FR Doc 06-7414

[Federal Register: September 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 172)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52703-52708]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06se06-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0029; FRL-8216-5]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Texas;
Discrete Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; conditional approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing our conditional approval of revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the Discrete Emission
Credit Banking and Trading Program.

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-0029. 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.

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 a conditional approval?
III. What future actions are necessary for the DERC rule to fully
meet EPA's expectations?
IV. What is the background for this action?
V. What are EPA's responses to comments received on the proposed
action?
VI. What does Federal approval of a State regulation mean to me?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is conditionally approving, as part of the Texas SIP, the
Discrete Emission Credit Banking and Trading program, also referred to
as the Discrete Emission Reduction Credit (DERC) program, enacted at
Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Title 30, Chapter 101 General Air
Quality Rules, Subchapter H, Division 4, sections 101.370-101.374,
101.376, 101.378, and 101.379. These revisions were provided in SIP
revisions dated July 22, 1998 (state effective date December 23, 1997);
December 20, 2000 (state effective date January 18, 2001); July 15,
2002 (state effective date April 14, 2002); January 31, 2003 (state
effective date January 17, 2003), and December 06, 2004 (state
effective date December 2, 2004).
As discussed in our proposed action at 70 FR 58164-58166, we
conclude that the DERC program is consistent with section 110(l) of the
Clean Air Act.
The DERC program that we are conditionally approving today into the
Texas SIP includes numerous cross-references to different State rules.
In order to be able to conditionally approve (or fully approve) a
revision into a SIP, we also must conditionally approve (or fully
approve) any cross-referenced rules that are integral to the
establishment, implementation, and enforcement of the SIP revision. Our
detailed evaluation of all the cross-references in the State's DERC
rule language to other State rules not part of Subchapter H, Division
4, sections 101.370-101.374, 101.376, 101.378, and 101.379 can be found
in the ``Review of Cross-References in the DERC Program'' discussion in
Section IV of the Technical Support Document (available in the
rulemaking docket EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0029).
Today, EPA finds that the cross-references in the following
sections of the DERC program have already been approved into the Texas
SIP: 101.370(29) at 65 FR 70792; 101.372(b)(3) at 63 FR 11835;
101.372(d)(1)(A) at 66 FR 57244; 101.372(d)(1)(B) at 60 FR 12438, 62 FR
27964, 65 FR 18003, 66 FR 36917, and 66 FR 54688; 101.372(f)(4) at 66
FR 36917; 101.373(b)(1) at 67 FR 58697; and 101.376(d)(2)(A) at 66 FR
57244. Additionally, the cross-references in sections 101.370(28) and
101.376(c)(5) have been approved by the EPA into the Texas Federal
Operating Permits Program on December 06, 2001, and March 31, 2005. The
cross-reference in section 101.376(b)(3) is addressed in a

[[Page 52704]]

corresponding action on the Texas Mass Emissions Cap and Trade program
published separately in today's Federal Register.
We are not approving section 101.376(c)(4) into the Texas SIP
because the cross-references to 30 TAC Chapter 106 Permit by Rule,
sections 106.261 (3) or (4) or section 106.262(3) are incorrect and do
not exist in State law, the Texas SIP, or the Texas Federal Operating
Permits program. Consequently, unless and until the State adopts and
submits a revision to EPA for approval as a SIP revision and EPA
approves it, the use of discrete emission credits to exceed the
provisions in certain types of pre-construction permits termed Permits
by Rule is not available under the Texas SIP.
In our proposed conditional approval of the DERC program, we also
proposed approving section 115.950 in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control of
Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, which cross-references
the DERC program, and we proposed approving the definition of
``facility'' published at 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution
by Permits for New Construction or Modification, Subchapter A, section
116.10. Our final action on those two provisions is not included in
this final rule, but is instead in our final action on the Emission
Credit Banking and Trading program, referred to as the Emission
Reduction Credit (ERC) program. Our approval of sections 115.950 and
the definition of ``facility'' in 116.10 is not affected by the
conditions on our approval of the DERC program.

II. What is a conditional approval?

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act, EPA may conditionally
approve a plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain that is no more than one year
from the date of conditional approval. If EPA determines that the
revised rule is approvable, EPA will propose approval of the rule. If
the State fails to meet its commitment within the one-year period, the
approval is treated as a disapproval. There are at least two ways that
the conditional approval may be converted to a disapproval.
If the State fails to adopt and submit the specified
measures by the date it committed to do so, or fails to submit anything
at all, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval, but will not have to
propose the disapproval. No proposal is required, because in the
original proposed and final conditional approval EPA will have provided
notice and an opportunity for comment on the fact that EPA would
directly make the finding of disapproval (by letter) if the State
failed to submit anything. Therefore, under this scenario, after the
date by which the state committed to adopt and submit the measures, the
Regional Administrator (RA) would send a letter to the State finding
that it failed to meet its commitment and that the SIP submittal was
therefore disapproved. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the two-
year clock for a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would start as of
the date of the letter. Subsequently, a notice to that effect would be
published in the Federal Register, and appropriate language inserted in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Similarly, if EPA receives a
submittal addressing the commitment but determines that the submittal
is incomplete, the RA will send a letter to the State making such a
finding. As with the failure to submit, the sanctions and FIP clocks
will begin as of the date of the finding letter.
Where the State does make a complete submittal by the date
it committed to do so, EPA will evaluate that submittal to determine if
it may be approved and will take final action on the submittal within
12 months after the date EPA determines the submittal is complete. If
the submittal does not adequately address the deficiencies that were
the subject of the conditional approval, and is therefore not
approvable, EPA must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to
disapprove the submittal. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the two-
year clock for a FIP start as of the date of final disapproval.
In either instance, whether EPA finally approves or disapproves the
rule, the conditional approval remains in effect until EPA takes its
final action. Note that EPA will conditionally approve a certain rule
only once. Subsequent submittals of the same rule that attempt to
correct the same specifically identified problems will not be eligible
for conditional approval.

III. What future actions are necessary for the DERC rule to fully meet
EPA's expectations?

TCEQ has submitted a commitment letter to Region 6 outlining the
steps that will be taken to achieve full approval. This letter, dated
September 8, 2005, can be found in the DERC administrative record, EPA-
R06-OAR-2005-TX-0029. The commitments are:
(1) Revising the language in section 101.373:
a. To prohibit the future generation of discrete emission reduction
credits from permanent shutdowns; and
b. To allow discrete emission reduction credits generated from
permanent shutdowns before September 30, 2002, to remain available for
use for no more than five years from the date of the commitment letter.
(2) TCEQ will perform a credit audit to remove from the emissions
bank all discrete emission reduction credits generated from permanent
shutdowns after September 30, 2002.
(3) Revising the language in sections 101.302(f), 101.372(f)(7),
and 101.372(f)(8) to clarify that EPA approval is required for
individual transactions involving emission reductions generated in
another state or nation, as well as those transactions from one
nonattainment area to another or from attainment counties into
nonattainment areas.
(4) TCEQ will revise Form DEC-1, Notice of Generation and Generator
Certification of Discrete Emission Credits; Form MDEC-1, Notice of
Generation and Generator Certification of Mobile Discrete Emission
Credits; and Form DEC-2, Notice of Intent to Use Discrete Emission
Credits, to include a waiver to the Federal statute of limitations
defense for generators and users of discrete emission credits.
(5) TCEQ will maintain its current policy of preserving all records
relating to discrete emission credit generation and use for a minimum
of five years after the use strategy has ended.
Additionally, TCEQ has agreed to comply with these commitments
during the conditional approval period. Specifically, TCEQ will not
approve any trades involving the types of reductions described in item
(3) above, will not approve any use of discrete shutdown credits that
were generated after September 30, 2002, will only allow shutdown DERCs
generated before September 30, 2002, to be used for up to five years
from the date of the commitment letter, and will require the waiver
described in item (4) above for generators and users of discrete
emission credits. TCEQ must submit revised rules satisfying the above
conditions to EPA on or before December 01, 2006. The conditional
approval will automatically become a disapproval if the revisions are
not completed and submitted to EPA by this date.

IV. What is the background for this action?

The DERC rules establish a type of Economic Incentive Program
(EIP), in particular an open market emissions trading program as
described in EPA's EIP Guidance document, Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive

[[Page 52705]]

Programs' (EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001). This program provides
flexibility for sources in complying with certain State and Federal
requirements. In an open market trading program, a source generates
emission credits by reducing its emissions during a discrete period of
time. These credits, called discrete emission credits, or DECs, in the
Texas program, are quantified in units of mass. Discrete emission
credit (DEC) is a generic term that encompasses reductions from
stationary sources (discrete emission reduction credits, or DERCs), and
reductions from mobile sources (mobile discrete emission reduction
credits, or MDERCs). The DERC program was first adopted by the State at
30 TAC section 101.29 on December 23, 1997. Effective January 18, 2001,
section 101.29 was repealed and Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Divisions l,
3, and 4 were created. This action created separate divisions for the
ERC, Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) in the Houston/Galveston/
Brazoria (HGB) area, and DERC programs. Amendments to the MECT were
adopted on October 18, 2001; these amendments also included changes
made primarily for clarification to sections 101.370, 101.372, and
101.373 in the DERC program. As of April 14, 2002, TCEQ amended the
program to include the provisions in Texas Senate Bill 1561 for air
emissions trading across international boundaries. Effective January
17, 2003, TCEQ reorganized the DERC and ERC program rules into more
standardized formats parallel to each other, with a rule structure
which followed a process of recognizing, quantifying, and certifying
reductions as credits while explaining the guidelines for trading and
using creditable reductions. The most recent submittal, of December 06,
2004, amended sections 101.370, 101.373, 101.373, and 101.376. The DERC
program adoption and the subsequent revisions were submitted to EPA for
approval into the SIP; however, today's approval is the first time we
have acted on this program. In doing so we are acting on the original
submission of July 22, 1998, and all subsequent revisions through the
December 6, 2004, submittal.
The DERC program contains several features that EPA feels are
important enough to discuss here. The DERC program provides at section
101.372(f) that emission reductions from another county, state, or
nation may be used subject to certain conditions. The current wording
of the rule is unclear as to when prior approval from EPA will be
required. To improve this aspect of the rule, on completion of the
condition outlined above the rule will more clearly require prior EPA
approval for all transactions involving emission reductions generated
in another state or nation, as well as those transactions from one
nonattainment area to another, or from attainment counties into
nonattainment counties.
EPA has addressed the possibility of cross-jurisdictional trades,
such as those in section 101.372, in Appendix 16.16 of the EIP
Guidance. Satisfaction of the provisions of Appendix 16.16 will ensure
that cross-jurisdictional trades are consistent with the fundamental
integrity, equity, and environmental benefit principles described in
the EIP Guidance. The EPA review and approval authority in section
101.372(f), as revised in accordance with EPA's conditions for
approval, will be the mechanism by which EPA ensures that inappropriate
trades do not take place. In particular, EPA intends to require a
further SIP revision (either a detailed trading program, such as an
MOU, or a trade-specific submission) before approving any international
trade, interstate trades, or intrastate trades that involve increases
in a nonattainment area and reductions from beyond that nonattainment
area.
Among these types of trades requiring a further SIP revision,
international trades present an especially difficult case. For
instance, currently there is no approvable mechanism for demonstrating
that reductions made in another country are surplus or enforceable.
Nonetheless, emission reductions in other countries could potentially
offer substantial air quality benefits in the United States. In
approving the DERC program, EPA is recognizing the concept of
international trading and describing a framework (i.e., the submission
of a SIP revision demonstrating, among other things, the validity and
enforceability of foreign reductions) for such trading, in the event
that a suitable and approvable mechanism is ever developed for
resolving concerns including enforceability and surplus. Until such a
mechanism is developed and approved by EPA, however, EPA will not
approve international trades under the DERC rule.
EPA is also approving a provision in section 101.372(d) that allows
generators and users of DERCs to use an alternate quantification
protocol that is different from one of the approved protocols in
Chapter 115 or Chapter 117 (Control of Air Pollution from Volatile
Organic Compounds and Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds)
of the Texas rules. Generators/users wanting to use other
quantification protocols must follow the quantification requirements at
section 101.372(d)(1)(C), which include a requirement for EPA adequacy
review of such alternate protocols. TCEQ has agreed to clarify the
provisions of section 101.372(d)(1)(C) by December 1, 2006, to clarify
that a proposed alternate quantification protocol may not be used if
the TCEQ Executive Director receives a letter from EPA that objects to
the use of the protocol during the 45-day adequacy review period or if
EPA proposes disapproval of the protocol in the Federal Register. See
also 70 FR 58157 for a description of the approval process for
alternate quantification protocols.
EPA is also approving a provision in section 101.376 that allows
DECs to be used as new source review (NSR) offsets. Section 101.376
outlines criteria for DEC usage and NSR permits that must be satisfied
for DECs to be used as NSR offsets. With these restrictions and the
environmental benefit provisions of the DERC program, we feel that the
use of DECs as NSR offsets is consistent with sections 171 and 173 of
the Clean Air Act and the EIP Guidance. See 70 FR 58160 for our more
detailed discussion of DECs as NSR offsets.
Additionally, EPA is approving the use of DECs in lieu of
allowances in the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) MECT program for
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX). Section 101.376 of the
DERC program enables the use of DECs in the MECT, but the rule language
providing the detailed usage requirements for DECs under the MECT is in
section 101.356(h) of the MECT program, which we are approving
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Because of the interaction
between the DERC and MECT programs, the conditional approval
commitments of the DERC program must be interpreted with respect to the
use of DECs in the MECT. DECs can be used as allowances in the MECT
subject to the requirements of section 101.356(h), and only if the DECs
meet the conditions outlined above. Therefore, 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 5 years from the date of
the commitment letter. In addition, with respect to all DECs that are
to be used in the MECT programs, both generators and users of such DECs
must certify to a waiver of the Federal statute of limitations. EPA
approval is also required when DECs generated in another state or
nation, and in either

[[Page 52706]]

attainment or nonattainment areas (other than the HGB nonattainment
areas) are requested for use in the MECT program. Also, as provided in
the MECT rule, the DECs used as allowances under the MECT program are
not charged the 10 percent environmental contribution because of the
use ratios implemented in section 101.356(h).

V. 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 DERC
administrative record (EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0029). In commenting on the
DERC program, the commenters raise no concerns about pollutants other
than VOCs (including highly reactive VOCs, or HRVOCs).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ During the comment period, EPA did not receive comments
regarding environmental justice and the DERC program. However,
during the finalization process we have reevaluated our
interpretation of the definition of Environmental Justice as found
in Executive Order 12898. In our proposed approval of the DERC
program, we stated that ``environmental justice concerns arise when
a trading program could result in disproportionate impacts on
communities populated by racial minorities, people with low incomes,
or Tribes.'' On further review, we believe the following description
is more consistent with E.O. 12898: ``Environmental justice concerns
can arise when a final rule, such as a trading program, could result
in disproportionate burdens on particular communities, including
minority or low income communities.'' This revised language does not
alter our determination that the DERC program does not raise
environmental justice concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 1: There are problems with the inventory of VOC and HRVOC
emissions in the HGB nonattainment area.
Response to Comment 1: While EPA acknowledges that there have been
past VOC emission inventory problems from sources associated with the
petrochemical industry (see our proposed approval of the revisions to
the HGB attainment demonstration, 70 FR 58119), EPA believes that the
emissions inventory developed by TCEQ for the HGB nonattainment area is
an acceptable approach to characterizing the emissions in the HGB
nonattainment area. In addition, we are incorporating by reference our
responses to comments provided in our approval of the attainment
demonstration for the HGB ozone nonattainment area (EPA-R06-OAR-2005-
TX-0018). Those responses more specifically address GHASP's concerns
regarding the development and use of the imputed inventory,
characterization of other VOCs in the inventory, and appropriate
emissions monitoring techniques for flares, fugitive emissions, and
upsets.
Comment 2: The VOC and HRVOC trading programs use unreliable data,
which cannot be replicably measured. There are problems with current
methods for measurement of HRVOC and VOC emissions; therefore, the VOC
and HRVOC trading programs do not meet EPA's EIP Guidance for
quantification.
Response to Comment 2: EPA disagrees. The proposed DERC rule, at 70
FR 58154, describes the basis for EPA's conclusion that the DERC rule
satisfies the EIP Guidance criteria on quantifiability, which are found
in Chapter 4 (``Fundamental Principles of All EIPs'').
Emissions and emission reductions attributed to an EIP are
quantifiable if they can be reliably and replicably measured: The
source must be able to reliably calculate the amount of emissions and
emission reductions from the EIP strategy, and must be able to
replicate the calculations. Under the DERC program, sources address the
element of quantification by using a quantification protocol that has
been approved by TCEQ and EPA. Both agencies have important roles in
ensuring these protocols provide reliable and replicable emission
measurements. The approved quantification protocols for VOC DERC
generation and use are contained in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control of Air
Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds. These methods are all
reliable and replicable, either because EPA has promulgated regulations
or published guidance listing them as appropriate methods for measuring
VOC emissions, or because the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) has determined that they are appropriate standard
methods. EPA approval is required before an alternate quantification
protocol can be used. See section 101.372(1)(C). Examples of the
approved quantification methods for VOC DERC generation and use
include:
Test Methods 1-4 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A) for determining
flow rates;
Test Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A) for
determining gaseous organic compound emissions by gas chromatography;
EPA guidance in ``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other
Coating,'' EPA-450/3-84-019; and
Determination of true vapor pressure using ASTM Methods
D323-89, D2879, D4953, D5190, or D5191 for the measurement of Reid
Vapor pressure.
Comment 3: TCEQ and EPA lack confidence in current methods for
measuring emissions. This lack of confidence increases the risks
associated with a market-based trading program until the TCEQ is able
to reconcile ambient monitoring with industry emission inventories. For
example, trading could exacerbate the challenge of identifying the
cause of any program failures because comparisons of ambient monitoring
trend data to emission inventory data will require consideration of the
timing and magnitude of trades.
Response to Comment 3: EPA disagrees. We have discussed above in
response to Comments 1 and 2 our conclusion that the methods used for
measuring emissions under the DERC program are consistent with EPA
policy and guidance, and that the emissions inventory developed by TCEQ
is an acceptable approach to characterizing the emissions in the HGB
nonattainment area. Sources that generate and use DERCs must notify the
TCEQ. The TCEQ is then responsible for certifying that the generation
or use strategy is appropriate. Through the certification process TCEQ
is made aware of trades before they happen. This advance knowledge of
trades could then be applied to the reconciliation process and actually
provide additional data instead of being a hindrance.
Comment 4: EPA should find that it is premature for TCEQ to allow
trading of unquantifiable emissions of VOC in the HGB nonattainment
area. If either the source or the recipient incorrectly estimates the
emissions involved in a trade, the region is at risk of a net increase
in emissions as a result of the trade. Until refineries and chemical
plants are able to routinely quantify their VOC emissions, EPA should
not allow trading of these VOC emissions.
Response to Comment 4: EPA disagrees that VOC emissions should be
ineligible for trading in the HGB nonattainment area. EPA believes that
allowing the petrochemical industry to trade VOC emissions under the
DERC rule is appropriate notwithstanding the commenter's concern about
emissions estimates, because the DERC program satisfies the EIP
Guidance criteria for quantification. For example, sources generating
and banking VOC DERCs must either use the approved quantification
protocols in Chapter 115 or obtain EPA approval for an alternate
quantification method. These protocols

[[Page 52707]]

will ensure that sources correctly calculate the emission reduction to
be banked as a DERC. The source using the banked reduction also must
calculate the amount of necessary VOC DERCs using the approved
quantification protocols. The TCEQ Executive Director will review and
approve each requested DERC use to ensure that sources using DERCs have
enough credit to cover their use strategy. After the DERC use has
occurred, sources must notify TCEQ of the number of DERCs actually
used. Sources that do not have enough DERCs to cover their actual use
will be in violation of the DERC program. Additionally, sources that do
not obtain sufficient DERCs in advance will be in violation of the
program and TCEQ has the authority to pursue enforcement actions.
Therefore, EPA believes that sources using the approved quantification
protocols will correctly estimate the amount of DERCs generated and
used, and we also believe that the program is designed to minimize
incorrect emissions estimates. Further, users of VOC DERCs must also
purchase and retire an additional ten percent VOC DERCs as an
environmental benefit. The ten percent environmental benefit will also
help ensure that the trading program will not negatively impact the
nonattainment area in which the DERC is generated and used. The ten
percent environmental benefit is not applicable to situations where VOC
DECs are used in lieu of NOX MECT allowances. In these
situations, the ten percent environmental benefit is replaced with the
stringent retirement ratios found in section 101.356(h).
EPA's response to Texas Industry Project (TIP) comments made on
November 4, 2005, is as follows:
Comment: TIP supports EPA's proposed approval of the DERC program
and urges EPA to finalize its approval as soon as practicable.
Response: EPA acknowledges the support of TIP for our approval of
the DERC program.

VI. 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, EPA and
the public may take enforcement action against violators of these
regulations.

VII. 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 conditionally approves State law as meeting Federal requirements
and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect
State enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does
not impose any new requirements. 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 conditionally 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 conditionally 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 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.

[[Page 52708]]

Dated: August 24, 2006
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. The table in Sec. 52.2270(c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended under Chapter 101--General Air Quality
Rules, Subchapter H--Emissions Banking and Trading, by adding in
numerical order a new centered heading ``Division 4--Emission Credit
Banking and Trading'' followed by new entries for sections 101.370,
101.371, 101.372, 101.373, 101.374, 101.376, 101.378, and 101.379.
The additions reads as follows:

Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State approval/
State citation Title/subject submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 4--Discrete Emission Credit Banking and Trading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.370.................... Definitions................ 11/10/04 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
where document begins].
Section 101.371.................... Purpose.................... 12/13/02 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
where document begins].
Section 101.372.................... General Provisions......... 12/13/02 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
where document begins].
Section 101.373.................... Discrete Emission Reduction 11/10/04 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
Credit Generation and where document begins].
Certification.
Section 101.374.................... Mobile Discrete Emission 11/10/04 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
Reduction Credit where document begins].
Generation and
Certification.
Section 101.376.................... Discrete Emission Credit 11/10/04 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number Subsection 101.376(c)(4) NOT in
Use. where document begins]. SIP
Section 101.378.................... Discrete Emission Credit 12/13/02 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
Banking and Trading. where document begins].
Section 101.379.................... Program Audits and Reports. 12/13/02 09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
where document begins].

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-7414 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P