52664 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State approval/ 

submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

Section 101.393 ................................... General provisions ............................... 12/01/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.394 ................................... Allocation of allowances ....................... 12/01/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.396 ................................... Allowance deductions .......................... 12/01/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.399 ................................... Allowance Banking and Trading .......... 12/01/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.400 ................................... Reporting .............................................. 12/01/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.401 ................................... Level of activity certification ................. 2/01/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.403 ................................... Program audits and reports ................. 12/01/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–7410 Filed 9–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0023; FRL–8216–

4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions for the Mass Emissions Cap 

and Trade Program for the Houston/ 

Galveston/Brazoria Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) concerning the Mass Emissions 

Cap and Trade (MECT) program for 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in 

the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) 

ozone nonattainment area. Additionally, 

EPA is approving several subsections of 

Chapter 116 of the Texas Administrative 

Code (TAC) (Control of Air Pollution by 

Permits for New Construction or 

Modification) that provide crossreferences to the MECT program. EPA is 

approving these revisions in accordance 

with the requirements of the Federal 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0023. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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

copy at the Air Permitting Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. The file will 

be made available by appointment for 

public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA 

Review Room between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for 

legal holidays. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15-cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal related to this SIP 

revision, and which is part of the EPA 

docket, is also available for public 

inspection at the State Air Agency listed 

below during official business hours by 

appointment: 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 

Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52665 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley, Air Permitting Section 

(6PD–R), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

EPA. 

Outline 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What are EPA’s responses to comments 

received on the proposed action? 

IV. What does Federal approval of a State 

regulation mean to me? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving as part of the SIP 

revisions to the MECT program for NOX

emissions in the HGB ozone 

nonattainment area (consisting of 

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, 

and Waller counties) published at Texas 

Administrative Code (TAC) Title 30, 

Chapter 101 General Air Quality Rules, 

Subchapter H Emissions Banking and 

Trading, Division 3. EPA is approving 

revisions to sections 101.350–101.354, 

and 101.360 submitted on January 31, 

2003, and revisions to sections 101.356 

and 101.359, submitted on December 6, 

2004. EPA is also approving revisions to 

30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air 

Pollution by Permits for New 

Construction or Modification that 

provide cross-references to the MECT 

program. The revisions to Chapter 116 

we are approving are subsections 

116.111(a)(2)(L), 116.115(b)(2)(C)(iii), 

116.176, 116.610(a)(6), and 

116.615(5)(C), which were submitted as 

a SIP revision on April 12, 2001. 

As discussed in our proposed action 

at 70 FR 58117, we conclude that these 

revisions to the MECT program are 

consistent with section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act. 

II. What is the Background for this 

action? 

The MECT program was adopted as a 

State regulation on December 6, 2000. 

The program is mandatory for most 

NOX-emitting stationary facilities in the 

HGB area. The program sets a declining 

cap on NOX emissions beginning 

January 1, 2002, with the final cap level 

set in 2007. Each year, covered facilities 

receive NOX allowances in an amount 

determined by a formula, which uses 

emission rates established in 30 TAC 

Chapter 117. An allowance is the 

authorization to emit one ton of NOX

during a control period; a control period 

is the calendar year. By March 1 each 

year, covered facilities must hold 

enough NOX allowances to cover their 

emissions during the previous control 

period. Facilities may purchase, bank or 

sell their allowances. The MECT 

program has a provision to allow a 

facility to use emission reduction 

credits (ERCs) generated through the 

TCEQ Emission Credit Banking and 

Trading program to permanently 

increase its MECT allowances, but only 

if the credits were generated for NOX in 

the HGB area before December 1, 2000. 

The MECT also has a provision to allow 

a facility to use discrete emission 

reduction credits (DERCs) and mobile 

discrete emission reduction credits 

(MDERCs) generated through the TCEQ 

Discrete Emission Credit Banking and 

Trading program in lieu of allowances if 

they are generated in the HGB area. EPA 

published a final rule approving the 

MECT program (except for the use of 

DERCs and MDERCs in the MECT, 

which we deferred acting on until our 

action on the DERC program) on 

November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57252). 

Texas has subsequently revised the 

MECT program in SIP submittals dated 

July 15, 2002, January 31, 2003, and 

December 6, 2004. 

The MECT allowance allocations and 

resulting emission reductions were 

relied on in the HGB attainment 

demonstration submitted in 2000. As of 

2000, the MECT rules were designed to 

reduce overall industrial NOX emissions 

in the HGB area by approximately 90 

percent. 

Today’s action approves several 

revisions to the MECT that TCEQ 

submitted to EPA on January 31, 2003, 

and December 6, 2004. These revisions 

made changes to support a shift from 90 

percent control of industrial sources to 

80 percent control in the HGB ozone 

nonattainment area, expanded the 

applicability of the MECT, updated and 

revised the provision of the MECT 

allowing for the use of DERCs and 

MDERCs in lieu of MECT allowances, 

and included a variety of nonsubstantive changes to correct grammar 

and reorganize the rule text for 

readability. 

In our proposed approval of the 

MECT revisions (70 FR 58112), we 

stated that final action on the MECT 

would not occur until we published 

final approval of the attainment 

demonstration, which is being 

processed concurrently with this 

approval. For a further discussion of the 

attainment demonstration and EPA’s 

responses to comments on this action, 

please see our action on the attainment 

demonstration (EPA–R06–OAR–2005–

TX–0018). 

Also in our proposed approval of the 

MECT revisions, we stated that the use 

of DERCs and MDERCs in the MECT 

program would not be federally 

approved until we published approvals 

of both section 101.356, which 

specifically provides for these uses and 

which we are acting on here, and the 

DERC program generally. EPA is 

publishing a final conditional approval 

of the DERC program concurrently with 

our action on the MECT. Therefore, the 

use of DERCs and MDERCs in the MECT 

is federally approved as of the effective 

date of these two rules, but all such uses 

must be consistent with the conditions 

of the DERC conditional approval. The 

TCEQ will not approve the use of any 

DERCs that were generated from 

shutdowns since September 30, 2002, 

and the use of banked shutdown DERCs 

generated before September 30, 2002, 

must occur within five years from the 

date of the commitment letter. In 

addition, with respect to all DERCs and 

MDERCs that are to be used in the 

MECT program, both generators and 

users of such credits must certify to a 

waiver of the Federal statute of 

limitations. EPA approval is also 

required when DERCs or MDERCs 

generated in another state or nation, and 

in either attainment or nonattainment 

areas (other than the HGB 

nonattainment areas) are requested for 

use in the MECT program. Please see the 

administrative record for our action on 

the DERC program for further 

information (EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–

0029). 

III. What are EPA’s responses to 

comments received on the proposed 

action? 

EPA’s responses to comments 

submitted by Galveston-Houston 

Association for Smog Prevention 

(GHASP), Environmental Defense 

(Texas Office), the Lone Star Chapter of 

the Sierra Club, and Public Citizen 

(Texas Office) on November 4, 2005, are 

as follows. EPA has summarized the 

comments below; the complete 

comments can be found in the 

administrative record for this action 

(EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0023). 

Comment 1: EPA should not approve 

revisions to the SIP that increase the 

approved industrial NOX cap level. 

Further, GHASP questions the technical 

basis for the alternative Emission 

Specifications for Attainment 

Demonstrations (ESADs) used by the 

TCEQ to establish the proposed NOX

MECT allocations. 

Response to Comment 1: EPA 

disagrees with this comment. First, 

although the revisions to the allocation 

scheme represent a reduced level of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
52666 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

control as compared to the previous 

federally approved SIP, these revisions 

will nonetheless result in industrial 

NOX emission reductions of 

approximately 80 percent as compared 

to year 2000 levels. Additionally, the 

reduction in NOX emission controls 

from 90 percent to 80 percent will be 

countered by reductions in highlyreactive volatile organic compounds 

(HRVOCs) to achieve an equivalent level 

of air quality improvement. 

Second, the reduction of the 

stringency of industrial NOX controls 

(from approximately 90 percent to 80 

percent) is not a component of the 

MECT revisions evaluated in this rule. 

The reduction from 90 percent to 80 

percent control is actually the result of 

changes to the emission specifications 

for attainment demonstrations (ESADs) 

in 30 TAC Chapter 117. These Chapter 

117 ESADs are then used in the MECT 

allowance allocation formulas in section 

101.353. Our full response to this 

comment, which includes consideration 

of the changes to the Chapter 117 

ESADs therefore appears in our action 

on the attainment demonstration for 

HGB (EPA–R06–OAR–2005–0018). This 

approach is logical because the change 

to 80 percent industrial NOX controls is 

a part of the overall HGB attainment 

strategy, and should be evaluated in 

conjunction with other new features of 

that strategy, principally the addition of 

new controls for HRVOCs. 

The MECT establishes a declining cap 

for NOX emissions that is implemented 

in stages. Both the 90 percent NOX

control strategy and the 80 percent NOX

control strategy that replaced it allocate 

allowances based on emission goals that 

are a percentage of the baseline 

emission level. Allowances under the 

MECT were originally assigned based on 

1997, 1998, and 1999 historical 

emissions or permit allowables. Section 

101.353(a)(3) of the MECT controls the 

pace of implementation of the declining 

cap, while the revisions to Chapter 117 

(which we are approving in our separate 

and simultaneous action on the 

attainment demonstration) reduce the 

stringency from a nominal 90 percent 

control to a nominal 80 percent control. 

The effect of the change to a nominal 

80 percent control strategy on the MECT 

will be to authorize a total number of 

MECT allowances in 2007 (the year the 

cap reaches its ultimate level) that is 

greater than it would have been under 

a nominal 90 percent strategy. As 

discussed in the attainment 

demonstration rule, however, the 80 

percent strategy is consistent with 

attainment when combined with the 

other measures described in the 

attainment demonstration. Further, the 

final MECT allowance total under the 80 

percent strategy will result in a reduced 

level of NOX emissions when compared 

to the present. Therefore, the 80 percent 

control level, which will be fully 

implemented after the 2007 control 

period, still results in an actual 

emissions decrease from 2000 levels, 

and not an increase in emissions as 

suggested by the commenters. 

Comment 2: The MECT lacks a formal 

oversight mechanism sufficient to 

address potential environmental justice 

concerns. The audit provisions in 

section 101.311 do not specifically 

provide for an evaluation of the 

geographic distribution of NOX

allowances, and even if a provision 

were included in the audit, this would 

not address concerns that 

environmental justice issues be resolved 

in a timely manner. Specifically, 

GHASP is concerned about the scenario 

in which large amounts of NOX MECT 

allowances could be traded into Harris 

County and combine with the large 

amounts of reactive VOC emissions in 

the same area. This could result in 

higher ozone levels than predicted by 

current modeling. EPA should also 

consider requiring TCEQ to establish a 

separate trading zone for Harris County 

to address environmental justice 

concerns. 

Response to Comment 2: EPA 

disagrees that an additional formal 

oversight mechanism for Harris County 

NOX levels is needed to protect the 

region from environmental justice 

concerns. The MECT is a trading 

program involving primarily emissions 

of NOX, although section 101.356(h) 

does provide that VOC DERCs or 

MDERCs can be used in lieu of NOX

allowances if a demonstration has been 

made and approved by the TCEQ 

Executive Director and EPA. 

Environmental justice concerns can 

arise when a final EPA rule, such as a 

trading program, could result in 

disproportionate burdens on particular 

communities, including minority or low 

income communities. Using this 

definition, environmental justice 

concerns can only arise when there is a 

potential for particular communities to 

be affected differently from the 

surrounding areas. This can occur for 

VOC programs because some VOC 

emissions have toxic components that 

can affect discrete areas. 

While EPA has acknowledged, at 

section 4.2(b) of ‘‘Improving Air Quality 

with Economic Incentive Programs’’

(EPA–452/R–01–001, January 2001) (EIP 

Guidance), that programs that allow 

trading of VOCs can result in localized 

increases of VOCs, the MECT program is 

designed to avoid such increases. In 

particular, as discussed in our July 23, 

2001, MECT proposal (66 FR 38240), the 

use of VOC reductions in place of NOX

allowances under the MECT can only 

drive VOC emissions lower. That is, 

because the only involvement of VOCs 

in the MECT program is the substitution 

of VOC decreases for NOX increases, 

there is no scenario under which this 

program could allow higher VOC 

emissions than would otherwise occur. 

Moreover, NOX (the focus of the MECT 

program) is an area-wide pollutant 

present throughout the HGB area, and 

therefore the trades of NOX emissions 

pursuant to the MECT would not 

disproportionately impact a local 

community. Therefore, the HGB MECT 

does not have the potential to cause 

environmental justice concerns. 

Further, the use of VOC DERCs or 

MDERCs in the MECT is subject to the 

stringent retirement ratios of section 

101.356(h), which may result in more 

DERCs being retired than allowances 

used. Users of VOC DERCs and MDERCs 

must also obtain prior approval from the 

TCEQ according to section 101.376. The 

TCEQ will consider potential 

environmental justice concerns during 

this approval process. 

For the above reasons, EPA concludes 

that the use of VOC DERCs and MDERCs 

in the MECT will not lead to a 

disproportionate impact on 

communities of concern. 

Although we disagree that the MECT 

raises environmental justice concerns, 

GHASP’s comment about the potential 

for high levels of ozone forming in 

Harris County is relevant to the future 

control strategy in the HGB area. The 

future MECT and HECT audits should 

closely analyze the interaction of the 

two programs and their combined 

impact on the HGB area. 

Because of our conclusion that a NOX

trading program does not raise 

particular environmental justice issues, 

we also disagree that the MECT program 

requires additional oversight in order to 

address potential environmental justice 

concerns in a timely manner. As 

approved by EPA on November 14, 2001 

(66 FR 57252), the MECT does have a 

formal audit provision that provides 

sufficient oversight to identify and 

address potential areas of concern. This 

audit provision is in section 101.363(a) 

of the MECT rules and requires TCEQ to 

conduct an audit every three years, 

beginning in 2004. The audit will 

evaluate the impact of the program on 

the State’s ozone attainment 

demonstration, the availability and cost 

of allowances, compliance by the 

participants, and any other elements the 

TCEQ Executive Director may choose to 

include. The TCEQ Executive Director 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52667 

will recommend measures to remedy 

any problems identified during the 

audit, including discontinuing 

allowance trading and use of discrete 

emission reduction credits and mobile 

discrete emission reduction credits. The 

audit data and results must be 

completed and submitted to EPA and 

made available for public inspection 

within 6 months from the beginning of 

the audit. TCEQ’s first MECT audit, 

finalized in May 2006, is included in 

the administrative record for this 

rulemaking action. 

The MECT audit provisions described 

above are consistent with EPA’s 

expectations for evaluating the results of 

an economic incentive program (EIP), as 

outlined in section 5.3(b) of the EIP 

Guidance. Section 5.3(b) explains that 

an appropriate schedule for program 

evaluations is at least every three years, 

which coincides with other periodic 

reporting requirements such as those 

applicable to emission inventory 

requirements required by the CAA. EPA 

believes that the triennial MECT audit 

schedule and the required annual report 

(section 101.363(b)) that summarizes all 

MECT trades completed in the most 

recent control period will be sufficient 

to ensure the MECT does not jeopardize 

the HGB area’s attainment strategy. 

Also, we note that the MECT audit may 

in any case consider environmental 

justice, because section 101.363(a)(1) 

provides that the audit may address 

‘‘any other elements the executive 

director may choose to include.’’

As noted, we disagree with the 

commenters that the MECT program 

raises any environmental justice 

concerns. In addition, we disagree with 

their assertion that an increase in ozone 

formation resulting from large amounts 

of NOX and HRVOC emissions is an 

issue of significant concern. We have 

reviewed the audit results for the 2002 

and 2003 control periods, which show 

that MECT-subject facilities in all 

counties except Liberty County 

significantly reduced their total NOX

emissions from the historical baseline. 

Actual emissions in Harris County were 

reduced by 47.1 percent from the 

historical baseline in 2002 and 62.2 

percent from the historical baseline in 

2003. Actual emissions in 2003 for the 

entire HGB area were approximately 

86,693 tons; which is already lower than 

the total amount of 2005 allocations of 

approximately 87,159 tons. TCEQ 

expects this trend to continue in future 

control periods as further reductions are 

implemented. Therefore, it is reasonable 

to conclude that under the MECT 

program Harris County will not have an 

increase in NOX emissions that could 

result in increased ozone formation. 

Additionally, EPA continues to support 

TCEQ’s attainment strategy for HGB 

where the MECT and HECT are integral 

to reducing levels of ozone. The 

administrative record for our final 

action on the HGB attainment 

demonstration may be found at docket 

number EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–

0018. 

Finally, EPA also disagrees that a 

separate trading zone should be 

established for Harris County to address 

environmental justice concerns. First, as 

mentioned above, if and when VOC 

DERCs and MDERCs are requested for 

use in lieu of NOX allowances the TCEQ 

will consider potential environmental 

justice concerns during the approval 

process for such uses. (And in any case, 

as discussed previously, such use of 

VOC reductions in lieu of NOX

allowances can only drive VOC 

emissions lower.) Second, EPA has 

determined that NOX emissions are a 

concern for the entire HGB ozone 

nonattainment area. Therefore, it is 

reasonable and appropriate to establish 

a cap-and-trade program for the entire 

nonattainment area. 

EPA’s response to BCCA Appeal 

Group (BCCAAG) and Texas Industry 

Project (TIP) comments made on 

November 4, 2005 is as follows: 

Comment: BCCA Appeal Group and 

TIP support EPA’s proposed approval of 

the revisions to the MECT program and 

urge EPA to finalize its approval as soon 

as practicable. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

support of BCCAAG and TIP for our 

approval of revisions to the MECT. 

IV. What does Federal approval of a 

State regulation mean To me? 

Enforcement of the State regulation 

before and after it is incorporated into 

the federally approved SIP is primarily 

a State function. However, once the 

regulation is federally approved, the 

EPA and the public may take 

enforcement action against violators of 

these regulations. In addition, only 

regulations that have been federally 

approved can be credited toward an 

area’s attainment or rate of progress 

plan. EPA is approving the revisions to 

the 1-hour ozone attainment plan for the 

HGB area to shift the control strategy 

from approximately 90 percent control 

of industrial NOX emissions to 80 

percent control (please see EPA–R06–

OAR–2005–TX–0018). The revisions to 

the MECT enable the shift in the control 

strategy, and therefore must be 

approved with the attainment 

demonstration. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
52668 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 6, 2006. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 24, 2006. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. The table in § 52.2270(c) entitled 

‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the 

Texas SIP’’ is amended: 

■ a. Under Chapter 101—General Air 

Quality Rules, Subchapter H—

Emissions Banking and Trading, 

Division 3—Mass Emissions Cap and 

Trade Program, by revising the entries 

for sections 101.350, 101.351, 101.352, 

101.353, 101.354, 101.356, 101.358, 

101.359, 101.360 and 101.363; 

■ b. Under Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—Control 

of Air Pollution by Permits for New 

Construction or Modification, 

Subchapter B—New Source Review 

Permits, Division 1—Permit 

Applications, by revising the entries for 

sections 116.111 and 116.115; 

■ c. Under Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—Control 

of Air Pollution by Permits for New 

Construction or Modification, 

Subchapter B—New Source Review 

Permits, Division 7—Emission 

Reductions: Offsets, by revising the 

entry for section 116.170 and by adding 

a new entry for section 116.176; 

■ d. Under Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—

Control of Air Pollution by Permits for 

New Construction or Modification, 

Subchapter F—Standard Permits, by 

revising the entries for sections 116.610 

and 116.615. 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter H—Emissions Banking and Trading 

* * * * * * * 

Division 3—Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program 

Section 101.350 ............................... Definitions ........................................ 12/13/02 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.351 ............................... Applicability ...................................... 12/13/02 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.352 ............................... General Provisions .......................... 12/13/02 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52669 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

Section 101.353 ............................... Allocation of Allowances .................. 12/13/02 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

wheredocument begins].

Section 101.354 ............................... Allowance Deductions ..................... 12/13/02 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.356 ............................... Allowance Banking and Trading ...... 11/10/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.358 ............................... Emission Monitoring and Compliance Demonstration.12/06/00 11/14/01, 66 FR 

57252.

Section 101.359 ............................... Reporting ......................................... 11/10/04 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.360 ............................... Level of Activity Certification ........... 12/13/02 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Section 101.363 ............................... Program Audits and Reports ........... 09/26/01 11/14/01, 66 FR 

57252.

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—Control of Air Pollution by 

Permits for New Construction or Modification 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter B—New Source Review Permits 

Division 1—Permit Application 

* * * * * * * 

Section 116.111 ............................... General Application ......................... 03/07/01 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

The SIP does not include subsections 

116.111(a)(2)(K) 

and 116.111(b). 

* * * * * * * 

Section 116.115 ............................... General and Special Conditions ...... 11/20/02 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

The SIP does not include subsection 

116.115(c)(2)

(B)(ii)(I). 

* * * * * * * 

Division 7—Emission Reductions: Offsets 

Section 116.170 ............................... Applicability of Reduction Credits .... 06/17/98 09/18/02, 67 FR 

58697.

The SIP does not include section 

116.170(2). 

Section 116.176 ............................... Use of Mass Cap Allowances for 

Offsets.

03/07/01 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
52670 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter F: Standard Permits 

* * * * * * * 

Section 116.610 ............................... Applicability ...................................... 03/07/01 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

The SIP does not include subsection 

116.610(d). 

* * * * * * * 

Section 116.615 ............................... General Conditions .......................... 03/07/01 [Insert date of FR 

publication] [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–7411 Filed 9–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0018; FRL–8216–

1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to the Ozone Attainment 

Plan for the Houston/Galveston/ 

Brazoria Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) as it applies to the Houston/ 

Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) ozone 

nonattainment area. These SIP revisions 

result from more recent information on 

ozone formation in the HGB area 

indicating that a combination of 

controls on nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

highly reactive volatile organic 

compounds (HRVOCs) should be more 

effective in reducing ozone than the 

measures in the previously approved 

2001 HGB attainment demonstration 

plan which relied almost exclusively on 

the control of NOX. Approval of these 

revisions incorporates these changes 

into the federally approved SIP. 

The approved revisions include a 1- 

hour ozone standard attainment 

demonstration, motor vehicle emissions 

budgets, a demonstration that all 

reasonably available control measures 

have been adopted for the HGB area and 

revisions to satisfy the enforceable 

commitments contained in the 

previously approved SIP. These 

revisions present a new mix of 

controlled strategies in order to achieve 

attainment. These revisions include 

changes to the industrial NOX rules, 

reducing the stringency from a nominal 

90 percent to 80 percent control and 

revisions to the Texas Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) rules that drop three 

counties from the I/M program. 

As part of the approved revisions to 

the HGB attainment demonstration, 

Texas has adopted new control 

measures which EPA has approved or is 

approving concurrent with this action. 

The new control measures are increased 

control of HRVOC emissions and 

control of emissions from portable 

gasoline containers. Also, in separate 

actions in today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is concurrently approving the following 

emissions trading programs that relate 

to the HGB attainment demonstration: 

revisions to the Mass Emissions Cap and 

Trade Program for the HGB area, the 

Highly Reactive Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Cap and Trade 

Program for the HGB area, the Emissions 

Credit Banking and Trading Program, 

and the Discrete Emissions Credit 

Banking and Trading Program. 

The SIP revisions to the HGB 

attainment demonstration addressed in 

this rulemaking along with the HRVOC 

rules and emissions trading programs 

being concurrently approved, will 

provide for timely attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard in HGB as 

demonstrated through the modeling 

analysis. Additionally, Texas has shown 

that these revisions will not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Clean Air Act. 

(Section 110(l) demonstration). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–2005–TX–0018. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES