Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX, 27394-27396 [06-4395]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
27394
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Signed in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of
May, 2006.
Philip N. Hogen,
Chairman.
Cloyce Choney,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 06–4276 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565–01–M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R03–OAR–2005–0502; FRL–8168–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT
Determinations for Six Individual
Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to
approve revisions to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The revisions were
submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) to establish and require
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for six major sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) pursuant to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
(Pennsylvania’s or the
Commonwealth’s) SIP-approved generic
RACT regulations. EPA is approving
these revisions in accordance with the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on June 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2005–0502. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://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
https://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
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O.
Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose
Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 2, 2006 (71 FR 10626), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
NPR proposed approval of formal SIP
revisions submitted by Pennsylvania on
November 21, 2005. These SIP revisions
consist of source-specific operating
permits, consent orders and/or plan
approvals issued by PADEP to establish
and require RACT pursuant to the
Commonwealth’s SIP-approved generic
RACT regulations. The following table
identifies the sources and the individual
consent orders (COs) and operating
permits (OPs) which are the subject of
this rulemaking.
PENNSYLVANIA—VOC AND NOX RACT DETERMINATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL SOURCES
Source’s name
County
Operating permit
(OP No.)
Consent order
(CO No.)
Source type
DLM Foods (formerly Heinz USA) ............
NRG Energy Center (formerly Pittsburgh
Thermal Limited Partnership).
Tasty Baking Oxford, Inc. .........................
Silberline Manufacturing Company ...........
Adhesives Research, Inc. .........................
Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc. ........................
Allegheny ................
Allegheny ................
CO 211 ...................
CO 220 ...................
Food Processing ......................................
Steam Generation ....................................
NOX
NOX
Chester ...................
Carbon ....................
York ........................
Northumberland ......
OP–15–0104
OP–13–0014
OP–67–2007
OP–49–0001
Bakery Operations ...................................
Paint and Lacquers Production ...............
Surface Coating .......................................
Surface Coating .......................................
VOC
VOC
VOC
VOC
An explanation of the CAA’s RACT
requirements as they apply to the
Commonwealth and EPA’s rationale for
approving these SIP revisions were
provided in the NPR and will not be
restated here. No public comments were
received on the NPR.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP
on November 21, 2005 to establish and
require VOC and NOX RACT for six
sources pursuant to the
Commonwealth’s SIP-approved generic
RACT regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
...........
...........
...........
...........
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘Major
source’’
pollutant
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
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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
Name of source
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 sourcespecific requirements for six named
sources.
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 July 10, 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
Permit No.
CO 211
*
Allegheny ................
CO 220
Allegheny ................
6/9/05
OP–15–
0104
Chester ...................
5/12/04
Silberline Manufacturing Company.
OP–13–
0014
Carbon ....................
4/19/99
Adhesives Research, Inc. .......
OP–67–
2007
York ........................
7/1/95
Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc. ......
OP–49–
0001
Northumberland ......
1/20/99
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
State effective
date
County
NRG Energy Center (formerly
Pittsburgh Thermal Limited
Partnership).
Tasty Baking Oxford, Inc. .......
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
*
DLM Foods (formerly Heinz
USA).
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
16:19 May 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
*
Fmt 4700
6/9/05
Sfmt 4700
27395
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action.
This action approving source-specific
RACT requirements for six sources in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
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, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: April 26, 2006.
Judith Katz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph
(d)(1) is amended by adding the entries
for DLM Foods, NRG Energy Center,
Tasty Baking Oxford, Inc., Silberline
Manufacturing Company, Adhesives
Research, Inc., and Mohawk Flush
Doors, Inc., at the end of the table to
read as follows:
I
§ 52.2020
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
*
EPA approval
date
*
*
5/11/06 ....................................
[Insert page number where the
document begins].
5/11/06 ....................................
[Insert page number where the
document begins].
5/11/06 ....................................
[Insert page number where the
document begins].
5/11/06 ....................................
[Insert page number where the
document begins].
5/11/06 ....................................
[Insert page number where the
document begins].
5/11/06 ....................................
[Insert page number where the
document begins].
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
*
Additional
explanation/
§ 52.2063 citation
*
52.2020(d)(1)(o).
52.2020(d)(1)(o).
52.2020(d)(1)(o).
52.2020(d)(1)(o).
52.2020(d)(1)(o).
52.2020(d)(1)(o).
27396
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–4395 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[FRL–8167–7]
Ocean Dumping; De-Designation of
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
and Designation of New Site Near
Coos Bay, OR
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its proposal
to de-designate an existing ocean
dredged material disposal site and
designate a new ocean dredged material
disposal site located offshore of Coos
Bay, Oregon. EPA’s proposed rule was
published March 31, 2000. The new site
is needed for long-term use by
authorized Coos Bay navigation projects
and may be available for use by persons
meeting the criteria for ocean disposal
of dredged material. The de-designation
of the existing site allows for its
incorporation into the newly designated
site. This will allow EPA to manage the
entire new site to avoid adverse
mounding conditions and will ensure
site capacity is sufficient for total
volumes of dredged material. The newly
designated site is necessary for current
and future dredged material ocean
disposal needs and will be subject to
ongoing monitoring and management to
ensure continued protection of the
marine environment so as to mitigate
adverse impacts on the environment to
the greatest extent practicable.
DATES: This final rule will be effective
on June 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this final action under Docket
ID No. EPA–R10–OW–2006–0409. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. The
documents are also available for
inspection at the Region 10 Library,
10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101. For access to the
documents at the Region 10 Library,
contact the Region 10 Library Reference
Desk at (206) 553–1289, between 9 a.m.
to 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays, for an appointment or contact
John Malek, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop ETPA–083, email: malek.john@epa.gov, phone
number (206) 553–1286.
John
Malek, Ocean Dumping Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10 (ETPA–083), 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101–1128,
telephone (206) 553–1286, e-mail:
malek.john@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Potentially Affected Persons
Persons potentially affected by this
action include those who seek or might
seek permits or approval by EPA to
dispose of dredged material into ocean
waters pursuant to the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 to
1414, (‘‘MPRSA’’). EPA’s action would
be relevant to persons, including
organizations and government bodies
seeking to dispose of dredged material
in ocean waters offshore of Coos Bay,
Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) and other persons
with permits to use designated sites at
Coos Bay would be most impacted by
this final action. Potentially affected
categories and persons include:
Category
Examples of potentially regulated persons
Federal Government ...........................................
Industry and General Public ...............................
State, local and tribal governments ....................
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects, and other Federal Agencies.
Port Authorities, Marinas and Harbors, Shipyards and Marine Repair Facilities, Berth Owners.
Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding persons likely to
be affected by this action. For any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular person, please
refer to the section of this action titled
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
2. Background
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
a. History of Disposal Site Designations
Off of Coos Bay, OR
Pursuant to the MPRSA, the
Administrator of EPA, as delegated to
the Regional Administrator, designated
three disposal sites (Site E, original Site
F and Site H) off of Coos Bay, Oregon
in 1986. The original Site F began to
experience mounding that rendered it
unable to accept the total volume of
dredged material generated on an
annual basis. In 1989, with EPA
approval, the size of the original Site F
was roughly doubled by the Corps
exercising its Section 103 authority to
select disposal sites under the MPRSA.
In 1995, EPA approved a second Corps
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 May 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
expansion of the original Site F. On
March 31, 2000, EPA published in the
Federal Register its proposal to dedesignate the original Site F and
designate a new Site F that consisted of
the 103 configured Site F and the
original Site F (65 FR 17240). A fortyfive day public comment period, which
closed on May 14, 2000, was provided.
EPA did not receive comments from the
public on the proposed rule. The
coordinates of the proposed Site F
(North American Datum 1983; NAD 83)
were:
43°22′58″ N, 124°19′32″ W
43°21′50″ N, 124°20′29″ W
43°22′52″ N, 124°23′28″ W
43°23′59″ N, 124°22′31″ W
The proposed site was rectangular with
an east-west side length dimension of
14,500 feet and a north-south side
length dimension of 8,000 feet. Figure 1
is a diagram of the site EPA proposed
in 2000.
Subsequent to EPA’s proposed
designation, the North Jetty at Coos Bay
failed in December 2002, due in part to
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
undermining. The Corps then examined
the potential for augmenting transport of
disposed material into the eddy created
by the North Jetty itself. With EPA
concurrence, the Corps began making
selected disposals in the southeastern
corner of the 103 Site F nearest the jetty.
Monitoring indicated that some material
was captured by the eddy and
augmented the substrate that the jetty
rests upon. This experience and the
lessons learned during the designations
of ocean dredged material disposal sites
near the Mouth of the Columbia River
in 2005, as well as increased public
awareness of, and attention to, coastal
erosion processes and opportunities to
manage dredged material more
beneficially led EPA to review its
proposed site designation near Coos
Bay. The result of this review is a minor
change to the configuration of new Site
F toward the North Jetty at the north
side of the mouth of Coos Bay. This
reconfiguration could potentially benefit
the stabilization of the North Jetty and
keep material in the littoral zone. This
E:\FR\FM\11MYR1.SGM
11MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27394-27396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4395]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R03-OAR-2005-0502; FRL-8168-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Six Individual
Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for six major sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania's or the
Commonwealth's) SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is approving
these revisions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on June 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2005-0502. All documents in the docket are listed in
the https://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 https://
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 available at the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-
mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 2, 2006 (71 FR 10626), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of formal SIP revisions submitted by Pennsylvania on November
21, 2005. These SIP revisions consist of source-specific operating
permits, consent orders and/or plan approvals issued by PADEP to
establish and require RACT pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved
generic RACT regulations. The following table identifies the sources
and the individual consent orders (COs) and operating permits (OPs)
which are the subject of this rulemaking.
Pennsylvania--VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Individual Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating permit ``Major
Source's name County (OP No.) Consent Source type source''
order (CO No.) pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DLM Foods (formerly Heinz USA). Allegheny......... CO 211............ Food Processing....... NOX
NRG Energy Center (formerly Allegheny......... CO 220............ Steam Generation...... NOX
Pittsburgh Thermal Limited
Partnership).
Tasty Baking Oxford, Inc....... Chester........... OP-15-0104........ Bakery Operations..... VOC
Silberline Manufacturing Carbon............ OP-13-0014........ Paint and Lacquers VOC
Company. Production.
Adhesives Research, Inc........ York.............. OP-67-2007........ Surface Coating....... VOC
Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc........ Northumberland.... OP-49-0001........ Surface Coating....... VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An explanation of the CAA's RACT requirements as they apply to the
Commonwealth and EPA's rationale for approving these SIP revisions were
provided in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments
were received on the NPR.
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by
PADEP on November 21, 2005 to establish and require VOC and
NOX RACT for six sources pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-
approved generic RACT regulations.
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
[[Page 27395]]
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 six named sources.
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 July 10, 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 approving source-specific RACT requirements for six
sources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: April 26, 2006.
Judith Katz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
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 NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. In Sec. 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding
the entries for DLM Foods, NRG Energy Center, Tasty Baking Oxford,
Inc., Silberline Manufacturing Company, Adhesives Research, Inc., and
Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc., at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective Additional explanation/ Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County date EPA approval date 52.2063 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
DLM Foods (formerly Heinz USA).... CO 211 Allegheny............ 6/9/05 5/11/06............. 52.2020(d)(1)(o).
[Insert page number
where the document
begins].
NRG Energy Center (formerly CO 220 Allegheny............ 6/9/05 5/11/06............. 52.2020(d)(1)(o).
Pittsburgh Thermal Limited [Insert page number
Partnership). where the document
begins].
Tasty Baking Oxford, Inc.......... OP-15-0104 Chester.............. 5/12/04 5/11/06............. 52.2020(d)(1)(o).
[Insert page number
where the document
begins].
Silberline Manufacturing Company.. OP-13-0014 Carbon............... 4/19/99 5/11/06............. 52.2020(d)(1)(o).
[Insert page number
where the document
begins].
Adhesives Research, Inc........... OP-67-2007 York................. 7/1/95 5/11/06............. 52.2020(d)(1)(o).
[Insert page number
where the document
begins].
Mohawk Flush Doors, Inc........... OP-49-0001 Northumberland....... 1/20/99 5/11/06............. 52.2020(d)(1)(o).
[Insert page number
where the document
begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27396]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4395 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
