Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area, 58138-58146 [05-19996]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58138-58146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19996]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R06-OAR-2005-TX-0033; FRL-7981-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Texas; Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and 
Trade Program for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment 
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State 
Implementation Plan concerning the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program for the Houston/Galveston/
Brazoria ozone nonattainment area. These revisions were adopted by the 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on December 01, 2004, as new 
sections 101.390-101.394, 101.396, 101.399-101.401, and 101.403, and 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on December 17, 2004. In related 
rulemakings today, EPA is also proposing approval of additional 
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in 
EDocket (RME) ID No. R06-OAR-2005-TX-0033, by one of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. RME, EPA's 
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,'' 
then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: https://epa.gov/
region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select 
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. David Neleigh at neleigh.david@epa.gov. Please 
also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section below.
     Fax: Mr. David Neleigh, Chief, Air Permitting Section 
(6PD-R), at fax number 214-665-6762.
     Mail: Mr. David Neleigh, Chief, Air Permitting Section 
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. David Neleigh, Chief, Air 
Permitting Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except 
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R06-OAR-2005-TX-
0033. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public file without change, and may be made available online at 
https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
through RME, regulations.gov, or e-mail if you believe that it is CBI 
or otherwise protected from disclosure. The EPA RME website and the 
Federal regulations.gov are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-
mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public file and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Guidance on 
preparing comments is given in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document under the General Information heading.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
RME index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information the disclosure of which 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 
in RME or in the official file, which is available 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 am and 4:30 pm 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 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: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permitting 
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-2115; 
fax number

[[Page 58139]]

214-665-6762; e-mail address wiley.adina@epa.gov.

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

Outline

I. Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade 
Program
    A. What action is EPA proposing?
    B. HECT Program Summary
    1. Why did Texas develop the HECT?
    2. How do HRVOCs lead to ozone problems in the HGB area?
    3. How is this document related to the HGB ozone attainment 
demonstration?
    4. How does the HECT work?
    C. EPA's Analysis
    1. How did EPA review and evaluate the HECT EIP?
    2. What criteria did EPA use to analyze the HECT EIP?
    3. What is EPA's analysis of the fundamental principle of 
integrity?
    4. What is EPA's analysis of the fundamental principle of 
equity?
    5. What is EPA's analysis of the fundamental principle of 
environmental benefit?
    6. Does the HECT EIP violate the integrity of other programs?
    7. What is EPA's analysis of the interaction between the annual 
HRVOC cap and the short-term HRVOC limit?
    8. What is EPA's analysis of the HECT EIP with respect to 
section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act?
    D. Conclusion
II. General Information
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Highly-Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade 
Program

A. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing approval of the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) Economic Incentive Program 
(EIP), published at Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Title 30, Chapter 
101 General Air Quality Rules, Subchapter H, Division 6, Sections 
101.390-101.394, 101.396, 101.399-101.401, and 101.403. These revisions 
were submitted to EPA on December 17, 2004. Once approved, the HECT EIP 
will be an element of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) ozone nonattainment area.

B. HECT Program Summary

1. Why did Texas develop the HECT?
    The HECT program was adopted as a State regulation on December 01, 
2004. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) developed 
the program as part of its mid-course review of the 1-hour ozone 
attainment plan for the HGB ozone nonattainment area. The mid-course 
review showed that ozone reductions comparable to those achieved by the 
90 percent reduction in industrial nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emissions required in the November 2001 (66 FR 57160) approved SIP 
could be achieved through a combination of 80 percent reduction in 
industrial NOX emissions and additional targeted control of 
certain highly-reactive volatile organic compounds (HRVOCs). TCEQ has 
chosen to revise its attainment strategy accordingly, decreasing the 
emphasis on NOX control and requiring additional reductions 
of HRVOCs. The HECT program is part of TCEQ's plan for achieving those 
additional HRVOC reductions.
2. How do HRVOCs lead to ozone problems in the HGB area?
    Ground-level ozone forms when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 
react with NOX compounds in the presence of sunlight. Some 
VOCs react more quickly in the photochemical reaction than other VOCs; 
which can result in rapid spikes of ozone formation. TCEQ has 
identified a number of VOCs in the HGB nonattainment area that behave 
in this manner: ethylene; propylene; all isomers of butene, alpha-
butylene, and beta-butylene; and 1,3-butadiene. These VOCs are now 
classified by TCEQ as HRVOCs in 30 TAC Chapter 115.
3. How is this document related to the HGB ozone attainment 
demonstration?
    The HECT program is part of the revised Texas plan to reduce ozone 
levels through the reduction of HRVOCs. The purpose of this document is 
to explain our proposed action on the HECT and why we believe the HECT 
is consistent with the Clean Air Act and with our policies on trading 
programs. In this document, we are not reviewing the impact on the HGB 
ozone attainment demonstration of the State's request to change from 90 
percent to 80 percent NOX control. We are evaluating that 
change in strategy and its relationship to section 110(l) of the Clean 
Air Act in our review of the revisions to the overall attainment 
demonstration (RME Docket R06-OAR-2005-TX-0018). When we take final 
action on the attainment demonstration, we will also take final action 
on the HECT, in a separate rule.
4. How does the HECT work?
    The HECT program is similar to the multi-source emissions cap-and-
trade program described in EPA's EIP Guidance ``Improving Air Quality 
with Economic Incentive Programs'' (EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001). A 
multi-source emissions cap-and-trade program is designed to limit the 
total emissions from a certain category or group of sources to a level 
needed for an area to attain or maintain a national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS) and to allow sources flexibility in complying with 
their emission limits. In the HECT, TCEQ has established an annual 
HRVOC cap at the level relied on for attainment of the NAAQS for 1-hour 
ozone in 2007 in the revised attainment demonstration. As noted above, 
we are evaluating the merits of that demonstration in a separate rule 
(RME Docket R06-OAR-2005-TX-0018).
    Under the HECT, in Harris County TCEQ has defined an HRVOC as one 
or more of the following VOCs: 1,3-butadiene; all isomers of butene, 
alpha-butylene, and beta-butylene; ethylene; and propylene. In 
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, and 
Waller Counties, an HRVOC is defined as ethylene and propylene. These 
compounds were identified based on their reactivity and prevalence in 
the HGB emissions inventory.
    The HECT applies to each site in the HGB area that is subject to 
requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter H, Division 1 for Vent 
Gas Control or Division 2 for Cooling Tower Heat Exchange Systems. EPA 
proposed approval of these HRVOC controls at 70 FR 17640, April 07, 
2005. The HECT rule, at 30 TAC section 101.391, incorporates the 
definition of ``site'' at 30 TAC section 122.10: ``the total of all 
stationary sources located on one or more contiguous or adjacent 
properties, which are under common control or the same person (or 
persons under common control).'' Any HRVOC-emitting vent gas streams, 
flares, and cooling tower heat-exchange systems at these sites will be 
subject to the HECT and considered covered facilities. A site can have 
one covered facility or any combination of covered facilities. Each 
site that meets these requirements, or elected to opt in by April 30, 
2005, will always be subject to the HECT.
    Sites in the HGB area that have the potential to emit ten tons per 
year or less of HRVOCs from all covered facilities at the site are 
exempt from the HECT. These exempt sites had the opportunity to opt in 
to the HECT by notifying the TCEQ Executive Director in writing by 
April 30, 2005. Two sites in the HGB area submitted the opt-in 
notification to the TCEQ. No additional exempt sites will be eligible 
to opt in.

[[Page 58140]]

    Additionally, all sites in Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 
Galveston, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties (the ``seven 
surrounding counties'') are exempt from all HECT requirements other 
than the Level of Activity Certification requirements of 30 TAC section 
101.401. When TCEQ proposed the HECT program, industry commented that 
the representations for HRVOC emissions in their air permits were 
significantly lower than the HRVOC cap that would be imposed on the 
seven county area. Sites in these seven surrounding counties agreed to 
take enforceable permit limits on propylene and/or ethylene instead of 
participating in the cap and trade program. In responding to comments 
on the proposal, TCEQ stated that it would only consider retaining the 
exemption if each site with a potential to emit more than 10 tpy of 
HRVOC established enforceable limits. The documentation establishing 
such enforceable limits was due to TCEQ by April 30, 2005. TCEQ will 
review these Level of Activity Certifications for sites in these 
counties to ensure that the enforceable limits achieve reductions 
comparable to those that would occur under the cap. Section 101.392 
allows TCEQ to end this exemption by issuing public notice of its 
revocation.
    The cap consists of allowances allocated by the TCEQ Executive 
Director to each facility in the HECT by January 1 of each year, 
beginning with January 1, 2007. Allocations are determined based on a 
site's contribution to overall level of activity and the area cap for 
HRVOCs. An allowance is the authorization to emit one ton of HRVOC 
emissions during a control period; the control period is the calendar 
year. The initial HECT control period begins January 1, 2007. A 
facility can choose to operate at, above, or below its allowance 
budget. A source operating below its allowance budget can bank or trade 
its allowances for use only in the next control period. A source 
operating above its allowance budget must purchase excess allowances 
from another source to demonstrate compliance with the cap. Beginning 
March 1, 2008, and no later than March 1 following the end of every 
control period, each facility must hold a quantity of allowances in its 
compliance account that is equal to or greater than the total emissions 
of HRVOCs emitted during the control period just ending. If a 
facility's actual emissions of HRVOCs during a control period exceed 
the amount of allowances held in the compliance account on March 1, 
allowances for the next control period will be reduced by an amount 
equal to the emissions exceeding the allowances in the compliance 
account, plus an additional 10 percent. This deduction does not 
preclude any additional enforcement action by the TCEQ. Additionally, 
if the site's compliance account does not contain sufficient allowances 
to cover this deduction, the TCEQ Executive Director may issue a notice 
of deficiency to the owner or operator. The owner or operator will then 
have 30 days from the notice of deficiency to purchase or transfer 
sufficient allowances to cover its compliance obligation. The HECT 
includes a provision to allow a facility to use emission reduction 
credits (ERCs) of less-reactive VOCs generated under the Texas Emission 
Credit Banking and Trading program (the ``ERC rule'') in lieu of HECT 
allowances if the ERCs are generated in the HGB area and the generating 
facility meets additional monitoring and reporting requirements. The 
HECT also includes a provision that exempts HRVOC emissions that are 
above the short-term HRVOC limit established in 30 TAC Chapter 115 from 
being counted towards a site's annual cap.

C. EPA's Analysis

1. How did EPA review and evaluate the HECT EIP?
    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable and must not interfere 
with attainment, reasonable further progress or any applicable 
requirement of the Clean Air Act. See Clean Air Act sections 110(a), 
110(l), and 193.
    A guidance document that we used to define evaluation criteria is 
``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs'' (EPA-452/R-
01-001, January 2001) (EIP Guidance). This guidance applies to 
discretionary EIPs adopted by a State as part of a SIP to attain 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, 
but the EIP Guidance is not EPA's final action on discretionary EIPs. 
Final action as to any such EIP occurs when EPA acts on it after its 
submission as a SIP revision. Because the EIP Guidance is non-binding 
and does not represent final agency action, EPA is using the Guidance 
as an initial screen to determine whether potential approvability 
issues arise. A more detailed review of the HECT program as compared to 
the EIP Guidance is in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 
TCEQ Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade 
Program for the HGB Nonattainment Area. The TSD is available at the 
location given in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
2. What criteria did EPA use to analyze the HECT EIP?
    As described in detail in the EIP Guidance, EPA has identified 
three fundamental principles that apply to all EIPs: (1) Integrity 
(meaning that credits are based on emission reductions that are 
surplus, enforceable, quantifiable, and permanent), (2) equity, and (3) 
environmental benefit. The fundamental principles can apply to an EIP 
in its entirety (the programmatic level) or to individual sources (the 
source-specific level). EPA evaluated the HECT EIP against these three 
fundamental principles, specific concerns applicable to multi-source 
cap-and-trade programs, and applicable Clean Air Act requirements. Our 
complete analysis of the HECT EIP is contained in the TSD for this 
action.
3. What is EPA's analysis of the fundamental principle of integrity?
    The integrity principle consists of the qualities of surplus, 
enforceable, quantifiable, and permanent.
    Integrity Element One--Surplus. The first element of integrity is 
to determine whether the emissions reductions targeted by the EIP are 
surplus. Emission reductions are surplus if they are not otherwise 
relied on by the State in any other air quality-related programs 
including: the SIP, SIP-related requirements such as transportation 
conformity, other adopted TCEQ measures not in the SIP, and Federal 
rules that focus on reducing precursors of criteria pollutants such as 
new source performance standards. Additionally, if the multi-source 
emission cap-and-trade program is claiming reductions, the State must 
demonstrate that the cap on all emissions is below the threshold that 
would have been set for the affected sources before the program was 
implemented. The surplus element does not apply to the individual 
sources participating in a multi-source emission cap-and-trade program 
because sources have the option of making reductions or purchasing 
unused allowances from other facilities in the cap-and-trade program.
    At the programmatic level, EPA has determined that the HECT program 
satisfies the integrity element of surplus. TCEQ established the cap on 
HRVOC emissions based on historical activity levels, air quality data, 
and modeling completed during the mid-course SIP review. To address 
uncertainty in the HRVOC inventory, TCEQ included a five percent buffer 
in the cap. The development of the cap level and the 5

[[Page 58141]]

percent buffer ensures that the cap will result in overall HRVOC 
emission reductions in the HGB area. Section 101.393 of the HECT 
specifically requires that reductions be surplus in a programmatic 
sense, by stating that allowances under the HECT may only be used for 
the purposes described in the rule.
    The VOC ERCs eligible for conversion into HECT allowances must also 
meet the surplus criteria of the ERC rule at 30 TAC Chapter 101, 
Subchapter H, Division 1. EPA is not evaluating the ERC rule in this 
document. For further discussion of how the Division 1 ERCs are 
surplus, please refer to our separate action on the ERC Rule at RME 
Docket R06-OAR-2005-TX-0006.
    For the above reasons, and as further explained in the TSD, EPA has 
concluded that the HECT is consistent with Clean Air Act requirements 
and EPA Guidance expectations for the integrity element of surplus.
    Integrity Element Two--Enforceable. The generation and use of 
emission reductions and other required actions in the EIP are 
enforceable on a programmatic basis if they are independently 
verifiable and if the EIP defines program violations and identifies 
those liable for violations. For enforceability, both the State and EPA 
should have the ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate 
corrective actions where applicable. Citizens should also have access 
to all the emissions-related information obtained from the source so 
that citizens can file suits against sources for violations. Required 
actions must be practicably enforceable. At the source-specific level, 
the source must be liable for violations; the liable party must be 
identifiable; and the State, the public, and EPA must be able to 
independently verify a source's compliance. Additionally, EIPs that 
involve trading must incorporate provisions for assessing liability, 
provisions to assess penalties against participating sources, and 
provisions for sources with Title V permits. In multi-source emission 
cap-and-trade EIPs, each source owner or operator must be responsible 
for owning enough allowances to cover its emissions for the given time 
period and for providing clear title to the allowances it transfers.
    EPA has determined that the HECT program is enforceable. The 
monitoring and testing protocols established in 30 TAC Chapter 115 are 
adequate for independent verifications of emission reductions and for 
demonstrating practicable enforceability. Additionally, the VOC ERCs 
that are eligible for conversion into HECT allowances must be 
quantified using the monitoring and testing methods under sections 
115.725 or 115.764 and must meet the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements under sections 115.726 and 115.766. An owner or operator 
can violate the HECT by either not having enough allowances to cover 
its actual emission level for a control period or by failing to submit 
an Annual Compliance Report on time, as defined at sections 101.394(e) 
and 101.400(b). The liable party is either the owner or operator of a 
subject facility. Information to be made available to the public is 
addressed at sections 101.399(b)(3), 101.399(c)(3), 101.399(d)(3), 
101.403(a)(3), and 101.403(b). The allowance banking and trading 
provisions in section 101.399 also provide clear title to the 
allowances transferred.
    Penalties, corrective action, and citizen filing of lawsuits are 
not addressed in the HECT rules but are in separate State laws and 
regulations. In particular, Texas Water Code section 7.051 provides for 
the assessment of administrative penalties by TCEQ, and section 7.032 
provides for injunctive relief by TCEQ. The TCEQ enforcement rule at 30 
TAC section 70.5 incorporates remedies found in the state statutes 
(Texas Water Code and the Texas Health and Safety Code), and permits 
referrals to EPA for civil, judicial or administrative action. It is 
our conclusion the TCEQ has adequate legal authority to enforce the 
HECT program. Once we approve the HECT rule into the SIP, EPA will be 
able to enforce it under section 113 of the Clean Air Act. 
Recordkeeping requirements specific to the HECT program are set forth 
at section 101.400.
    For the above reasons, and as further explained in the TSD, EPA has 
concluded that the HECT is consistent with Clean Air Act requirements 
and EPA Guidance expectations for the integrity element of 
enforceability.
    Integrity Element Three--Quantifiable. On a programmatic basis, 
emissions and emission reductions attributable to an EIP are 
quantifiable if the source can reliably and replicably measure or 
determine them. The generation or use of emission reductions by a 
source or group of sources is quantifiable on a source-specific basis 
if the sources can reliably calculate the amount of emissions and/or 
emission reductions occurring during the implementation of the program, 
and replicate the calculations. Additionally, individual sources 
participating in a multi-source emission cap-and-trade program must 
also quantify total emissions per unit of time. All EIPs should 
incorporate provisions for predicting results, addressing uncertainty, 
approving quantification protocols, and emission quantification 
methods.
    EPA has determined that the HECT program addresses the necessary 
provisions for quantifiability. Emissions and/or emission reductions 
under the HECT follow the monitoring and testing protocols in Chapter 
115, thus satisfying the need to be reliably and replicably measured. 
Sections 115.725 and 115.764 require sites to install and operate 
continuous monitoring systems. Sources subject to the HECT will 
quantify total emissions per unit time by submitting the required 
Annual Compliance Report detailing actual HRVOC emissions during the 
control period.
    Integrity Element Four--Permanent. To satisfy the permanence 
element of the integrity principle, a compliance flexibility EIP must 
ensure that no emission increases (compared to emissions if there was 
no EIP) occur over the time defined in the SIP. For a programmatic 
reduction EIP, the emissions reductions are permanent if the State is 
able to ensure that the reductions occur over the duration of the EIP, 
and for as long as the reductions are relied on in the SIP.
    EPA has determined that the HECT program meets the definition of a 
compliance flexibility EIP because it provides sites with flexibility 
in meeting existing SIP requirements and lowers the cost of 
implementing a SIP. The HECT also meets the definition of a 
programmatic reduction EIP because the cap is established at a level 
that will achieve emission reductions beyond what are currently in the 
SIP. The HECT rules and other elements of the HGB attainment 
demonstration are designed to ensure that programmatic reductions occur 
over the duration of the HECT program, and for as long as they are 
relied on in the SIP. The TCEQ Executive Director will allocate 
allowances (the authorization to emit one ton of HRVOC) each year on 
January 1, starting January 1, 2007. The integrity element of 
permanence does not apply to individual sources participating in the 
HECT because sources have the option to make reductions or purchase 
unused allowances from other sources program. We conclude that the HECT 
EIP satisfies the integrity element of permanence.
4. What is EPA's analysis of the fundamental principle of equity?
    Equity Element One--General Equity. General equity means that an 
EIP ensures that all segments of the population are protected from 
public

[[Page 58142]]

health problems and no segment of the population receives a 
disproportionate share of a program's disbenefits.
    The HECT EIP is designed to benefit all communities in the HGB 
area. The cap in Harris County permanently caps emissions of four 
HRVOCs--ethylene, propylene, 1,3-butadiene, and all isomers of butenes. 
Not only will the HECT reduce the amount of ozone precursors emitted in 
Harris County, it permanently caps emissions of a hazardous air 
pollutant. The enforceable limits in the seven surrounding counties for 
ethylene and propylene, which are the result of permit limits agreed to 
between TCEQ and the affected sites, will also reduce emissions of 
ozone precursors. Additionally, section 101.394(e) requires an owner or 
operator of a facility that emits more HRVOCs than its allowance 
holding to surrender an amount of allowances equal to the exceedance 
plus an additional 10 percent as an environmental benefit. We conclude 
that the HECT meets the requirements for general equity.
    Equity Element Two--Environmental Justice. The environmental 
justice element applies if the EIP covers VOCs and could 
disproportionately impact communities populated by racial minorities, 
people with low incomes, and/or Tribes. EIPs that include hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) must also satisfy the expectations of Appendix 16.2 
of the EIP Guidance, which addresses prevention and/or mitigation of 
impacts from potential or actual trades involving HAPs, ensuring that 
sufficient information is made available for meaningful review and 
participation, public participation, and periodic program evaluations.
    The HECT is designed to permanently cap emissions of four HRVOCs, 
including one HAP (1,3-butadiene). EPA has evaluated the HECT with 
respect to the HAP Framework and EIP Guidance and determined that the 
environmental justice element of equity has been met.
    Compliance with the HAP Framework element for the prevention and/or 
mitigation of localized impacts from potential or actual trades 
involving HAPs is demonstrated through the HECT audit program 
established in section 101.403. Under this section, the TCEQ Executive 
Director may limit or discontinue trading of allowances as a remedy for 
problems resulting from trading in a localized area of concern. 
Additionally, the TCEQ Executive Director must approve all trades of 
HECT allowances.
    Compliance with the HAP Framework element for sufficient 
information is demonstrated further by section 101.399, which provides 
that all information regarding price and quantity of allowances trades 
must be available to the public. Additionally, the required annual 
compliance reports and periodic program audits must be available to the 
public.
    The HECT program satisfies the HAP Framework element for public 
participation in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the 
program. In the development of the HECT rules, TCEQ held public 
hearings in Austin, Beaumont, and Houston. TCEQ also has an extensive 
stakeholder list of approximately 150 contacts who receive copies of 
all TCEQ rulemaking actions for comment and participation in 
development. During the implementation of the HECT EIP, the public has 
the opportunity to view the Annual Compliance Reports submitted by each 
source and the end of year reports prepared by the TCEQ in accordance 
with section 101.403(b). Public participation is incorporated into the 
evaluation of the HECT EIP at section 101.403(a)(3), which provides for 
public participation in the audit of the HECT rule.
    The final element of the HAP Framework, program evaluations, is 
satisfied at section 101.403, which establishes the HECT audit program. 
The rule requires a program audit every three years, with emphasis on 
the impact on attainment and compliance by the participants. The audit 
results must be available for public inspection.
    As an added measure that demonstrates general equity and 
environmental justice, TCEQ has developed the Toxicological Risk 
Assessment (TARA) Effects Evaluation Procedure. Under this process, 
which is authorized under section 382.0518(b)(2) of the Texas Health 
and Safety Code, TCEQ may not grant a permit to a facility and a 
facility may not begin operating unless it is demonstrated that 
emissions will not have an adverse impact on public health and welfare. 
This demonstration is accomplished by (1) establishing off-property 
ground-level-air concentrations of constituents resulting from the 
proposed emissions, and (2) evaluating these concentrations for the 
potential to cause adverse health or welfare effects. The TARA Effects 
Evaluation is used to evaluate the use of HECT allowances in an air 
permit. The TCEQ guidance document ``How to Determine the Scope of 
Modeling and Effects Review for Air Permits'' (RG-324, Oct. 2001) has a 
detailed discussion of the TARA Effects Evaluation procedures.
5. What is EPA's analysis of the fundamental principle of environmental 
benefit?
    All EIPs must be environmentally beneficial. The HECT demonstrates 
an environmental benefit by setting a cap on HRVOCs that will help the 
HGB area in achieving attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as 
practicable. Additionally, the HECT places a cap on emissions of a HAP 
(1,3-butadiene), thereby lowering the emissions of this toxic chemical 
in the HGB area. Sources that emit more HRVOCs than they have 
allowances will also be required to surrender the amount equal to the 
exceedance plus 10 percent as an environmental benefit.
6. Does the HECT EIP violate the integrity of other programs?
    In addition to determining the programmatic and source-specific 
integrity elements for an EIP, it is important to determine whether the 
EIP generates emission reductions in a manner consistent with other 
EIPs functioning in the same area. One feature of the HECT combines two 
of the State of Texas' Emissions Banking and Trading Programs, in that 
it allows a participating facility to convert reductions of less-
reactive VOCs, generated and banked according to the 30 TAC Chapter 
101, Subchapter H, Division 1 Emission Credit Banking and Trading rule, 
into a yearly HECT allocation. The site's owner or operator quantifies 
the VOC emission reduction credits (ERCs) by performing the expanded 
monitoring and testing methods under 30 TAC sections 115.725 or 115.764 
and using the recordkeeping and reporting outlined in 30 TAC sections 
115.726 and 115.766. ERCs eligible for this conversion must be 
generated from a reduction at a site in the HGB area; from a reduction 
strategy implemented after December 31, 2004; and from a reduction in 
VOC species other than those defined as HRVOCs under 30 TAC Chapter 
115.10. Additionally, the VOC ERCs must be real, quantifiable, surplus, 
enforceable, and permanent as specified in the ERC rule at section 
101.302 at the time the ERC is converted. Section 101.399 of the HECT 
specifies that VOC reductions from the installation of best available 
control technology do not qualify for conversion into HRVOC 
allocations. This restriction on ERC generation is in addition to the 
surplus requirements of section 101.302. To satisfy the criteria of the 
ERC program, the reductions must be surplus to required local, State, 
and Federal programs such as the application of maximum achievable

[[Page 58143]]

control technology, new source performance standards, or lowest 
achievable emission rate.
    The conversion of less-reactive VOC ERCs into HRVOC allowances is 
limited to five percent of the site's initial HRVOC allocation, and is 
based on VOC to HRVOC conversion ratios specified by the Maximum 
Incremental Reactivity (MIR) scale. The MIR scale is based on research 
by Dr. William Carter and others at University of California at 
Riverside, who sought a method of quantifying the reactivity 
differences among VOCs (Carter, 1995; Carter et al., 1995). The MIR is 
a measure of the number of grams of ozone that can be formed from one 
gram of the subject VOC, under ideal conditions. To determine the 
relative importance of different VOCs from a reactivity perspective, 
reactivity-weighted concentrations of specific compounds or groups of 
compounds were calculated. Reactivity-weighted concentrations take into 
consideration the substances' capability to form ozone as well as their 
measured ambient concentrations.
    As further discussed in the TSD for this rule and in the attainment 
demonstration TSD, the program feature allowing generation of HRVOC 
allowances using reductions in less-reactive VOCs does not prevent 
approval of the program, because the expected impact on the attainment 
demonstration is expected to be minimal. Texas is making an allowance 
for a small increase in HRVOCs (up to 5 percent) to be offset with 
larger reductions in less-reactive VOCs. Modeling sensitivity analyses 
were performed by the University of Texas and documented in a report, 
titled ``Survey of Technological and Other Measures to Control HRVOC 
Event Emissions.'' In this report, trades of less-reactive VOCs much 
larger than would be allowed with the 5 percent cap were considered. In 
the sensitivity runs, the impacts ranged from a 2.1 ppb increase to a 3 
ppb decrease in the peak ozone, depending on the episode day and the 
assumptions made about the less-reactive chemical that was reduced. The 
researchers looked at the impact of adding between 15 and 33 tpd of 
HRVOC to the model while removing the requisite amount of less-reactive 
VOCs. Under the rule, capping trades at a 5 percent increase in highly-
reactive VOCs, an increase of less than 2 tpd of HRVOCs would be all 
that could be allowed. Therefore, the impact of the actual program is 
expected to be minimal.
    In addition, for sources that participate in the program, this 
feature will have the advantage of implementing additional source 
monitoring on less-reactive VOCs. EPA proposed approval of the 
monitoring and testing methods in 30 TAC sections 115.725 and 115.764 
and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 30 TAC sections 
115.726 and 115.766 on April 07, 2005 (70 FR 17640). Based on the above 
modeling that indicates that this limited conversion of less-reactive 
VOCs will have a minimal impact on ozone levels, EPA concludes that 
even with this feature, the HECT program provides compliance 
flexibility and a significant strengthening of the SIP by contributing 
to reduced ozone levels in the HGB area.
    Our proposed approval does not represent a general endorsement of 
the use of the MIR scale for use in SIPs that contain EIPs. In this 
instance, with the aforementioned technical support, we believe this is 
an acceptable approach, which is consistent with EPA's recently issued 
``Interim Guidance on the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in 
Ozone State Implementation Plans'' (August 25, 2005). EPA will continue 
to investigate how best to incorporate reactivity concepts and consider 
changes to existing policy.
7. What is EPA's analysis of the interaction between the annual HRVOC 
cap and the short-term HRVOC limit?
    Texas has included features in the adopted HRVOC rules defining the 
interaction between the annual cap and short-term limit (established at 
30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter H) that are unique to the HECT. 
Typically, all emissions during the year would be counted toward 
compliance with an annual cap. In establishing a cap-and-trade system 
for the petrochemical industry in the HGB area, TCEQ felt it necessary 
to consider the possibility of major upsets. TCEQ believed that non-
routine emissions from process upsets, while likely to occur, are not 
predictable and therefore could make management of emissions under an 
annual cap difficult. Therefore, TCEQ established in its rule that 
emissions above the 1200 lb/hr short-term limit are not counted toward 
compliance with the annual cap but rather are expected to be controlled 
by the short-term limit. TCEQ was particularly concerned about the 
potential situation where a single large release could force a smaller 
source to shut down for the remainder of the year because its 
allowances had been exhausted.
    Although EPA agrees that a forced shutdown of smaller sources is 
possible, it believes that many upsets can be avoided by a source 
through the development and implementation of operation and maintenance 
plans that address start-up, shutdown and malfunction of process 
equipment and application of good air pollution control practices such 
as required by 40 CFR 60.18(d). EPA notes that application of these 
procedures would significantly reduce the emissions associated with 
such start-up, shutdown, and malfunction events and could avoid the 
need for a forced shutdown. In addition, planning and management of 
emissions by the source, including participation in the allowance 
market, should also avoid a forced shutdown while ensuring compliance 
with the annual cap.
    Emissions above the short-term limit would still be subject to 
enforcement as a violation of the short-term limit, but only 1200 lbs 
would be reported for compliance with the annual cap during those hours 
where emissions exceed 1200 lbs. It is our expectation that the root 
cause of the conditions giving rise to the emissions above the short-
term cap will be identified and corrected. Moreover, the source is 
still required to use good air pollution control practices consistent 
with the applicable NSPS (40 CFR 60.11(d)) and MACT standards or other 
applicable Federal or State programs.
    The structure of the Texas HECT program, which does not require 
emissions above the short-term limit to be counted against the annual 
cap, is a significant departure from past practices for cap-and-trade 
programs such as the Title IV Acid Rain program and the Houston 
NOX cap-and-trade program. EPA's EIP Guidance regarding 
multi-source emissions cap-and-trade programs indicates that all 
sources in the program must account for all of their emissions. See 
section 7.4 of the EIP Guidance. We believe, in this instance, that the 
approach of not counting emissions above the short-term limit toward 
the annual cap has both advantages and disadvantages as discussed 
below. We are inviting comment on the appropriateness of approving a 
program with this structure, as we remain concerned about excess 
emissions resulting from poor operation or poor maintenance.
    We believe that the structure of the HECT rule has the advantage of 
establishing a clear procedure for how emissions during non-routine 
events will be handled. For every hour during a large emissions event, 
the source will include 1200 lbs toward meeting its annual cap. This 
will avoid disputes about the validity of data during large emission 
events, when monitoring may be less reliable. The rule clearly defines 
the procedures to be followed during an emission event. Sources will 
have no

[[Page 58144]]

choice but to ensure that at the end of the compliance period they have 
sufficient allowances to cover all of the emissions up to the 1200 lb 
limit, or else face deductions from their compliance account and other 
potential penalties. In addition, emissions above that level would be 
subject to enforcement under the short-term limit.
    On the other hand, the structure of the rule has the disadvantage 
that some of the incentive to prevent large releases is lost by 
excluding emissions above the short-term limit from the annual cap. In 
addition, some of the incentive for reducing the size of large events, 
when they occur, may also be lost. With the annual cap-and-trade 
program's exclusion of emissions above the hourly (short-term) limit, 
it is probable that fewer violations of the annual cap will occur than 
if the exclusion had not been provided. For sources that would have 
violated the annual cap if emissions above the short-term limit were 
considered, it may be harder to promote systemic changes at those 
sources to reduce overall emissions.
    Having looked at the advantages and disadvantages, we are proposing 
approval of the HECT program. We are proposing approval because, even 
though it provides an exclusion for non-routine emissions above the 
short-term limit from the annual cap, it provides new enforceable 
limits that are an improvement on the status quo. We believe the annual 
cap in conjunction with the short-term limit will achieve the goals of 
the attainment demonstration as indicated by the modeling analysis. The 
annual cap should result in the necessary reductions in routine 
emissions and the short-term limit should result in a reduction in the 
amount and frequency of non-routine emission events. We note that the 
program rules require TCEQ to audit the HECT program every three years, 
and facilities have to provide compliance reports annually, so it will 
be readily apparent if the goals of the HECT program are being 
achieved.
    We believe the program will achieve the necessary reductions in 
routine emissions because the size of the short-term limit is such that 
only truly non-routine emissions will not be counted toward the annual 
cap. Based on evaluation of the emission rates that were modeled in the 
January 2003 SIP, the 1200 lb/hour limit is expected to be about ten 
times larger than the average hourly emission rate at the largest 
sources of HRVOCs. This order of magnitude difference between the 
short-term limit and the average annual hourly emissions ensures that 
sources will not routinely operate near or above the short-term limit, 
thus achieving the goal of reducing routine emissions.
    Also, while the structure of the HRVOC rules anticipates that 
emission events will not be completely eliminated, EPA believes that it 
provides sufficient disincentives that sources will sufficiently reduce 
the frequency and magnitude of large emissions events such that 
emission events would not be expected to frequently impact peak ozone 
levels. The University of Texas report ``Variable Industrial VOC 
Emissions and Their Impact on Ozone Formation in the Houston Galveston 
Area,'' April 16, 2004, estimated from historic information that it is 
probable that at least one event will occur annually at a time and 
location to impact peak ozone. This indicates that while emission 
events are frequent in the Houston area, emission releases at the place 
and time that impact peak ozone do not occur nearly as frequently. It 
is necessary to reduce the frequency of emission events so that 
emission events do not interfere with attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, 
which only allows an average of one exceedence per year. Based on the 
study, we believe the hourly emission limit will achieve this goal. 
After the institution of the short-term limit, EPA expects that 
emissions events impacting peak ozone levels will be reduced in 
frequency to fewer than one per year. While other events may occur that 
impact ozone levels at other locations than where the peak ozone level 
occurs, these events, because they are occurring in areas with lower 
ozone levels, would not be expected to impact attainment of the 1-hour 
NAAQS.
    Again, EPA recognizes that the approach of providing this partial 
exclusion for emissions above the short-term limit is a departure from 
past practice and our EIP Guidance. We currently believe this approach 
is only warranted in consideration of the HGB area's unique situation 
that combines an extensive petrochemical complex and the availability 
of the extensive data and analysis. Consideration of this novel 
approach is warranted to balance the need to reduce both routine and 
upset emissions of HRVOC, but also recognizes that large upset 
emissions may never be completely eliminated in the petrochemical 
industry. Because of the uniqueness of this approach, however, we 
invite comment on of our proposed approval of this facet of the Texas 
plan.
8. What is EPA's analysis of the HECT program with respect to section 
110(l) of the Clean Air Act?
    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

    Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State 
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable 
notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a 
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable 
requirement of this Act.

    As a general matter, the satisfaction of the environmental benefit 
principle and the other integrity principles applicable to trading 
programs will tend to demonstrate that a trading program will be 
consistent with section 110(l). In the case of the HECT program, we are 
proposing approval of a new set of measures instituting new controls on 
a class of VOCs that are more stringent than previous controls on VOCs. 
The HECT rules being proposed for approval provide no relief from any 
previously approved VOC rule or any other applicable requirement. 
Therefore, the proposed approval of the HECT rules is consistent with 
section 110(l).
    Here, however, as previously noted, the revisions to the HECT are a 
part of a revised ozone attainment strategy for the HGB area. In 
addition, we are reviewing the limited use of ERCs in the HECT. The 
revised strategy's reduced level of industrial NOX control 
and the effect of the use of ERCs in the HECT are being evaluated 
separately in the HGB attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 
standard. The section 110(l) analysis for our action on the HECT 
therefore relies on the analysis conducted for the HGB attainment 
demonstration. Based on our analysis of the attainment demonstration, 
we conclude that the HECT, in conjunction with all other controls in 
the attainment demonstration, satisfies section 110(l).

D. Conclusion

    EPA reviewed the HECT SIP submittal with respect to the 
expectations of the EIP Guidance document and the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA has concluded after review and analysis that the 
HECT EIP is approvable. EPA is proposing to approve the new sections 
101.390-101.394, 101.396, 101.399, 101.401, and 101.403 submitted by 
TCEQ on December 17, 2004, for rule log number 2004-0058-101-AI. These 
rules provide new requirements that will reduce emissions of HRVOCs in 
the HGB ozone nonattainment area.
    We will not take final action on these rules until we finally 
approve the

[[Page 58145]]

attainment demonstration. Additionally, the HECT program cannot be 
finally approved until the EPA finalizes approval of the 30 TAC Chapter 
115 HRVOC rules that provide the enforceable monitoring and 
recordkeeping requirements sufficient to demonstrate practicable 
enforceability and quantifiability. Provisions allowing ERC use in the 
HECT program will also not be fully approved until the rules for ERC 
generation and use have been approved. The attainment demonstration and 
the Chapter 115 and ERC rules are being considered in separate Federal 
Register notices.

II. General Information

A. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by File ID number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

B. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)

    Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-
mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to 
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the official file. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)). This proposed rule is not a 
``significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it 
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This proposed action merely proposes to 
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, 
the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, EPA has determined that this rule does not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or on the private sector, in any one year. Thus, today's 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In 
addition, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments in accordance with section 203 of UMRA.
    This proposed 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, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments'' (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, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, (August 10, 
1999)). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This proposed 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)). EPA interprets 
Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that 
are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 
under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the 
regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it approves a state program.
    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. 
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus 
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs 
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical. In reviewing a SIP submission, EPA has no 
authority under the Clean Air Act, in the absence of a prior existing 
requirement for the State to use VCS, to disapprove a SIP submission 
for failure to use VCS. Thus, it would be inconsistent with applicable 
law for EPA to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act and further consideration 
of VCS is not required. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), OMB must approve all ``collections of 
information'' by EPA. The Act defines ``collection of information'' as 
a requirement for ``answers to * * * identical reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons.'' (44 U.S.C. 
3502(3)(A)). This proposed rule does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the PRA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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


[[Page 58146]]


    Dated: September 27, 2005.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 05-19996 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P