Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for Koppers Industry, Inc. located in Lycoming County. EPA is approving this revision to establish RACT requirements in the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on August 14, 2006.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-PA-0007. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are Start Printed Page 39573available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LaKeshia N. Robertson, (215) 814-2113, or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On August 30, 2004, the PADEP submitted formal SIP revisions to establish RACT for 15 sources located in Pennsylvania. On March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16423), EPA published a direct final rule (DFR) approving revisions to PADEP issued operating permits (OP) and plan approvals (PA) for these 15 sources. A description of these revisions and EPA's rationale for approving them were provided in the March 31, 2005 rulemaking and will not be restated herein. In accordance with direct final rulemaking procedures, on March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16471), EPA also published a companion notice of proposed rulemaking for these SIP revisions, inviting interested parties to comment on the DFR. On April 29, 2005, EPA received an adverse comment on its approval of the nitrogen oxides (NOX) RACT determination for Koppers Industry, Inc (OP-41-0008). Due to the receipt of the adverse comment on the Koppers Industry, Inc. RACT determination, EPA published a partial withdrawal of the direct final rule on May 26, 2005 (70 FR 30377). This withdrawal applied to the Koppers facility only.
EPA received no adverse comments on its approval of RACT determination for the remaining 14 sources, and, therefore, EPA's March 31, 2005 DFR approving PADEP's RACT determination for the other 14 sources became effective on May 31, 2005.
II. Final Action
On May 18, 2006, Koppers, Inc. sent an e-mail requesting the withdrawal of the adverse comment submitted on April 29, 2005. EPA is now approving PADEP's RACT determination for Koppers Inc., located in Lycoming County.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely 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 Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for one named source.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 11, 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, pertaining to RACT for Koppers Industry, Lycoming County may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirement. (See section 307 (b)(2).)Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: June 26, 2006.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part Start Printed Page 39574
PART 52—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart NN—PennsylvaniaStart Amendment Part
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding the entry for Koppers Industries, Inc. at the end of the table to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
|Name of source||Permit No.||County||State effective date||EPA approval date||Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 citation|
|* * * * * * *|
|Koppers Industry, Inc.||OP-41-0008||Lycoming||3/30/99||7/13/06||52.2020(d)(1)(s).|
[FR Doc. 06-6189 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P