unit and actual to future actual emissions, already in place in the recent NSR reform rules.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 02/21/03

SHORT TITLE: Comments on the American Trucking Assoc. Petition for Reconsideration of the Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Vehicles rule

SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Herb Williams

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: TCEQ urges EPA to deny the American Trucking Association's petition for reconsideration of the 2004 Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles rule. We continue to support adoption of the rule to assist states in fulfilling their obligations for compliance with national ambient air quality standards for ozone. Texas feels that it may not be possible to attain the ozone standards without EPA's cooperation through adoption and implementation of measures such as the 2004 HDD rule, and we reject any efforts to undermine EPA's efforts to assist states through such national programs.

Return to TopBack to top


DATE SUBMITTED: 01/15/03

SHORT TITLE: Proposed 8-hour Designation Recommendation Schedule

OFFICE PREPARING: Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

STAFF CONTACT: Herb Williams

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Texas is generally supportive of EPA efforts to settle the lawsuit without litigation. We are pleased to see the Consent Decree and EPA's designation guidance memo's acknowledgment of the Early Action Compact approach. We are concerned that the proposed consent decree creates serious timing issues concerning state development of designation recommendations without the benefit of EPA's 8-hour implementation guidance rule. We are also concerned that EPA's schedule will not allow Texas to consider 2001-2003 ozone monitoring data in developing the designation recommendations.

Return to TopBack to top