Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 2557

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated,

unless accomplished previously.

To prevent hydraulic fluid leakage

into the auxiliary power unit (APU)

inlet due to fatigue vibration and

cracking in the flared radius of a

hydraulic pipe in the aft fuselage, which

could result in smoke and odors in the

passenger cabin or cockpit; accomplish

the following:

Installation a Pipe Support and Clamps

(a) For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87

(MD–87) series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD80–29–056, dated June 18, 1996:

Within 18 months after the effective date of

this AD, install a pipe support and clamps on

the hydraulic lines in the aft fuselage in

accordance with the service bulletin.

Replacement of the Hydraulic Pipe

Assembly

(b) For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87

(MD–87) series airplanes, and Model MD–88

airplanes, as listed McDonnell Douglas

Service Bulletin MD80–29–062, Revision 01,

dated August 3, 1999: Within 18 months after

the effective date of this AD, replace the

hydraulic pipe assembly in the aft fuselage

with a new pipe assembly having a greater

wall thickness, in accordance with the

service bulletin. Except for Model MD–88

airplanes that have been modified in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas MD–80

Service Bulletin 29–54, dated February 2,

1993, or Revision 2, dated December 17,

1993, the requirements of this paragraph

must be accomplished concurrently with the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD

Installation of Drain Tube Assemblies and

Diverter Assemblies

(c) For Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82

(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), and DC–9–87

(MD–87) series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80–

53–286, dated September 3, 1999; and Model

MD–9–30 series airplanes, as listed in

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD90–

53–018, dated September 3, 1999: Within 18

months after the effective date of this AD,

install drain tube assemblies and diverter

assemblies in the area of the APU inlet, in

accordance with the applicable service

bulletin.

Spares

(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install a hydraulic pipe

assembly, part number 7936907–603, on any

airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

11, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–1118 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206

RIN 1010–AC24

Public Workshop on Proposed Rule—

Establishing Oil Value for Royalty Due

on Indian Leases

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Public Workshop.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) is giving notice of a

public workshop concerning the

supplementary proposed Indian oil

value rule published in the Federal

Register on January 5, 2000, (65 FR

403). The proposed rule would amend

the royalty valuation regulations for

crude oil produced from Indian leases.

DATES: The public workshop will be

held in Lakewood, Colorado, on

February 8, 2000, beginning at 9 a.m.

and ending at 3 p.m., Mountain time.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

at the Minerals Management Service,

Royalty Management Program, Denver

Federal Center, Auditorium, Building

85, Kipling Street (between 6th Avenue

and Alameda Pkwy), Lakewood, CO

80215, telephone number (303) 231–

3585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Peter Christnacht, Royalty Valuation

Division, Royalty Management Program,

Minerals Management Service, P.O. Box

25165, MS 3151, Denver, Colorado,

80225–0165, telephone number (303)

275–7252; or, Mr. David S. Guzy, Chief,

Rules and Publications Staff, Royalty

Management Program, Minerals

Management Service, P.O. Box 25165,

MS 3021, Denver, Colorado 80225–

0165, telephone number (303) 231–

3432, fax number (303) 231–3385, email David.Guzy@mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

workshop will be open to the public in

order to discuss the supplementary

proposed rule and gather comments. We

encourage members of the public to

attend this meeting. Those wishing to

make formal presentations should sign

up upon arrival. The sign-up sheet will

determine the order of speakers. For

building security measures, each person

will be required to sign in and may be

required to present a picture

identification to gain entry to the

meeting.

Dated: January 11, 2000.

Lucy Querques Denett,

Associate Director for Royalty Management.

[FR Doc. 00–1099 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 181–0199; FRL–6525–6]

Disapproval of Implementation Plans;

California State Implementation Plan

Revision, South Coast Air Quality

Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

disapprove Rule 1623 of the South Coast

Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) which has been submitted

as a revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 1623—

Credits for Lawn and Garden Equipment

provides a mechanism for issuing

mobile source emission reduction

credits (MSERCs) to entities who

voluntarily either sell or replace old

engine-powered lawn and garden

2558 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1A mandatory EIP is a program that the Clean Air

Act requires a State to adopt. A discretionary EIP

is a program that a State or Tribe elects to adopt.

equipment with new low- or zeroemission lawn and garden equipment.

The EPA is proposing disapproval

because Rule 1623 does not meet several

federal requirements including the

requirement that emission reductions be

real, quantifiable, enforceable, and

surplus. This action is being taken

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (the Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Air Planning Office, (AIR–2), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California 91765–4182

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roxanne Johnson, Air Planning Office

(AIR–2), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1225.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for

disapproval and exclusion from the

California SIP is: South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) Rule 1623—Credits for

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment.

This rule was submitted by the

California Air Resources Board to EPA

on August 28, 1996.

II. Background

The Act broadly encourages, and

under certain circumstances Title I of

the Act mandates, States to develop and

facilitate market-based approaches for

achieving the environmental goals of the

Act for attainment and maintenance of

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS), and to meet

associated emission reduction

milestones. EPA has developed

comprehensive guidance and rules (as

required by the Act) for States and

individual sources to follow in

designing and adopting such programs

for inclusion in SIPs. The Economic

Incentive Program (EIP) Rules (40 CFR

part 51, subpart U) provide a broad

framework for the development and use

of a wide variety of incentive strategies

for stationary, area, and/or mobile

sources. One such approach is the

generation and trading of emission

reduction credits (ERCs), which

historically have been allowed under

guidance provided in the 1986 Emission

Trading Policy Statement (see 51 FR

43631, December 4, 1986). In certain

areas where emission control costs for

stationary sources may be high relative

to mobile source control costs, creating

EIPs which allow for the trading of

emission reduction credits from mobile

sources to stationary sources can be

beneficial.

This document addresses EPA’s

proposed action for SCAQMD Rule

1623—Credits for Clean Lawn and

Garden Equipment. SCAQMD adopted

Rule 1623 on May 10, 1996.

Rule 1623 provides a mechanism by

which stationary source emission and

ridesharing requirements (Rule 2202

companies) can be met through the use

of volatile organic compound (VOC),

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon

monoxide (CO), and particulate matter

(PM) emission reductions generated

from mobile sources. Any entity

interested in participating in Rule 1623

could implement one of three strategies

to generate credits: (1) Before January 1,

1999, permanently scrap and replace

existing lawn and garden equipment

with equipment which meets the 1995

California Emission Standards for

Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines;

(2) permanently scrap and replace

existing gasoline-powered lawn and

garden equipment with new low- or

zero-emission equipment; or (3) after

May 10, 1996 and prior to January 1,

1999, direct sale to an end user of new

low-emission lawn and garden

equipment, or on or after January 1,

1991, direct sale to an end user of new

zero-emission equipment.

Rule 1623 is a voluntary program, and

the exact emission reductions are

unknown. EPA can only approve Rule

1623 in the SIP, if the reductions are

surplus and are quantifiable. Rule 1623

lacks documentation supporting that the

implementation of Rule 1623 will result

in an accelerated rate of equipment

retirement beyond that which would

occur from normal retirement and

turnover. This is necessary to show that

the claimed reductions are in fact

surplus.

EPA sent a letter (dated November 5,

1999) to the SCAQMD Executive Officer

relaying some of the significant

deficiencies in their submitted Rule.

Our letter to SCAQMD also restated that

SCAQMD may wish to withdraw Rule

1623 from EPA’s consideration for

inclusion in the SIP under section 110

of the Act while we jointly develop

solutions to the issues EPA had

identified. The following is EPA’s

evaluation and proposed action for this

rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In determining the approvability of a

rule, EPA must evaluate the rule for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR

part 51 (Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements

have formed the basis for today’s action.

For the purpose of assisting State and

local agencies in developing economic

incentive programs, EPA prepared

guidance applicable to these programs

in Subpart U—Economic Incentive

Programs, found at 40 CFR 51.490 to

51.494 (EIP). In general, these guidance

documents have been set forth to ensure

that rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP. The EIP

is based on the underlying requirements

of the Act and specifies requirements for

these types of programs. EPA released a

Draft EIP Guidance document in

September 1999 for public comment.

The 1994 EIP rule still remains in effect

for mandatory 1 EIPs. When the Draft

EIP Guidance is final, it will update the

guidance the 1994 EIP rule provides for

developing discretionary EIPs.

There is currently no version of

SCAQMD Rule 1623—Credits for Clean

Lawn and Garden Equipment in the SIP.

The submitted Rule includes the

following provisions:

• Purpose.

• Applicability.

• Definitions.

• Requirements.

• Issuance of MSERCs.

• Rendering Engines Inoperable.

• MSERC Calculation.

• Use of MSERCs.

• Recordkeeping Requirements.

• Compliance Auditing and

Enforcement.

• Requirements for Public Notice.

• Appeal of Disapproval of MSERC

Issuance.

• Relationship to Intercredit Trading.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is not

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. EPA

believes Rule 1623 allows much

Executive Officer discretion (e.g.,

Executive Officer may revise the credit

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules 2559

life, approves conversion of MSERCs to

RTCs, audits files, etc.). Additionally,

Rule 1623 did not demonstrate that the

implementation of Rule 1623 will result

in an accelerated rate of equipment

retirement beyond that which would

occur from normal retirement and

turnover. This is necessary to show that

the claimed reductions are in fact

surplus. Therefore, SCAQMD Rule

1623—Credits for Clean Lawn and

Garden Equipment is being proposed for

disapproval under section 110(k)(3) of

the CAA as not meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and part

D.

EPA’s concerns with Rule 1623 which

lead to our proposed disapproval are:

• The lack of real, quantifiable,

enforceable, and surplus emission

reductions generated under the program

(see 40 CFR 51.493 and section I.C. of

the preamble to the EIP—59 FR 16690–

16717, April 7, 1994) being used as

substitutes for more credible means of

control at stationary sources,

• The lack of a mechanism to review

Rule 1623’s program effectiveness (see

40 CFR 51.493(f)),

EPA believes that some of these

concerns individually are adequate to

propose disapproval of Rule 1623; taken

together, they compel EPA’s action. For

a detailed discussion of our concerns,

please see the TSD, October, 1999.

This revision is not required by the

Act. Therefore, this proposed

disapproval action does not impose

sanctions for failure to meet Act

requirements.

The EPA is soliciting public comment

on the proposed action discussed in this

document or on other relevant matters.

These comments will be considered

before taking final action. Interested

parties may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting

written comments to the EPA Regional

Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

As Rule 1623 is a substitute for

existing requirements, EPA does not

believe that our disapproval of the

program will have any effect on air

quality in the South Coast Air Basin.

Regulated entities which may have been

using Rule 1623 to comply with control

technology requirements have the

opportunity to apply control or

otherwise comply directly (in the case

of ridesharing requirements) in lieu of

purchasing credits generated under Rule

1623.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments to provide meaningful and

timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

2560 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Proposed Rules

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: January 7, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–1090 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–100–7390; FRL–6524–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Texas;

Permitting of New and Modified

Sources in Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

revisions to the Texas State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The

revisions concern the permitting of new

major sources and major modifications

in areas which do not meet the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

promulgated by EPA (nonattainment

areas). The EPA proposes to approve

these revisions to satisfy the provisions

of the Clean Air Act (Act) which relate

to the permitting of new and modified

sources which are located in

nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Ms. Jole C. Luehrs,

Chief, Air Permits Section, at the EPA

Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations. Anyone wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, Office of Air Quality,

12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas

78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stanley M. Spruiell of EPA Region 6 Air

Permits Section at (214) 665–7212 at the

address above, or at

spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever

we, us, or our are used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Overview of Texas Nonattainment

Permitting Regulations

A. What are we proposing to approve in

this action?

B. Who is affected by this action?

C. What are the major source thresholds for

nonattainment pollutants?

D. What is a major modification?

E. What are the requirements for permitting

new and modified sources in

nonattainment areas?

II. Review of Texas’ Regulations for

Permitting Major Sources and Major

Modifications in Ozone Nonattainment

Areas

A. What does the current Texas SIP

require?

B. What SIP revisions did Texas submit?

C. Summary of Texas 182(f) NOX Waivers

1. What does section 182(f) of the Act

require?

2. Did we approve NOX waivers in Texas?

3. What is the current status of Texas NOX

waivers?

4. Texas Rule Changes to Accommodate

Section 182(f) NOX Waivers

D. Texas’ NSR Provisions for Implementing

Special Provisions for Ozone

Nonattainment Area Permitting under

Sections 182(c)(6), (7), and (8)

1. The De Minimis Rule in Section

182(c)(6) of the Act

2. Texas Five TPY Netting Trigger

3. Texas Definition of ‘‘Contemporaneous

Period’’ under Section 182(f) of the Act

4. Special Modification Rules in Sections

182(c)(7) and (8) of the Act

E. Other Revisions Affecting NSR

Permitting in Nonattainment Areas

1. Definition of ‘‘De Minimis threshold

test’’

2. Definition of ‘‘major modification’’

3. Definition of ‘‘net emission increase’’

4. Definition of ‘‘offset ratio’’

5. Definition of ‘‘potential to emit’’

6. Definition of ‘‘stationary source’’

III. Individual SIP Submittals Acted Upon in

This Document

IV. Request for Public Comments

V. Administrative Requirements

I. General Overview of The Texas

Nonattainment Permitting Regulations

We propose to approve the

recodification of and revisions to the

Texas SIP relating to revisions to Title

30, Texas Administrative Code (TAC)

Chapter 116, ‘‘Control of Air Pollution

by Permits for New Construction or

Modification,’’ as indicated in Table 1

below:

TABLE 1.—SIP REGULATIONS SUBMITTED BY TEXAS TO EPA

Section in 30 TAC chapter 116 Title/(Subject)

116.12 ................................................................. Nonattainment Review Definitions.

116.150 ............................................................... New Major Source or Major Modification in Ozone Nonattainment Area.

116.151 ............................................................... New Major Source or Major Modification in Nonattainment Area Other than Ozone.

116.170 ............................................................... Applicability for Reduction Credits.

116.170(1) ........................................................... (Emission reductions not required by State Implementation Plan or other Federal requirements).