Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; NOX, 39572-39574 [06-6189]
Download as PDF
39572
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 to approve NSR in
the Virginia portion of the Ozone
Transport Region may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: July 6, 2006.
William T. Wisniewski,
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 VV—Virginia
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entries
for Chapter 80, Article 9, Sections 5–80–
2000 and 5–80–2010 to read as follows:
§ 52.2420
I
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES
State citation
(9 VAC 5)
Title/subject
*
*
*
State effective date
*
Chapter 80
*
Article 9
*
*
Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII]
Applicability .......................................................................
9/29/04
5–80–2010 ...........................
Definitions .........................................................................
9/29/04
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–6188 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
[R03–OAR–2005–PA–0007; FRL–8192–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; NOX RACT
Determination for Koppers Industry,
Inc.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
*
*
*
*
*
Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Modifications—Nonattainment Areas
5–80–2000 ...........................
*
EPA approval date
Jkt 208001
*
This rule is effective on August
14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number
R03–OAR–2005–PA–0007. All
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
7/13/06 [Insert page number where the document
begins]
7/13/06 [Insert page number where the document
begins]
*
SUMMARY: 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).
Explanation
[former
SIP citation]
*
*
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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:
LaKeshia N. Robertson, (215) 814–2113,
or by e-mail at
robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39573
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 sourcespecific 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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 26, 2006.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
39574
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
PART 52—[AMENDED]
§ 52.2020
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
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:
I
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
State effective
date
Name of source
Permit No.
*
Koppers Industry, Inc.
*
OP–41–0008 ............
*
*
Lycoming ..................
*
*
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA. EPA
requests that if possible you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, to
schedule an appointment. Region 10
official business hours are 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT–107), EPA Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA, 98101;
telephone number: (206) 553–0782; fax
number: (206) 553–0110; e-mail address:
body.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
*
*
*
County
[FR Doc. 06–6189 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket # R10–OAR–2005–ID–0001; FRL–
8191–6 ]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plan; Idaho
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final
action to approve the nonattainment
and maintenance plan for particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to ten micrometers
(PM–10) for the Portneuf Valley, PM–10
nonattainment area in Idaho. EPA is
also granting Idaho’s request to
redesignate the Portneuf Valley PM–10
nonattainment area to attainment for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for PM–10.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
August 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket #,
R10–OAR–2005–ID–0001. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly
available, e.g. confidential business
information 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 at EPA Region 10, Office of Air
Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
3/30/99
A. What are we approving in this
action?
Under the authority of the Federal
Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act or Act),
EPA is taking final action to approve the
State’s moderate area nonattainment
plan and the maintenance plan for the
Portneuf Valley PM–10 nonattainment
area for the 24 hour and annual PM–10
NAAQS. We are also granting the State’s
request to redesignate the area from
nonattainment to attainment for PM–10.
On June 30, 2004, the Director of the
Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ) submitted plans to bring
the Portneuf Valley PM–10
nonattainment area into attainment, and
maintain attainment with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for PM–10 for an additional 10 years.
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
7/13/06 ..........................................
I. Background Information
Frm 00062
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
EPA approval date
I. Background Information
A. What are we approving in this action?
B. What comments did we receive on the
proposal to approve the Plan and what
are our responses?
C. What action are we taking on
redesignation?
II. Summary of Final Action To Approve the
State Submittal and Grant the State’s
Redesignation Request
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
PO 00000
*
Additional explanation/§ 52.2063
citation
*
52.2020(d)(1)(s).
The State also requested redesignation
of the area to attainment for PM–10. The
attainment plan, the maintenance plan,
and the redesignation request are
collectively referred to as the ‘‘State
Submittal.’’
On May 20, 2005, EPA proposed to
approve the nonattainment area plan
and the maintenance plan and to grant
the redesignation request. See Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking 70 FR 29243. As
explained in the proposal, the State
Submittal satisfies the Clean Air Act
nonattainment and maintenance
planning requirements, as well as the
redesignation requirements. See the
proposed action for a full description of
the State submission and our evaluation
of the Clean Air Act requirements.
B. What comments did we receive on
our proposal to approve the ‘‘State
Submittal’’?
We received one comment letter on
our proposed action to approve the State
Submittal. The commenter, J.R. Simplot
Company, requested that the State
Submittal be revised to correct and
clarify technical data and information
related to the J.R. Simplot fertilizer
facility (the Don Plant) located near
Pocatello, Idaho and the shutdown of
the Astaris (FMC) facility, located
immediately adjacent to the J.R.
Simplot, Don plant. In general the
commenter requests that EPA revise the
State Submittal before approving it. As
explained below, EPA has the authority
to review and take appropriate action on
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted to it. Revisions, if any, to a
SIP submitted to EPA are made by the
State, rather than EPA. After revision
the State may resubmit the SIP to EPA
for approval. Each specific comment
and our response is summarized below:
Comment: The commenter requests
that the emission inventory in the State
Submittal be revised prior to EPA
approval so that the plan accurately
reflects the emission reductions that
have occurred at the Don Plant and at
the Astaris (formerly FMC) facility. J.R.
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39572-39574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6189]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R03-OAR-2005-PA-0007; FRL-8192-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; NOX RACT Determination for Koppers Industry,
Inc.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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).
DATES: This rule is effective on August 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: 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 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
[[Page 39573]]
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: LaKeshia N. Robertson, (215) 814-2113,
or by e-mail at robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 26, 2006.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
[[Page 39574]]
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 entry for Koppers Industries, Inc. at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional explanation/Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County effective date EPA approval date 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