Comment M9: The commenter (Wilson) commented that EPA should not
approve the TCEQ's approach to less reactive VOCs, but should assume
that the failure to analyze and develop control strategies for Other
VOCs (non-highly reactive volatile organic compounds) will lead to
higher levels of ozone formation than is represented by the TCEQ
modeling analysis. The commenter continues that there is evidence that
Other VOCs (OVOCs) are underestimated in the inventory and are a source
of uncertainty. The commenter cites to a study by Environ ``Top Down
Evaluation of the Houston Emissions Inventory Using Inverse Modeling''
(Yarwood et al., 2003) which indicated that about the right amount of
reactivity had been added to the model and that further adjustment is
not warranted. The commenter reiterated EPA's TSD by stating that the
report indicates that about the right amount of reactivity had been
added to the model by TCEQ with scaling of olefin to NOX
emissions and that further adjustment to the inventory is not
warranted. The commenter indicates that the Yarwood study is not
conclusive on the point of assuming a linear function of emissions from
each of the source categories and further cites from the study ``this
finding does not rule out the possibility of achieving more significant
improvements in model performance if just the right combination of
relatively large adjustments were applied to the inventory.'' The
commenter continues by further citing from the Yarwood report and
indicates that statistically significant improvements in model
performance were seen by increasing VOCs from area and mobile sources
near and inside Beltway 8, and point sources located in the west end of
the Houston Ship Channel. The commenter also indicated that the report
indicated that the underestimation of VOCs in the Ship Channel sub-
region is particularly severe. The commenter concluded that TCEQ did
not conduct a balanced evaluation of the Yarwood study and its OVOC
modeling effort when TCEQ adopted the SIP revision.
    The commenter indicated that TCEQ's one base case modeling
sensitivity with an adjusted OVOC inventory improved model performance
including the performance of the peak predicted value.
    The commenter indicates that the case for adjusting OVOC emissions
is also supported when evaluating the composition of model cell box in
Channelview area to the long-term Auto Gas Chromatograph (GC) data from
Channelview and Deer Park monitors. The commenter continues that the
Ethylene and Olefin portions are a larger percent of total VOC compared
to the monitoring data. The commenter also indicates that the OVOCs
portions are underestimated by the box model compared to the long-term
monitoring data.
    The commenter also presented information on TCEQ's future year
modeling sensitivity with the OVOCs imputed and then compared future
year peak values with the CS06a run and a control of all VOCs run
(these runs were in TCEQ's TSD). The commenter comments that the
imputing of OVOCs raises peak ozone values 2-30 ppb for the days of the
episode.
    Response M9: The TCEQ was reluctant to make any inventory
adjustments which could be viewed as arbitrary for modeling purposes.
Even though there exists some data that OVOCs may be under reported,
TCEQ decided that they did not have sufficient data to justify a
particular emission inventory adjustment to OVOCs. EPA has also
commented in the past that TCEQ should investigate OVOC adjustments and
in our TSD and proposal we indicated that OVOC underreporting concern
is an issue of uncertainty. At this time though, we recognize that TCEQ
did not think they had enough data to develop a control strategy
including a inventory that had imputed OVOCs. We agree with the
commenter that the Yarwood report has some interesting sensitivities
and potential impacts, but the body of data to support an OVOC adjusted
inventory was not present when TCEQ developed the SIP in 2004. While
the peak modeling values increased in the basecase with the imputed
OVOCs, a full model performance analysis including statistics, time
series, graphical, and responses to variations in EIs inputs was not
done, so EPA does not conclude that overall model performance was
better with the imputed OVOCs. A full modeling analysis would need to
be conducted with the items listed to determine if the imputed OVOCs
was getting the right answer for the right reason. TCEQ conducted model
performance analysis of this level with both the base inventory and
then with the HRVOC imputed inventory in order to support that the
HRVOC imputed inventory was actually an improvement in the modeling. We
will continue to encourage TCEQ to investigate OVOCs in the development
of their future HGB SIPs. A separate study by Yarwood (H6E.2002 report)
cited in our TSD included analysis showing that the Olefin to
NOX imputing factor that TCEQ utilized produces
approximately the correct amount of reactivity in the model. The
olefin-to-NOX adjustment was applied only after a large body
of peer reviewed research showed conclusively that such a discrepancy

affected emissions of certain HRVOCs from industrial sources. The
bibliography included in TCEQ's TSD includes a list of many of the peer
reviewed studies considered by TCEQ and reviewed by EPA.
    In TCEQ's response to comments on their HGB proposal in June 2004
they agreed that there is some evidence that OVOCs may be
underestimated in the modeling inventory, but the evidence to justify
adjusting emissions of OVOC is much less conclusive and open to debate.
TCEQ's response continued, that at that time, few in-depth analyses of
aircraft observations had been conducted comparing OVOC concentrations
with those expected based on the reported emissions. The TCEQ compared
ambient concentrations of OVOC with the reported inventories at the
Clinton Drive and Deer Park monitoring locations and used this data to
conduct the OVOC modeling sensitivity. The study suggested that OVOC
may be underreported by a factor of 4.8. The scope of this study was
limited however, because in 2004 only these two TCEQ sites had
collected continuous, multi-year speciated hydrocarbon data in the Ship
Channel industrial district. We encourage TCEQ to continue to evaluate
the Auto GC data and utilize the data in developing future SIPs.
    Based on our comments above on the need for a full base case model
performance to justify the OVOC adjustment as an improvement in the
modeling, we do not concur with commenter's comment that the future
year model predictions with additional OVOCs included are of enough
concern that EPA should not approve these SIP revisions. The future
year sensitivity modeling is speculative and the base modeling was not
verified to actually be a better performing modeling system with the
OVOC imputation.
    In TCEQ's response to comments on their June 2004 proposal, they
indicated that if the OVOC emissions are indeed underestimated
substantially, then additional reductions may be necessary. We
encourage TCEQ to continue to evaluate OVOCs in their development of
the 8-hour SIP for HGB.
    Comment M10: The commenter (Wilson) commented that the 8-hour ozone
non-interference demonstration is inadequate and biased, and that
furthermore, may be based on a faulty emissions inventory since OVOCs
were not adjusted and errors in simulating the CS-2001 control strategy
occurred. The commenter concludes that EPA must find that the non-
interference demonstration is inadequate and disapprove the relaxation
of control measures that if kept, could contribute to progress towards
attaining the 8-hour standard.
    The commenter continues that the 8-hour modeling results presented
in TCEQ's TSD shows that the proposed 1-hour strategy falls short of
making reasonable progress towards 8-hour attainment. The commenter
continues that the plan backslides in comparison to the 2001 approved
plan because six of the 16 monitors show higher 8-hour Design Values
and the area of exceedances is larger on 6 of the 10 days with the new
SIP revisions. The commenter also comments the average of the relative
reduction factors is essentially unchanged (0.7 percent lower after
implementation of the proposed control strategy as compared to the EPA-
approved control strategy) and that significant additional reductions
will be necessary to attain the 8-hour ozone standard.
    The commenter indicated that in addition to excluding the analysis
of adjustments to the OVOC inventory, the TCEQ made a number of other
assumptions that tend to bias the non-interference demonstration in
favor of the proposed control strategy.
    The commenter indicated that the use of updated activity data as
the basis for the CS-2001 may add as much as 20 tpd more NOX
than would be allowed by the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to
approve. The commenter did recognize that TCEQ had made several
technical updates by using Mobile 6 that were acceptable. The commenter
commented that a 13 percent increase in VMT that was included for the
2000 motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) should have been restricted
to the old VMT and that the inclusion of the additional VMT is
inappropriate. The commenter continued that they were concerned with
the use of a revised/updated 2007 Traffic Demand Model as the basis for
the CS-2001 inventory because this included the new activity data,
which results in as much as 20 tpd. The commenter continued that the
old activity data should be used unless EPA approves a new MVEB.
    The commenter indicated that if EPA approves the use of updated
activity data for the baseline model, then the MVEB is not a binding
constraint. The commenter urged EPA to reconsider our guidance on the
noninterference test and conduct our own analysis in a manner
consistent with their comments.
    Response M10: EPA disagrees with the assertion that the non-
interference demonstration is inadequate and biased, and that it
represents backsliding. As indicated in more detail in the proposal
notice and TSD for this action, it was our observation that while
individual monitors may have increases in ozone, overall the modeling
metrics indicated either an even benefit or a slight increased benefit
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA gave the State guidance that non-
interference and equivalence can be demonstrated by showing through an
air quality analysis, that the new strategy will not create more 8-hour
ozone exceedances, higher 8-hour ozone concentrations, or higher
cumulative exposure levels than the old strategy.
    The 8-hour demonstration process uses the model in a relative sense
using Relative Reduction Factors (RRFs), so 8-hour modeling may show
attainment with RRF analysis but still have grid cells over the
standard in the model predictions. The results indicated that CS-08 is
slightly more effective in reducing 8-hour ozone levels than CS-2001 in
both average relative reduction factor (0.931 vs. 0.940) and in future
design value (107 vs. 108 ppb), even though some stations fare slightly
worse under the new control strategy as the commenter indicated. In
weighting the 110(l) analysis, the closest thing to the attainment test
is the change in RRFs and the change in Future design values between
the old and new strategies. This is the brightest line test, so a
reduction in these is a good indicator of non-interference. For most of
the design values, they decrease with the new strategy (See Table I-3
on page 76 of EPA's TSD). It is also important to realize that all of
the higher design values (>95 ppb) decrease with the new strategy and
with the exception of the Bayland Park (BAYP) monitor (which dropped 1
ppb), they dropped a significant value (5-8 ppb).
    In addition, for both peak 8-hour ozone concentration and exposure
metrics, benefits of the new strategy exceed those of the old strategy
for every day that was modeled except September 6, where the old
strategy performs slightly better. For the area of exceedance however,
the comparison is less clear-cut. As the commenter indicated for area
of exceedance, the older strategy shows more of a benefit on six of ten
days and the new strategy shows a greater benefit on three days and on
one day both strategies are equivalent. Even though more grid cell area
per day were predicted to be in nonattainment, when the level of ozone
above nonattainment was weighted with the grid cells predicted to be in
nonattainment, the ozone exposure metric showed improvement for the
majority of the days. EPA's guidance for demonstrating attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is to use the RRFs average for all the days that
monitors

had elevated ozone. So even though some days had larger exceedance
areas, the ability to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be more
heavily weighted by the change in the average RRFs and the monitors
with the higher design values. Although there are uncertainties with
comparing the modeled results of the two strategies, EPA believes that
the new strategy and the old strategy are at least equivalent in
overall 8-hour ozone benefit with the new strategy slightly more
effective in reducing the peak ozone values and the old strategy
slightly more effective in reducing the area of exceedance. In summary,
both the Future design values and RRFs are lower for the new strategy
(especially for the higher design values that will be critical in
future 8-hour attainment SIP development). Furthermore, two of the
three ozone metrics showed improvement with the new strategy. Taking
all of these metrics into consideration and recognizing the
uncertainties in the modeling, we believe that Texas has demonstrated
that the new strategy will not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour
standard.
    The EPA agrees that a different mix of control measures may be
necessary to reach attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard and the
State will need to address this in their 8-hour ozone attainment SIP
that is due in June 2007. At that same time, the State will need to
submit its ``reasonable progress'' SIP for the 8-hour standard. As
discussed previously in the response to comment for M9 comment, EPA
determined that the Emission Inventory utilized for this attainment
demonstration modeling was acceptable. EPA ultimately agreed with TCEQ
that there was not enough data and studies on OVOCs to warrant imputing
the inventory for OVOCs. Therefore, it would not have been reasonable
to make a OVOC adjustment in the 110(l) analysis.
    TCEQ discussed with EPA the best approach to making this
demonstration. One of the key issues of concern in conducting it was
the fact that the photochemical modeling is now based on an improved
August-September 2000 ozone episode rather than the older September
1993 ozone episode on which the December 2000 SIP was based.
Recognizing that this was a major change since 2000, the
noninterference modeling included the control strategies listed in the
December 2000 SIP together with updated inventories and updated
methodologies utilizing the 2000 episode.
    The commenter emphasized that the December 2000 SIP MVEB placed a
``binding constraint'' on how any CS-2000 onroad inventory should be
developed. It was also suggested that the CS-2000 inventory should have
coupled updated MOBILE6-based emission rates with the old VMT and other
associated activity data from the December 2000 MVEB. This suggestion
is impractical because an onroad emissions inventory which becomes an
MVEB is a combination of both emission rates (from the MOBILE emissions
model) and activity data (from a travel demand model). EPA concurs with
the method that TCEQ conducted the VMT and MVEB for this 110(l)
analysis.
    The 2007 on-road inventory that was developed for the December 2000
SIP included an estimate of 129.4 million VMT from the Houston
Galveston Area Council's (HGAC) travel demand modeling. Since that
time, new travel networks, demographic data, census data, etc. inputs
have been added to HGAC's travel demand modeling process, and the
updated 2007 on-road inventory was developed, 146 million VMT is the
best available estimate of 2007 activity levels. This inventory was
developed by following EPA's memo entitled ``Policy Guidance on the Use
of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity'', dated
January 18, 2002, which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm.

    The test that EPA has to apply to this SIP revision is that the
revisions demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard in 2007
and that the revisions will not interfere with any other applicable CAA
standard (including 8-hour ozone). EPA is approving these revisions and
the revised motor vehicle emission budget in this action.
    Comment M11: The commenter (Wilson) commented that the emissions
estimates for heavy-duty trucks do not use the best available
information and cites a memo from Rick Baker of ERG to Hazel Barbour
(TCEQ) dated August 30, 2003 that indicates the 2007 mobile inventory
may be underestimated by up to 3.7 tpd of NOX due to heavy-
duty trucks not being reflashed. The commenter also noted that as of
November 2004, only 12.7 percent of the applicable trucks nationally
had been reflashed. The commenter also commented that the EPA default
``reflash'' rate of 90 percent for heavy-duty diesel trucks was
inappropriate for use in development of the 2007 on-road emissions
inventory.
    Response M11: The commenter is correct in noting that under a 1998
consent decree with EPA, manufacturers of diesel truck engines are
required to install software upgrades (reflash) to engines they sold
between 1993 and 1998 with ``defeat devices'' that resulted in higher
NOX emissions than allowed by applicable certification
standards. All States except California are required to use the latest
available version of EPA's MOBILE emissions model for on-road SIP
inventory development purposes. In addition, States are encouraged to
use EPA guidance when using the MOBILE model for SIP purposes. The
latest version of the MOBILE6.2 User's Guide (dated August 14, 2003)
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. The User's Guide

indicates that a default effectiveness rate of 90 percent should be
used, unless good local data is available.
    While the commenter is correct that some local data with estimates
of how many trucks had been reflashed in 2002 and nationally in 2004
exists, the consent decree still requires all the trucks to be
reflashed by 2008. With the compliance date of 2008 for the consent
decree, EPA has not changed the recommended default value of 90 percent
for 2007. While reflash rates may have been slow and below expected
levels in 2002 and 2004, the flash rate did increase from 2 percent in
2002 to 12 percent in 2004 according to the comment. Furthermore, EPA
still expects the consent decree to be met in 2008, so a high
compliance rate in 2007 is thought to be an appropriate estimate. TCEQ
modeled 2007 emissions with the EPA recommended default rate of 90
percent reflash rate and decided to utilize EPA defaults. EPA concurred
at the time that this was an acceptable assumption. Furthermore in
March 2006, EPA issued a letter to TCEQ confirming that for the 8-hr
ozone SIP, that TCEQ could use EPA defaults for the MOBILE emission
estimates for the truck population subject to the reflash requirement.
    Comment M12: The commenter (Wilson) commented that the TCEQ has not
revised off-road and area emissions to account for operations of two
permitted container and cruise ship port facilities. The commenter
indicated that they did not believe the current SIP revision fully
accounts for operating emissions related to the rapid growth in port
facilities in the Houston region including ship, train and truck
emissions that would also increase as a result of the port activity.
The commenter asks EPA to evaluate whether these ports and the
associated growth emissions were included in the proposed SIP revision.
    Response M12: The projected 2007 shipping inventory explicitly
accounts for traffic to/from the new Bayport container and cruise
terminals. The shipping inventory does not account for

the Texas City container terminal, which was approved long after the
current inventory was developed. However, even though the facility
plans to open in 2006, the level of activity through 2007 will likely
be fairly modest. The TCEQ plans to revise its shipping inventory to
include emissions associated with this new port in future modeling
work.
    Future ship and train emissions are normally accounted for by
growth factors developed by applying econometric growth forecasts as
was done in this case. During EPA's review of the Bayport Draft EIS's,
we reviewed the estimated emissions from increased ship traffic from
the new ports and the total was less than the growth amount in tpd of
NOX that TCEQ had included for 2007 modeling in this SIP.
    TCEQ estimated train emissions by growing the area-wide inventory
according to projected trends. Because there is insufficient
information available to allocate emissions of locomotives to specific
track segments, the growth was spread across all the track miles in the
8 county area equally. TCEQ has a project to improve Texas locomotive
emissions and it's results should be added to the model for the 8-hour
SIP.
    Truck emissions are based on travel-demand modeling conducted by
HGAC, which included the Bayport and Texas City terminals in the 2007
inventories it generated for TCEQ's future case modeling.
    Comment M13: The commenter (Wilson) indicates that TCEQ continues
to claim credit for emission reductions from the institution of Federal
DOE standards on certain appliances even though TCEQ has dropped these
measures from their attainment modeling. The commenter states that if
these measures have been dropped, then EPA should provide a reference
for this change.
    Response M13: In the previous SIP, TCEQ had included the DOE energy
efficiency benefits as a gap measure but had not modeled the
reductions. The HGB area is part of a NOX Cap and Trade
program and any reductions due to increases in energy efficiency,
including federal appliance energy efficiency programs, could help
utilities maintain their cap and might not yield actual reductions to
the HGB airshed. While federal (DOE) appliance energy efficiency
programs still exist, TCEQ has dropped taking credit for these programs
in this SIP revision because of the HGB Cap and Trade program. TCEQ did
not include any potential emission reductions in this SIP revision that
may occur for other areas of Texas from DOE appliance energy efficiency
programs.
    Comment M14: The commenter indicates that EPA should not approve a
plan that fails to require industry to reduce emissions of OVOCs. The
commenter refers to the comment on OVOC modeling sensitivity to
substantiate their comment. Furthermore, the commenter refers to
presentations by TCEQ and a report by TCEQ indicating that large
amounts of VOC reactivity from OVOC and HRVOCs could yield ozone based
on analysis of Auto gas chromatographs that are not part of the
chemicals compounds covered by the HRVOC rules. The presentations and
reports indicated were: John R. Jolly, Fernando I. Mercado, and David
W. Sullivan, ``A Comparison of Ambient and Emissions VOC to
NOX Ratios at Two Monitors in Houston, Texas'' (Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, June 2004). Mark Estes et al.,
``Analysis of Automated Gas Chromatograph Data from 1996-2001 to
Determine VOCs with Largest Ozone Formation Potential'' (TCEQ Technical
Support Document Attachment 6, December 2002). Mark Estes, ``VOC
Reactivity Before, During and After TexAQS 2000'' (Presentation to
TexAQS Science Meeting, February 2004). John Jolly and Elaine
Schroeder, ``Analysis of HGB Enhanced Industry-Sponsored Monitoring
(EISM) Data'' (Presentation to EISM Network Stakeholder Meeting, as
updated April 2004). John Jolly et al., ``An Analysis of VOC Reactivity
in Houston'' (TCEQ SIP Technical Support Document Appendix GG, January
23, 2004).
    Response M14: See Response to Comment M9 for EPA's comments on the
analysis of sensitivity modeling of OVOCs. EPA is approving this
package because it has demonstrated that the area will attain the 1-
hour ozone standard by November 15, 2007 and that no additional
reductions were determined to be needed by TCEQ. EPA had previously
reviewed the presentations and reports that the commenter refers to in
their comment, prior to our proposed action on these SIP revisions.
These studies do suggest that more information is needed on the
imputing of OVOCs, but they do not in and of themselves provide enough
of a technical basis to take action on imputing OVOCs at this time. EPA
encourages TCEQ to continue to evaluate OVOCs and other HRVOCs and
consider regulating sources of these chemical compounds if modeling
indicates that their control is necessary for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    Comment M15a: The commenter indicates that EPA cannot assume the
level of control effectiveness claimed by the TCEQ for regulating
HRVOCs. The commenter indicates that TCEQ failed to provide an estimate
of rule effectiveness that takes into account that the sources it
regulates may not sufficiently encompass the major sources of HRVOCs,
and to address the specific challenges of enforcement and
implementation. The commenter continued that TCEQ did not consider
evaporative emissions from rail tank cars and fugitive emissions from
above ground and underground pipelines carrying petroleum products and
from barges.
    Response M15a: Aircraft flights and other monitoring during and
since the TexAQS 2000 study have indicated a significant under-
reporting of emissions of HRVOCs that are emitted primarily from
industrial sources. As previously discussed in our proposed approval
notice (70 FR 58119) and the TSD, EPA believes that the field data
collected in 2000 and since indicates that rule effectiveness has been
previously overestimated for sources of HRVOCs. TCEQ significantly
increased the basecase 2000 inventory for industrial sources of HRVOC
by imputing the inventory to correct for the over estimation of rule
effectiveness and to bring the 2000 HRVOC rule effectiveness estimate
in line with the available ambient data that has been collected. EPA
believes TCEQ's adjustment to the basecase inventory is appropriate
based on the information available. TCEQ then adopted HRVOC rules to
reduce emissions of HRVOCs and put in place additional monitoring to
maintain compliance with the new limits on HRVOCs. Because of these
changes by TCEQ, EPA finds that rule effectiveness is adequate for the
HRVOC program.
    Having identified that HRVOC's need to be reduced, as discussed
elsewhere, TCEQ adopted rules for the control of HRVOC's. As discussed
elsewhere, TCEQ has implemented an annual HRVOC cap to reduce emissions
of HRVOCs. TCEQ reduced the annual HRVOC cap levels that were set in
the regulations by 5 percent compared to modeled levels in setting the
HRVOC annual cap limits in part to address rule effectiveness and
emission characterization concerns regarding daily variability in
emissions and geographical variability of location of emissions. These
HRVOC rules also incorporated stronger monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting than previous versions of rules for the control of VOCs.
Therefore EPA believes that

future rule effectiveness will be much improved over the past.
    Specifically, TCEQ now requires direct continuous measurement of
flow and heating value of the flow to flares, which is a vast
improvement over the past practice using engineering estimates and one
time tests. TCEQ also requires monitoring of flow and concentration to
cooling towers giving a direct measurement of emissions. When direct
measurements are used, no rule effectiveness adjustment is necessary.
Finally for fugitive emissions, TCEQ is requiring third party audits
that will be used to confirm that the expected rule effectiveness has
been achieved for the leak detection and repair program. TCEQ has
agreed to utilize the available data, including the first third party
audits, to conduct a rule effectiveness study in 2006 and include this
analysis in development of future SIPs.
    EPA believes that certain past practices are being improved to
reduce the uncertainty of the estimates. In particular, the uncertainty
introduced by certain assumptions of control efficiency and rule
effectiveness is being improved. This approach of reassessing rule
effectiveness when additional data is available is consistent with
EPA's guidance on how to address rule effectiveness (EPA memo on rule
effectiveness from Sally Shaver dated April 27, 1995; and guidance
document EPA-452/4-94-001, RULE EFFECTIVENESS GUIDANCE: INTEGRATION OF
INVENTORY, COMPLIANCE, AND ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS). EPA is approving
the emission reductions that have been projected for the improved
fugitive emissions rules because the new measurement and monitoring
requirements in the adopted rule will result in significantly improved
accuracy. In addition, Texas has committed to perform a rule
effectiveness study and use improved emission inventory techniques to
estimate future emissions and confirm the effectiveness of the program.
    It is EPA's position that VOC emissions and some HRVOC emissions
could occur from the sources that the commenter mentions and are
outside the traditional TCEQ regulatory field (evaporative emissions
from rail cars in transit, barges in transit, pipelines, etc.). TCEQ
has followed EPA guidelines in estimating emissions from these sources
in development of the Emission Inventory for this revision. The initial
field monitoring data that indicated these may be areas underestimated
by traditional EPA guidelines was only starting to be available in
2003-2004 time frame as TCEQ was developing this revision. At the time
TCEQ was developing this revision, there was not a sufficient body of
data to allow for any estimation of the level of emissions that may
exist from these sources that are not in the inventory currently. EPA
believes that the inventory reflects the best estimate of emissions
that was possible at the time. Inventory analysis is always an ongoing
process that is constantly needing to be improved. TCEQ will continue
to investigate and improve emission estimates. Furthermore, the
investigation into these potential sources of error in the emission
inventory will lead to better science and planning of effective control
packages to attain the 8-hour standard. We encourage TCEQ and others to
continue to use imaging devices and other technologies to help refine
emission inventories.
    Comment M15b: The commenter indicated that they were concerned with
HRVOC fugitive rules for leak monitoring that seem to place
determination of the threshold with the source under TCEQ rules section
115.781(f). The commenter felt that the rules should specifically state
that TCEQ retains the discretion to determine monitoring intervals.
    The commenter indicated that EPA should not approve backsliding on
the fugitive rules for facilities not in HRVOC service in the Houston
region. The commenter further expressed concern that inspectors and
enforcement actions would be hindered by the removal of language on:
(1) Specifying the procedure that must be used to demonstrate that
leaking components cannot be repaired without a process unit shutdown,
(2) specifying the requirements for undertaking extraordinary efforts
to control leaks, (3) requiring the use of electronic data collection
devices during monitoring, use of an electronic database, and
documentation of an auditing process to assure proper calibration,
identify response time failures, and assess pace anomalies. These
changes were in changes in Texas regulations section 115.352 and
115.354.
    Response M15b: EPA disagrees with the assertion from the commenter
that TCEQ rules section 115.78(f) and other parts of the new HRVOC
rules place determination of threshold with the source. The rules
(section 115.788 (a-d)) require third party audits of the HRVOC
monitoring at a facility, including 115.78(f) requirements to be
conducted and submitted to TCEQ. If these third party audits raise
deficiencies, section 115.788(e) requires the source to submit a
corrective action plan to TCEQ. Furthermore, Texas rules section
115.788(f) allows for TCEQ and EPA to conduct audits. Upon review of
audit results, Texas rules section 115.788(h) allow the TCEQ to specify
additional corrective actions. Therefore, EPA believes that TCEQ
retains authority to determine compliance with section 115 HRVOC rules,
including section 115.78(f).
    The commenter is correct that some of the minor rule changes on
sources in fugitive service may be considered a relaxation of previous
Texas regulations (115.352 and 115.354), but all three changes
identified were changes that Texas has made to rules they previously
adopted at the state level in 2002. The rules that were changed were
never approved into the federal SIP. Therefore these changes are not a
relaxation of the federally approved SIP. Many other changes to
regulation 115, regarding VOC controls, strengthen the SIP and are
considered in the more detail in our TSD. EPA disagrees with the
commenter and does not consider this a backsliding issue of federally
approved measures.
    Comment M15c: The commenter concerns about flare efficiency related
to too much air or steam assist and high winds, and questioned what
impact these factors can have on a flare's destruction efficiency. The
commenter indicated that EPA should not approve rule language that may
discourage research and application of monitoring technology to verify
destruction efficiencies or the use of remote technology to determine
destruction efficiencies.
    Response M15c: We are approving the estimates used for flare
destruction efficiency because the estimates are based on the best
scientific information available. Like the commenter, we are concerned
by the uncertainty introduced by having a significant source of
emissions which cannot be directly measured. We also share concerns
that several factors can potentially impact flare destruction
efficiency, including wind speed and volumes to the flare as well as
how it is operated, but the current estimates are based on the best
information available at the time these SIP revisions were completed.
We believe Texas should strongly consider requirements for monitoring
steam and air assist ratios to insure that operators maintain these
parameters in a range to insure optimum combustion. We also encourage
TCEQ to pursue new technology such as the Fourier Transform Infra-red
Spectrophotometer to eventually be able to directly measure destruction
efficiency in the field.
    Comment M15d: The commenter indicated that EPA should evaluate if

interlock devices that regulate the ratio of air (or steam) should be
considered reasonably available control measures (RACM), and that EPA
should not approve this SIP unless TCEQ develops regulations requiring
the use of interlock devices.
    Response M15d: We covered the changes to TCEQ's previously approved
RACM in detail in the proposal (70 FR 58119) and TSD. EPA determined
that all reasonably available control measures were being implemented
in the Houston area. In section II.a. of the TSD (pages 51-56), we
discuss EPA's analysis that the revised plan will achieve attainment of
the one-hour standard, based the controls that will be in place by the
ozone season of 2007. As part of the RACM analysis we estimated that to
advance attainment more than 39 tpd of additional NOX
emission reductions would have to be achieved before the ozone season
of 2006. EPA guidance is that a justification would need to support
that a measure was not reasonably available for that area and could be
based on technological or economic grounds.
    The commenter indicated that EPA should consider requiring
interlock devices as RACM. The commenter did not provide a potential
quantification of how much emission reductions such a requirement would
create nor how such a measure would result in ozone reductions such
that attainment could be achieved earlier than 2007. It is not clear
that even if such a requirement existed that it would result in enough
emission reductions to advance attainment. Furthermore, the comment on
the use of interlock devices was not made during TCEQ's development of
these rules in 2004 and the first time this issue has been raised was
in the commenter's letter to EPA received in November 2005. Even if the
interlock devices could result in enough reductions, it would not have
been possible for TCEQ to implement a rule requiring the use of
interlock devices and for the applicable sources to achieve compliance
with a interlock rule by the beginning of the 2006 ozone season. TCEQ
rule development alone typically requires at least 9-12 months, so just
the rule development timing would have made it impossible to advance
attainment. Since attainment could not be advanced, EPA does not
consider a requirement for the use of interlock devices to be a
potential RACM measure. EPA does strongly encourage TCEQ to consider
the use of interlock devices in the development of the 8-hour
attainment demonstration for HGB.
    Comment M16: The commenter indicates that EPA should discount any
emission reduction benefit from the Environmental Monitoring Response
System (EMRS). The commenter cited a comment from the TSD for this
action indicating that EPA ``believes the added scrutiny of ambient VOC
levels will provide feedback to industry on the activities that may be
causing increased VOC emissions resulting in improved overall program
effectiveness and possibly identifying previously unknown sources of
emissions.'' The commenter then commented that TCEQ had recently
reported that the goal of stopping HRVOC events in real time can not be
achieved with EMRS. The commenter concludes that EPA should not find
that the EMRS system will result in emission reductions which have not
been accounted for in the model.
    Response M16: EPA was aware that TCEQ was trying to stop HRVOC
events in real time with the EMRS. During the proposal and development
of the EMRS program and to this date, we were skeptical that this could
be done considering the meteorology and density of sources in wind
sectors around the monitors. We do think that the data and continued
focus on what compounds are emitted and alerting the sources is a
worthwhile project and should continue to aid in finding new sources or
issues that will improve the understanding of ozone formation and
exceedances in the HGB area. We do think that it will also be a tool to
help determine what facilities or group of facilities should be
evaluated further in solving HGB's air quality issues.
    Comment M17: The commenter indicates that EPA should not approve
the NOX emission reduction relaxations as these changes will
be needed for further progress on the 8-hour.
    The commenter commented that in at least one case the ESAD level
adopted by Texas was higher than required by California. The commenter
indicated that the California standard was for gas fired utility
boilers with a capacity greater than 100 mmBtu/Hr is 0.02-0.03 lbs/
mmBtu, whereas the Texas standard is 0.03 lb/mmBtu. The commenter
continues that TCEQ should provide an evaluation for each difference in
ESADs that are being changed with these NOX MECT revisions
and explain why the lower ESAD was not utilized and until this is
completed EPA should not approve these revisions.
    Response M17: EPA has reviewed this SIP revision package and
determined that the package demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. As explained above, this submission was not for the purpose of
addressing reasonable further progress forward and attainment of the 8-
hour NAAQS. Texas is undertaking a significant and intense new air
study (TexAQS II) in HGB. With this new information coming in and new
8-hour modeling taking place it is to early to determine what the
appropriate suite of control measures will be for 8-hour attainment.
TCEQ is in the process of developing the 8-hour demonstrations which
are due to EPA on June 15, 2007.
    EPA reviewed the RACM levels as discussed in a previous response
and in the TSD for this action. The Texas standard is within the range
(although on the high end) of the ESAD for the California rule and was
reviewed prior to proposal and determined to be acceptable for RACM.
EPA conducted a review of the changes to ESAD levels and documented
California levels for each source category and Texas 90 percent and 80
percent in Table 6.B-1 of the TSD and determined the levels to be
acceptable. Furthermore, as indicated in a previous response there are
no additional measures that could be implemented to advance the
attainment date sooner than the current attainment date in 2007.

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 and because this action will not have a significant, adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions under the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 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
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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    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. Section 52.2270 is amended as follows:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended as follows:
0
1. By revising entries for Sections 114.1 and 114.2 under Chapter 114
(Reg 4), Subchapter A.
0
2. By revising the heading entitled ``Subchapter B: Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance'' under Chapter 114 (Reg 4) to read ``Subchapter C--
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance; Low Income Vehicle Repair
Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program; and
Early Action Compact Counties''; adding a new centered heading
``Division 1: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance'' immediately
following it; revising entries for Sections 114.50, 114.52, and 114.53;
and removing the heading entitled ``Subchapter C--Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance; Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and
Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program; and Early Action Compact
Counties'' that follows Section 114.53.
0
3. By removing the heading entitled ``Division 6: Lawn Service
Equipment Operating Restrictions'' under Chapter 114 (Reg 4),
Subchapter I; and removing entries for Sections 114.452 and 114.459.
0
4. By removing the heading entitled ``Division 1: Motor Vehicle Idling
Limitations'' under Chapter 114 (Reg 4), Subchapter J; and removing
entries for Sections 114.500, 114.502, 114.507, and 114.509.
0
5. By revising the heading entitled ``Chapter 117 (Reg 7)--Control of
Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds--Subchapter A'' to read ``Chapter
117 (Reg 7)--Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds''; adding
a centered heading entitled ``Subchapter A--Definitions'' immediately
following it; and revising the entry for Section 117.10.
0
6. By revising the heading entitled ``Subchapter B--Division 1--Utility
Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' under Chapter 117
(Reg 7) to read ``Subchapter B--Combustion at Major Sources''; adding a
centered heading entitled ``Division 1: Utility Electric Generation in
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' immediately following it; removing the
entry for 117.104; and revising entries for Sections 117.105-117.108,
117.113-117.116, 117.119, 117.131, 117.135, 117.138, 117.141, 117.143,
117.149, 117.203, 117.205-117.207, 117.213-117.216, 117.219, and
117.223.
0
7. By revising the heading entitled ``Subchapter C--Division 1--ADIPIC
Acid Manufacturing'' under Chapter 117 (Reg 7) to read ``Subchapter C--
Acid Manufacturing''; adding a centered heading entitled ``Division 1:
ADIPIC Acid Manufacturing'' immediately following it; and revising
entries for Sections 117.301, 117.309, 117.311, 117.313, 117.319,
117.321, 117.401, 117.409, 117.411, 117.413, 117.419, and 117.421.
0
8. By revising the heading entitled ``Subchapter D--Water Heaters,
Small Boilers, and Process Heaters'' under Chapter 117 (Reg 7) to read
``Subchapter D--Small Combustion Sources''; adding a new centered
heading ``Division 1: Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process
Heaters'' immediately following it; adding a new centered heading
``Division 2: Boilers, Process Heaters, and Stationary Engines and Gas
Turbines at Minor Sources'' immediately preceding the entry for Section
117.471; and revising entries for 117.463, 117.465, 117.473, 117.475,
117.478, and 117.479.

0
9. By removing entries for Section 117.540 and 117.560 under Chapter
117 (Reg 7), Subchapter E; and revising entries for 117.510, 117.512,
117.520, and 117.534.
0
b. The second table in paragraph (e) entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' is amended by adding a new entry at the end to read 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 114 (Reg 4)--Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles
                                                                Subchapter A--Definitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 114.1......................  Definitions................           09/05/04  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 114.2......................  Inspection and Maintenance            09/05/04  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Definitions.                                    where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Subchapter C--Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance; Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program; and Early
                                                                Action Compact Counties
                                                     Division 1: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 114.50.....................  Vehicle Emission Inspection           09/05/04  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    Subsection 114.50(b)(2) is
                                      Requirements.                                   where document begins].           NOT part of the
                                                                                approved SIP.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 114.52.....................  Early Participation                   09/05/04  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Incentive Program.                              where document begins].
Section 114.53.....................  Inspection and Maintenance            09/05/04  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Fees.                                           where document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Division 3: Early Action Compact Counties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                     * * * * * * *
                                                             Subchapter I--Non-Road Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 114.429....................  Affected Counties and                 12/06/00  11/14/01, 66 FR 57222............
                                      Compliance Schedules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Subchapter J--Operational Controls for Motor Vehicles
                                              Division 2: Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     * * * * * * *
                                         Chapter 117 (Reg 7)--Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds
                                                                Subchapter A--Definitions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.10.....................  Definitions................           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Subchapter B--Combustion at Major Sources
                                           Division 1: Utility Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattaiment Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.103....................  Exemptions.................           09/26/01  114/14/01, 66 FR 57244...........
Section 117.105....................  Emission Specifications for           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Reasonably Available                            where document begins].
                                      Control Technology (RACT).
Section 117.106....................  Emission Specifications for           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    The SIP does not
                                      Attainment Demonstrations.                      where document begins].           include section 117.106(d).
Section 117.107....................  Alternative System Emission           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Specifications.                                 where document begins].
Section 117.108....................  System Cap.................           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.113....................  Continuous Demonstration of           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].
Section 117.114....................  Emission Testing and                  12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Monitoring for the Houston-                     where document begins].
                                      Galveston Attainment
                                      Demonstration.
Section 117.115....................  Final Control Plan                    12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Procedures for Reasonably                       where document begins].
                                      Available Control
                                      Technologies.
Section 117.116....................  Final Control Plan                    12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Procedures for Attainment                       where document begins].
                                      Demonstration Emission
                                      Specifications.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.119....................  Notification,                         12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Recordkeeping, and                              where document begins].
                                      Reporting Requirements.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Division 2--Utility Electric Generation in East and Central Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.131....................  Applicability..............           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.135....................  Emission Specifications....           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    The SIP does not
                                                                                where document begins].           include section 117.106(d).
Section 117.138....................  System Cap.................           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 117.141....................  Initial Demonstration of              12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].
Section 117.143....................  Continuous Demonstration of           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.149....................  Notification,                         12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Recordkeeping, and                              where document begins].
                                      Reporting Requirements.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.203....................  Exemptions.................           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 117.205....................  Emission Specifications for           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Reasonably Available                            where document begins].
                                      Control Technology (RACT).

Section 117.206....................  Emission Specifications for           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    The SIP does not
                                      Attainment Demonstration.                       where document begins].           include section 117.206(e).
Section 117.207....................  Alternative Plant-wide                12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Emission Specifications.                        where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.213....................  Continuous Demonstration of           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].
Section 117.214....................  Emission Testing and                  12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Monitoring for the Houston-                     where document begins].
                                      Galveston Attainment
                                      Demonstration.
Section 117.215....................  Final Control Plan                    12/13/02   09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Procedures for Reasonably                       where document begins].
                                      Available Control
                                      Technologies.
Section 117.216....................  Final Control Plan                    12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Procedures for Attainment                       where document begins].
                                      Demonstration Emission
                                      Specifications.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.219....................  Notification,                         12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Recordkeeping, and                              where document begins].
                                      Reporting Requirements.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.223....................  Source Cap.................           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Subchapter C--Acid Manufacturing
                                                          Division 1: ADIPIC Acid Manufacturing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.301....................  Applicability..............           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.309....................  Control Plan Procedures....           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 117.311....................  Initial Demonstration of              12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].
Section 117.313....................  Continuous Demonstration of           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].
Section 117.319....................  Notification,                         12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Recordkeeping, and                              where document begins].
                                      Reporting Requirements.
Section 117.321....................  Alternative Case Specific             12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number
                                      Specifications.                                 where document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Division 2: Nitric Acid Manufacturing, Ozone Nonattainment Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.401....................  Applicability..............           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.409....................  Control Plan Procedures....           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                                                                where document begins].

Section 117.411....................  Initial Demonstration of              12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].
Section 117.413....................  Continuous Demonstration of           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Compliance.                                     where document begins].
Section 117.419....................  Notification,                         12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Recordkeeping, and                              where document begins].
                                      Reporting Requirements.
Section 117.421....................  Alternative Case Specific             12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Specifications.                                 where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Subchapter D--Small Combustion Sources
                                              Division 1: Water Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process Heaters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.463....................  Exemptions.................           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 117.465....................  Emission Specifications....           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Division 2: Boilers, Process Heaters, and Stationary Engines and Gas Turbines at Minor Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.471....................  Applicability..............           09/26/01  11/14/01, 66 FR 57244............  New.
Section 117.473....................  Exemptions.................           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                                                                where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 117.475....................  Emission Specifications....           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    The SIP does not include section
                                                                                where document begins].            117.475(i).
Section 117.478....................  Operating Requirements.....           12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                                                                where document begins].
Section 117.479....................  Monitoring, Recordkeeping,            12/13/02  09/06/06 [InsertFR page number
                                      and Reporting Requirements.                     where document begins].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Subchapter E--Administrative Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.510....................  Compliance Schedule for               12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Utility Electric                                where document begins].
                                      Generation in Ozone
                                      Nonattainment Areas.
Section 117.512....................  Compliance Schedule for               12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Utility Electric                                where document begins].
                                      Generation in East and
                                      Central Texas.
Section 117.520....................  Compliance Schedule for               12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Industrial, Commercial,                         where document begins].
                                      Institutional Combustion
                                      Sources in Ozone
                                      Nonattainment Areas.
Section 117.534....................  Compliance Schedule for               12/13/02  09/06/06 [Insert FR page number    ................................
                                      Boilers, Process Heaters,                       where document begins].
                                      Stationary Engines, and
                                      Gas Turbines at Minor
                                      Sources.

Section 117.570....................  Use of Emissions Credits              03/05/03  03/26/04, 69 FR 15686............
                                      for Compliance.

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                  EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        State
         Name of SIP provision           Applicable geographic or    submittal/          EPA approval date                       Comments
                                            nonattainment area     effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Attainment Demonstration for Houston/    Houston/Galveston, TX...        12/01/04  09/06/06 [Insert FR page       ......................................
 Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) One-hour                                                  number where document
 Ozone Nonattainment Area Adopting                                                  begins].
 Strategy Based on NOX and Point Source
 Highly-Reactive VOC Emission
 Reductions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-7412 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P