7160 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–178–1–9707a; FRL–5682–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Hamilton

County, TN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to

the Chattanooga-Hamilton County

portion of the Tennessee State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to allow the

Chattanooga Hamilton County Air

Pollution Control Bureau (CHCAPCB) to

issue Federally enforceable state

operating permits (FESOP). EPA is also

approving the CHCAPCB’s FESOP

program pursuant to section 112 of the

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA

or ‘‘the Act’’) so that the CHCAPCB may

issue Federally enforceable state

operating permits containing limits for

hazardous air pollutants (HAP).

DATES: This final rule will be effective

April 21, 1997 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by March 20,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Kelly Fortin at the EPA

regional office listed below. Copies of

the documents used in developing this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the locations listed below.

Interested persons wanting to examine

these documents, contained in docket

number TN178–1, should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air & Radiation Technology

Branch, Atlanta Federal Center, 100

Alabama Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Tennessee Department of the

Environment and Conservation, L&C

Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville,

Tennessee, 37243–1531.

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air

Pollution Control Bureau, 3511

Rossville Boulevard, Chattanooga,

Tennessee 37407–2495.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Fortin, Air & Radiation

Technology Branch, Air, Pesticides &

Toxics Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 100

Alabama Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303, 404–562–9117. Reference file

TN178–1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

On December 15, 1995, the

CHCAPCB, through the Tennessee

Department of Environment and

Conservation, submitted a SIP revision

to make certain permits issued under

the CHCAPCB’s existing minor source

operating permit program Federally

enforceable pursuant to the EPA

requirements specified in the Federal

Register notice entitled ‘‘Requirements

for the Preparation, Adoption, and

Submittal of Implementation Plans;

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans’’ (see 54 FR

27274, June 28, 1989). Additional

materials were provided by the

CHCAPCB to EPA on August 12, 1996.

The CHCAPCB requested approval of

their synthetic minor source SIP

provisions for the purpose of limiting

emission of HAPs on December 12,

1994.

EPA has always had and continues to

have the authority to enforce state and

local permits which are issued under

permit programs approved into the SIP.

However, EPA has not always

recognized as valid certain state and

local permits which purport to limit a

source’s potential to emit. The principle

purpose for adopting the regulations

that are the subject of this notice is to

give the CHCAPCB a Federally

recognized means of expeditiously

restricting potential emissions such that

sources can avoid major source

permitting requirements. A key

mechanism for such limitations is the

use of Federally enforceable state or

local operating permits. The term

‘‘Federally enforceable,’’ when used in

the context of permits which limit

potential to emit, means ‘‘Federally

recognized.’’

The SIP revision that is the subject of

this action approves Sections 4–2, 4–3,

4–4, 4–8, 4–12, 4–16, 4–17, 4–18, and 4–

19 of the Chattanooga Air Pollution

Control Ordinance (and identical

language in corresponding sections of

the Hamilton County Air Pollution

Control Regulation and ordinances of

the nine incorporated municipalities)

into the Hamilton County portion of the

Tennessee SIP. In this action, EPA is

only approving that portion of the

State’s December 15, 1995 SIP submittal

for Chattanooga-Hamilton County that

includes or is necessary for the

implementation of the CHCAPCB’s

FESOP program. The remaining portion

of the SIP submittal will be addressed

in a separate action.

EPA has determined that the above

referenced portion of the submittal and

the additional materials provided by the

CHCAPCB satisfy the five criteria

outlined in the June 28, 1989, Federal

Register notice. Please refer to section II

of this notice for the criteria upon which

this decision was based.

II. Analysis of the CHCAPCB Submittal

Criterion 1. The county’s operating

permit program (i.e. the regulations or

other administrative framework

describing how such permits are issued)

must be submitted to and approved by

EPA as a SIP revision.

The Chattanooga-Hamilton County

Air Pollution Control Board, operating

under a certificate of exemption

pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated,

Section 68–201–115, has authority to

administer a state operating permits

program in all areas of Hamilton County

Tennessee, with the exception of Indian

reservations and tribal lands. The

CHCAPCB operating permits program is

implemented and enforced through: (1)

the Chattanooga Air Pollution Control

Ordinance (within the incorporated

municipality of the City of Chattanooga,

Tennessee); (2) the Hamilton County Air

Pollution Control regulation (in the

unincorporated areas of Hamilton

County, Tennessee); and (3) air

pollution control ordinances prepared

for and enacted in the incorporated

municipalities of East Ridge, Red Bank,

Soddy-Daisy, Signal Mountain, Lakesite,

Walden, Collegedale, Lookout

Mountain, and Ridgeside. Chattanooga,

Hamilton County, and the nine

municipalities have identical

regulations for air pollution control,

except for codification, which are

implemented by the CHCAPCB. For

convenience, in this document the

Chattanooga codification will be used.

On December 15, 1995 the CHCAPCB,

through the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation,

submitted a SIP revision request to EPA

consisting of revisions to Section 4 of

the Chattanooga Air Pollution Control

Ordinance (and corresponding sections

of the Hamilton County Air Pollution

Control Regulation and ordinances of

the nine incorporated municipalities),

amending the CHCAPCB’s existing

stationary source requirements to

include provisions to issue FESOPs.

This submittal is the subject of this

rulemaking action.

Criterion 2. The SIP revision must

impose a legal obligation that operating

permit holders adhere to the terms and

limitations of such permits (or

subsequent revisions of the permit made
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 7161

1EPA issued guidance on January 25, 1995,

addressing the technical aspects of how these

criteria pollutant limits may be recognized for

purposes of limiting a source’s potential to emit of

HAPs to below section 112 major source thresholds.

in accordance with the approved

operating permit program) and provide

that permits which do not conform to

the operating permit program

requirements and the requirements of

EPA’s underlying regulations may be

deemed not ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ by

EPA. Sections 4–3, 4–4 and 4–8 of the

Chattanooga regulations meet this

criterion.

Criterion 3. The state operating permit

program must require that all emission

limitations, controls, and other

requirements imposed by such permits

will be at least as stringent as any

applicable limitations and requirements

contained in the SIP, or enforceable

under the SIP, and that the program may

not issue permits that waive, or make

less stringent, any limitations or

requirements contained in or issued

pursuant to the SIP, or that are

otherwise ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ (e.g.

standards established under sections

111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act).

Sections 4–2 and 4–8(c)(11)(c) of the

Chattanooga regulations meet this

criterion.

Criterion 4. The limitations, controls,

and requirements of the state’s operating

permits must be permanent,

quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable

as a practical matter. Section 4–

8(c)(11)(d) of the Chattanooga

regulations meets this criterion.

Criterion 5. The state operating

permits must be issued subject to public

participation. This means that the

CHCAPCB agrees, as part of their

program, to provide EPA and the public

with timely notice of the proposal and

issuance of such permits, and to provide

EPA, on a timely basis, with a copy of

each proposed (or draft) and final

permit intended to be ‘‘Federally

enforceable.’’ This process must also

provide for an opportunity for public

comment on the permit applications

prior to issuance of the final permits.

Section 4–8(c)(11)(g) of Chattanooga

regulations meets this criterion.

A. Applicability to Hazardous Air

Pollutants

CHCAPCB has also requested

approval of their FESOP program under

section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act for

the purpose of creating Federally

recognized limitations on the potential

to emit for HAPs. Approval under

section 112(l) is necessary because the

SIP revision discussed above only

extends to criteria pollutants for which

EPA has established national ambient

air quality standards under section 109

of the Act. Federally enforceable limits

on criteria pollutants or their precursors

(i.e. VOCs or PM–10) may have the

incidental effect of limiting certain

HAPs listed pursuant to section 112(b).1

As a legal matter, no additional program

approval by the EPA is required beyond

SIP approval under section 110 in order

for these criteria pollutant limits to be

recognized as Federally enforceable.

However, section 112 of the Act

provides the underlying authority for

controlling all HAP emissions,

regardless of their relationship to

criteria pollutant controls.

EPA has determined that the five

criteria, published in the June 28, 1989,

Federal Register notice, used to

determine the validity of a permit that

limits potential to emit for criteria

pollutants pursuant to section 110 are

also appropriate for evaluating the

validity of permits that limit the

potential to emit for HAPs pursuant to

section 112(l). The June 28, 1989,

Federal Register notice does not address

HAPs because it was written prior to the

1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act;

however, the basic principles

established in the June 28, 1989,

Federal Register notice are not unique

to criteria pollutants. Therefore, these

criteria have been extended to

evaluations of permits limiting the

potential to emit of HAPs.

To be recognized by EPA as a valid

permit which limits potential to emit,

the permit must not only meet the

criteria in the June 28, 1989, Federal

Register notice, but it must meet the

statutory criteria for approval under

section 112(l)(5). Section 112(l) provides

that EPA will recognize a permit

limiting the potential to emit for HAPs

only if the state program: (1) contains

adequate authority to assure compliance

with any section 112 standard or

requirement; (2) provides for adequate

resources; (3) provides for an

expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance with section 112

requirements; and (4) is otherwise likely

to satisfy the objectives of the Act.

EPA plans to codify in Subpart E of

Part 63 the approval criteria for

programs limiting potential to emit

HAPs. EPA anticipates that these

criteria will mirror those set forth in the

June 28, 1989, Federal Register notice.

Permit programs which limit potential

to emit for HAPs and are approved

pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act

prior to the planned regulatory revisions

under 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart E, will

be recognized by EPA as meeting the

criteria in the June 28, 1989, Federal

Register notice. Therefore, further

approval actions for those programs will

not be necessary.

EPA believes it has authority under

section 112(l) to recognize FESOP

programs that limit a source’s potential

to emit HAPs directly under section

112(l) prior to this revision to Subpart

E. EPA is therefore approving the

CHCAPCB FESOP program so that the

CHCAPCB may issue permits that EPA

will recognize as validly limiting

potential to emit for HAPs.

Regarding the statutory criteria of

section 112(l)(5) referred to above, EPA

believes the FESOP program submitted

by the CHCAPCB contains adequate

authority to assure compliance with

section 112 requirements since the third

criterion of the June 28, 1989, notice is

met; that is the CHCAPCB rules require

that all requirements in the permits

issued under the authority of the

operating permit program must be at

least as stringent as all other applicable

Federally enforceable requirements.

Regarding the requirement for

adequate resources, the CHCAPCB has

committed to provide for adequate

resources to support their FESOP

program. EPA expects that resources

will continue to be sufficient to

administer those portions of the minor

source operating permit program under

which the subject permits will be

issued, because the CHCAPCB has

administered a minor source operating

permit program for a number of years.

However, EPA will monitor the

implementation of the FESOP program

to ensure that adequate resources are in

fact available.

EPA also believes that the CHCAPCB

program provides for an expeditious

schedule which assures compliance

with section 112 requirements. The

program will be used to allow a source

to establish a voluntary limit on

potential to emit to avoid being subject

to a CAA requirement applicable on a

particular date. Nothing in the

CHCAPCB program would allow a

source to avoid or delay compliance

with a CAA requirement applicable on

a particular date. In addition, the

CHCAPCB’s program would not allow a

source to avoid or delay compliance

with a CAA requirement if it fails to

obtain an appropriate Federally

recognized limit by the relevant

deadline.

Finally, EPA believes it is consistent

with the intent of section 112 of the Act

for States to provide a mechanism

through which a source may avoid

classification as a major source by

obtaining a Federally recognized limit

on its potential to emit HAPs. EPA has

long recognized as valid, permit

programs which limit potential to emit
7162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

for criteria pollutants as a means for

avoiding major source requirements

under the Act. The portion of this

approval which extends Federal

recognition to permits containing limits

on potential to emit for HAPs merely

applies the same principles to another

set of pollutants and regulatory

requirements under the Act. It should be

noted that a source that receives a

Federally recognized operating permit

may still need a Title V operating permit

if EPA promulgates a MACT standard

which requires non-major sources to

obtain Title V permits.

EPA has reviewed this SIP revision

and determined that the criteria for

approval as provided in the June 28,

1989, Federal Register notice (54 FR

27282) and in section 112(l)(5) of the

Act have been satisfied.

B. Eligibility for Previously Issued

Permits

Eligibility for Federally enforceable

permits extends not only to permits

issued after the effective date of this

rule, but also to permits issued under

the CHCAPCB’s existing rules prior to

the effective date of today’s rulemaking.

If the CHCAPCB followed their own

regulations, then the agency issued a

permit that established a Federally

recognized permit condition that was

subject to public and EPA review.

Therefore, EPA will consider all such

operating permits Federally enforceable

upon the effective date of this action

provided that any permits that the

CHCAPCB wishes to make Federally

enforceable are made available to EPA

and are supported by documentation

that the procedures approved today

have been followed. EPA may review

any such permits to ensure their

conformity with the program

requirements.

III. Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving the

CHCAPCB FESOP program. EPA is

publishing this action without prior

proposal because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. This action will be effective April

21, 1997 unless, by March 20, 1997,

adverse or critical comments are

received. If EPA receives such

comments, this action will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document that

will withdraw the final action. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule.

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective April 21, 1997.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989, (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by the July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. Nothing in this action shall

be construed as permitting or allowing

or establishing a precedent for any

future request for a revision of any SIP.

Each request for revision of the SIP shall

be considered separately in light of

specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors, and in relation to

relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990

EPA has reviewed the requests for

revision of the Federally-approved

Tennessee SIP described in this notice

to ensure conformance with the

provisions of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990. EPA has determined

that this action conforms with those

requirements.

B. Petition for Review

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

42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions for

judicial review of this action must be

filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

April 21, 1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for 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) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607

(b)(2).)

C. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10 1995

memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because approval of Federal SIP does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

section 7410(a)(2) and 7410(R)(3).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 costs of $100 million or more

to either state, local or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 7163

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.

F. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate

matter, Ozone Sulfur oxides.

Dated: January 23, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(148) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(148) Revisions to the Hamilton

County portion of the Tennessee SIP

that approve the regulations for

Hamilton County, the City of

Chattanooga, and the municipalities of

East Ridge, Red Bank, Soddy-Daisy,

Signal Mountain, Lakesite, Walden,

Collegedale, Lookout Mountain, and

Ridgeside—submitted by the Tennessee

Department of Environmental Protection

on December 15, 1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Amendments to Sections 2, 3, 4,

6, 8, 12, and 16–19 of the regulation

known as the ‘‘Hamilton County Air

Pollution Control Regulation,’’ the

‘‘Signal Mountain Air Pollution Control

Ordinance,’’ the ‘‘Lakesite Municipal

Code,’’ the ‘‘Walden Air Pollution

Control Ordinance,’’ the ‘‘Lookout

Mountain Air Pollution Control

Ordinance,’’ and the ‘‘Ridgeside Air

Pollution Control Ordinance,’’

submitted on December 15, 1995 and

adopted by Hamilton County on

September 6, 1995 and by the following

municipalities: Signal Mountain,

adopted on December 11, 1995;

Lakesite, adopted on November 16,

1995; Walden, adopted on December 12,

1995; Lookout Mountain, adopted on

November 14, 1995; and Ridgeside,

adopted on April 16, 1996.

(B) Amendments to Sections 4–2, 4–

3, 4–4, 4–6, 4–8, 4–12, 4–16, 4–17, 4–

18, and 4–19 of the ‘‘Chattanooga Air

Pollution Control Ordinance,’’ as

submitted on December 15, 1995 and

adopted on August 16, 1995.

(C) Amendments to Sections 8–702,

8–703, 8–704, 8–706, 8–708, 8–712, 8–

716, 8–717, 8–718, and 8–719 of the

‘‘East Ridge City Code,’’ as submitted on

December 15, 1995 and adopted on

September 28, 1995.

(D) Amendments to Sections 8–302,

8–303, 8–304, 8–306, 8–308, 8–312, 8–

316, 8–317, 8–318, and 8–319 of the

‘‘Red Bank Municipal Code,’’ as

submitted on December 15, 1995 and

adopted on November 7, 1995.

(E) Amendments to Sections 8–102,

8–103, 8–104, 8–106, 8–108, 8–112, 8–

116, 8–117, 8–818, and 8–119 of the

‘‘Soddy-Daisy Municipal Code,’’ as

submitted on December 15, 1995 and

adopted on October 5, 1995.

(F) Amendments to Sections 8–502,

8–503, 8–504, 8–506, 8–508, 5–512, 8–

516, 8–517, 8–518, and 8–519 of the

‘‘Collegedale Municipal Code,’’ as

submitted on December 15, 1995 and

adopted on October 2, 1995.

(ii) Other materials. None.

[FR Doc. 97–3867 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–58–1–7256, FRL–5687–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; SiteSpecific State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for the Aluminum Company of

America (ALCOA) Rockdale, Texas

Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting

amendment.

SUMMARY: This action corrects three

citations made in a direct final rule

published on Monday, September 23,

1996 at (61 FR 49685). The direct final

rule approved the State of Texas’

revision to the sulfur dioxide (SO2) SIP

revision which became effective on

November 22, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Petra Sanchez, (214) 553–5713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On Monday, September 23, 1996, EPA

published a direct final rule (61 FR

49685) approving a revision submitted

by Texas pertaining to the ALCOA SIP

for sulfur dioxide SO2 emissions in

Rockdale, Texas.

This correction makes a minor

clarification to a citation made on page

49685. In the section entitled, ‘‘Good

Engineering Practice and Stack Height

Increase at Sandow Three,’’ a

completion date for the stack height

increase cited June of 1995. June of 1995

was the date Texas required the

construction of the new stack height

increase to be completed. The new stack

was put into service on April 23, 1995.

The second correction to the

document pertains to the incorporation

by reference to the State’s adoption of

rule revisions. On page 49688 of the

approval notice under Subchapter

52.2270(c)(101)(i)(B), this section

should read, ‘‘Revisions to 30 TAC

Chapter 112, Section 112.8 ‘Allowable

Emission Rates From Solid Fossil FuelFired Steam Generators,’ Subsections

112.8(a) and 112.8(b) as adopted by the

Texas Air Control Board on September

18, 1992, and effective on October 23,

1992.’’

Last, the SIP submittal by the State

cited on page 49688 under Subchapter

52.2270(c)(101)(ii)(A) stands corrected

to read, ‘‘ ‘Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) Concerning

Sulfur Dioxide Milam County,’ dated

July 26, 1995, including Appendices G–

2–1 through G–2–6.’’

Need for Correction

As published, the direct final rule

contains errors which may prove to be

misleading and are in need of

clarification.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. In

addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior