National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products, 61060-61063 [07-5295]

Download as PDF 61060 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. on November 5, 2007 through 6:30 p.m. on December 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223–8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (617) 223–8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Carlton Bridge, across the Kennebec River, mile 14.0, between Bath and Woolwich, Maine, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.525. The owner of the bridge, Maine Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate bridge painting operations at the Carlton Bridge. The bridge rarely opens for vessel traffic in November and December. Under this temporary deviation the Carlton Bridge need not open for the passage of vessel traffic between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on the days of November 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 27, and December 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, 2007. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operation schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the Federal Register, where practicable. SUMMARY: On June 19, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA’s provisions in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products that established an October 1, 2008, compliance deadline and that created and delisted a low risk subcategory of plywood and composite wood products facilities. This action announces the Court’s decision and promulgates ministerial amendments that will incorporate the Court’s decision into the Code of Federal Regulations. DATES: rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: October 15, 2007. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7–21244 Filed 10–26–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:52 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 214001 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0048; FRL–8482–2] RIN 2060–AO65 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This rule was effective on October 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: The EPA does not seek comment on this final rule. The opinion issued by the Court on June 19, 2007 and other information about the rule are contained in Docket ID No. OAR–2003– 0048 and Legacy Docket ID No. A–98– 44. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 0048, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. DATES: For information concerning applicability and compliance assistance, contact your State or local representative or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. For other information, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Program Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143– 01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 4516; fax number: (919) 541–0246; email address: kissell.mary@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without first providing notice and an opportunity for public comment on a proposed rule. There is good cause for making today’s rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the Court vacated EPA’s promulgation of the October 1, 2008, compliance date and of the lowrisk provisions. The Court ruled that EPA was without statutory authority in our 2006 amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to re-set the compliance date of October 1, 2007, first promulgated in the 2004 NESHAP. The Court also ruled that EPA had no statutory authority to create and then delist the low-risk Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) subcategory.1 Therefore, today’s action has no legal effect beyond ministerially fulfilling the Court’s order and is clerical in nature: we are merely revising the Code of Federal Regulations to conform our rules to the Court’s order and announcing the Court’s decision. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Providing an opportunity to comment on a proposed conforming amendment would be impracticable because it would unacceptably delay EPA’s action beyond the October 1, 2007, compliance deadline the Court ruled EPA must reimpose. It would also be unnecessary, since the Court’s direction was clear that EPA must remove the 2006 NESHAP’s amendment re-setting the deadline beyond October 1, 2007, and the 2004 and 2006 provisions creating and delisting the low-risk PCWP subcategory was beyond EPA’s statutory authority. Finally, it is not in the public 1 The Court also remanded and vacated EPA’s determinations that certain process units at PCWP facilities need not be subject to emissions controls. EPA will respond to that portion of the Court’s ruling in a separate notice and comment rulemaking, and is not addressing that issue in today’s final rule. E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM 29OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations interest to delay revising the rule to conform to the Court’s order on these issues, as continuing to leave the vacated provisions in place creates Category SIC code a Industry ..................... confusion among the regulated community, implementing States and local governments, and the general public. NAICS code b 2421 2435 2436 2493 321999 321211 321212 321219 2439 321213 61061 Regulated Entities Categories and entities potentially affected by today’s action include: Examples of regulated entities Sawmills with lumber kilns. Hardwood plywood and veneer plants. Softwood plywood and veneer plants. Reconstituted wood products plants (particleboard, medium density fiberboard, hardboard, fiberboard, and oriented strandboard plants). Structural wood members, not elsewhere classified (engineered wood products plants). a Standard b North Industrial Classification. American Industrial Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by today’s action. To determine whether your facility is affected by today’s action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.2231 of the final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of today’s action to a particular entity, consult your State or local representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Worldwide Web (WWW) In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today’s action also will be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator’s signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly promulgated rules at http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. I. Background We proposed NESHAP for the PCWP source category on January 9, 2003 (68 FR 1276). The final rule (subpart DDDD in 40 CFR part 63) was published on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45944). In addition to adopting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the PCWP category, we adopted a risk-based approach in the 2004 final rule by establishing and delisting a lowrisk subcategory of PCWP affected sources, which would have allowed low-risk sources to avoid complying with MACT. Except for eight sources that we determined were already eligible to join the low-risk subcategory and avoid MACT, all PCWP sources were initially included in the category subject to MACT, and any would-be low-risk sources could subsequently VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:52 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 214001 join the low-risk subcategory after EPA approved their submitted low-risk demonstrations. The methodology and criteria for PCWP affected sources to use in demonstrating that they are eligible to join the delisted low-risk subcategory were promulgated in the 2004 final rule in appendix B to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63. Any source who failed to obtain EPA approval of a low-risk demonstration would remain subject to MACT. Following promulgation of the 2004 final PCWP rule, the Administrator received a petition for reconsideration filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The petition requested reconsideration of nine aspects of the final rule including the legal basis for the risk-based provisions. The petition for reconsideration also requested a stay of the effectiveness of the risk-based provisions. In a letter dated December 6, 2004, EPA granted NRDC’s and EIP’s petition for reconsideration and declined the petitioners’ request that we take action to stay the effectiveness of the risk-based provisions. On July 29, 2005 (70 FR 44012), we published a notice of reconsideration and requested comment on the issues in the petition for reconsideration, including the full content of appendix B to subpart DDDD. In a separate notice published on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 44012), we proposed amendments to subpart DDDD and both of the appendices to subpart DDDD including a request for comment on whether the MACT compliance date should be extended for sources submitting lowrisk demonstrations or for all sources. On February 16, 2006, EPA promulgated amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Products. In the 2006 final rule, we promulgated a revised compliance deadline of October 1, 2008, for sources subject to the rule, which was 1 year later than the date originally promulgated. Following promulgation of the 2004 final PCWP rule, four petitions for judicial review of the final PCWP rule were filed with the Court by NRDC and Sierra Club (No. 04–1323, D.C. Cir.), EIP (No. 04–1235, D.C. Cir.), LouisianaPacific Corporation (No. 04–1328, D.C. Cir.), and Norbord Incorporated (No. 04–1329, D.C. Cir.). The four cases were consolidated. The NRDC, Sierra Club, and EIP petitions for judicial review 2 addressed three major concerns: (1) EPA’s legal authority to create and delist a low-risk subcategory; (2) EPA’s resetting of the compliance date; and (3) EPA’s failure to set emission standards for HAP from all emission points. In March 2007, before the Court decided the PCWP case, it ruled in Sierra Club, 479 F.3d 875, that ‘‘EPA’s failure to set floors for existing small tunnel brick kilns and new periodic brick kilns violated [the] CAA * * * noting that the court had held unlawful EPA’s ‘‘no control’’ emissions floors for categories in which the best performers used no emission control technology.’’ Subsequently, in April 2007, EPA requested a voluntary remand and vacatur of the 2004 final MACT determinations for PCWP emissions points that do not have emission limits (i.e., the ‘‘no emission reduction’’ MACT determinations also commonly known as ‘‘no-control MACT floors’’). On June 19, 2007, the Court issued its opinion remanding and vacating EPA’s no emission reduction MACT determinations, the low-risk provisions, 2 The Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and Norbord Incorporated petition for judicial review did not result in any change to the PCWP NESHAP and is not discussed in this preamble. E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM 29OCR1 61062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES and the October 1, 2008 compliance date. While today’s rule implements the Court’s order regarding the compliance date and low-risk subcategory provisions, EPA will separately reconsider the MACT determinations for the emission points for which EPA had previously determined MACT to be ‘‘no emissions reduction,’’ and publish our proposed responses to the Court’s remand of those decisions in a separate notice. II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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. Because the agency has made a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble), it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This rule will 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 rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This final rule does not involve technical standards; 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. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate ambiguity as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:52 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 214001 Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under the executive order. 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.). EPA’s compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rule is discussed in the July 30, 2004 Federal Register notice. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (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 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 § 63.14 Incorporation by reference. * * * * * (b) * * * (54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved for Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of this part as specified in the subpart. * * * * * (f) * * * * * * * * (3) NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP– 99.02, Impinger/Canister Source Sampling Method for Selected HAPs and Other Compounds at Wood Products Facilities, January 2004, Methods Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle Park, NC, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of this part. (4) NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01, Impinger Source Sampling Method for Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar Compounds, December 2005, Methods Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle Park, NC, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part. * * * * * Subpart DDDD—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products—[Amended] 3. Section 63.2231 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to read as follows: I § 63.2231 Does this subpart apply to me? This subpart applies to you if you meet the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. * * * * * I 4. Section 63.2233 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: * I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401. 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(54), (f)(3) and (f)(4) to read as follows: I § 63.2233 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Dated: October 18, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. I Subpart A—[Amended] * * * * (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007. (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart by October 1, 2007 or E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM 29OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6. Appendices B and C to Subpart DDDD of part 63 are removed. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. You may view and copy Ohio’s application from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the following addresses: U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, contact: Gary Westefer (312) 886–7450; or Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Lazarus Government Center, 50 West Town Street, Suite 700, Columbus, Ohio, contact: Jeff Mayhugh (614) 644–2950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Westefer, Ohio Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7450, e-mail westefer.gary@epa.gov. [FR Doc. 07–5295 Filed 10–26–07; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary? States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source, whichever is later. * * * * * I 5. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and removing paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: § 63.2291 Who implements and enforces this subpart? * * * * * (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) * * * * * * * * Appendices B and C—[Removed] I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [Docket No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2007–0397; FRL–8488–6] Ohio: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: EPA is granting Ohio Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The agency published a proposed rule on June 6, 2007 at 72 FR 31237 and provided for public comment. The public comment period ended on July 6, 2007. We received no comments. No further opportunity for comment will be provided. EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the State’s changes through this proposed final action. DATES: The final authorization will be effective on October 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R05–RCRA– 2007–0397. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some of the information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:52 Oct 26, 2007 Jkt 214001 B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule? We conclude that Ohio’s application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are granting Ohio final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Ohio has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 61063 authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Ohio, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. C. What Is the Effect of Today’s Authorization Decision? The effect of this decision is that a facility in Ohio subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Ohio has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to: 1. Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports 2. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits 3. Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Ohio is being authorized by today’s action are already effective, and are not changed by today’s action. D. Proposed Rule On June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31237), EPA published a proposed rule. In that rule we proposed granting authorization of changes to Ohio’s hazardous waste program and opened our decision to public comment. The agency received no comments on this proposal. EPA found Ohio’s RCRA program to be satisfactory. E. What Has Ohio Previously Been Authorized for? Ohio initially received final authorization on June 28, 1989, effective June 30, 1989 (54 FR 27170) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on April 8, 1991, effective June 7, 1991 (56 FR 14203) as corrected June 19, 1991, effective August 19, 1991 (56 FR 28088); July 27, 1995, effective September 25, 1995 (60 FR 38502); October 23, 1996, effective December 23, 1996 (61 FR 54950); January 24, 2003, effective January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3429); and January 20, 2006, effective January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3220). E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM 29OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 208 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61060-61063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5295]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048; FRL-8482-2]
RIN 2060-AO65


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 
and Composite Wood Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 19, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA's provisions in 
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 
and Composite Wood Products that established an October 1, 2008, 
compliance deadline and that created and delisted a low risk 
subcategory of plywood and composite wood products facilities. This 
action announces the Court's decision and promulgates ministerial 
amendments that will incorporate the Court's decision into the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

DATES: This rule was effective on October 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The EPA does not seek comment on this final rule. The 
opinion issued by the Court on June 19, 2007 and other information 
about the rule are contained in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0048 and Legacy 
Docket ID No. A-98-44. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0048, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning 
applicability and compliance assistance, contact your State or local 
representative or appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. For 
other information, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Program Division, Coatings 
and Chemicals Group (E143-01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-4516; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail 
address: kissell.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause 
finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary 
or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule 
without first providing notice and an opportunity for public comment on 
a proposed rule. There is good cause for making today's rule final 
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the Court 
vacated EPA's promulgation of the October 1, 2008, compliance date and 
of the low-risk provisions. The Court ruled that EPA was without 
statutory authority in our 2006 amendments to the national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to re-set the 
compliance date of October 1, 2007, first promulgated in the 2004 
NESHAP. The Court also ruled that EPA had no statutory authority to 
create and then delist the low-risk Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
(PCWP) subcategory.\1\ Therefore, today's action has no legal effect 
beyond ministerially fulfilling the Court's order and is clerical in 
nature: we are merely revising the Code of Federal Regulations to 
conform our rules to the Court's order and announcing the Court's 
decision. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court also remanded and vacated EPA's determinations 
that certain process units at PCWP facilities need not be subject to 
emissions controls. EPA will respond to that portion of the Court's 
ruling in a separate notice and comment rulemaking, and is not 
addressing that issue in today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B). Providing an opportunity to comment on a proposed conforming 
amendment would be impracticable because it would unacceptably delay 
EPA's action beyond the October 1, 2007, compliance deadline the Court 
ruled EPA must re-impose. It would also be unnecessary, since the 
Court's direction was clear that EPA must remove the 2006 NESHAP's 
amendment re-setting the deadline beyond October 1, 2007, and the 2004 
and 2006 provisions creating and delisting the low-risk PCWP 
subcategory was beyond EPA's statutory authority. Finally, it is not in 
the public

[[Page 61061]]

interest to delay revising the rule to conform to the Court's order on 
these issues, as continuing to leave the vacated provisions in place 
creates confusion among the regulated community, implementing States 
and local governments, and the general public.

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially affected by today's action 
include:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                    SIC code \a\   NAICS code \b\     Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................            2421          321999  Sawmills with lumber kilns.
                                                       2435          321211  Hardwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                       2436          321212  Softwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                       2493          321219  Reconstituted wood products plants
                                                                              (particleboard, medium density
                                                                              fiberboard, hardboard, fiberboard,
                                                                              and oriented strandboard plants).
                                                       2439          321213  Structural wood members, not
                                                                              elsewhere classified (engineered
                                                                              wood products plants).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by today's 
action. To determine whether your facility is affected by today's 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.2231 
of the final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of 
today's action to a particular entity, consult your State or local 
representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative.

Worldwide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's action also will be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly promulgated rules at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

I. Background

    We proposed NESHAP for the PCWP source category on January 9, 2003 
(68 FR 1276). The final rule (subpart DDDD in 40 CFR part 63) was 
published on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45944). In addition to adopting 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the PCWP 
category, we adopted a risk-based approach in the 2004 final rule by 
establishing and delisting a low-risk subcategory of PCWP affected 
sources, which would have allowed low-risk sources to avoid complying 
with MACT. Except for eight sources that we determined were already 
eligible to join the low-risk subcategory and avoid MACT, all PCWP 
sources were initially included in the category subject to MACT, and 
any would-be low-risk sources could subsequently join the low-risk 
subcategory after EPA approved their submitted low-risk demonstrations. 
The methodology and criteria for PCWP affected sources to use in 
demonstrating that they are eligible to join the delisted low-risk 
subcategory were promulgated in the 2004 final rule in appendix B to 
subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63. Any source who failed to obtain EPA 
approval of a low-risk demonstration would remain subject to MACT.
    Following promulgation of the 2004 final PCWP rule, the 
Administrator received a petition for reconsideration filed by the 
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Integrity 
Project (EIP) pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA). The petition requested reconsideration of nine aspects of the 
final rule including the legal basis for the risk-based provisions. The 
petition for reconsideration also requested a stay of the effectiveness 
of the risk-based provisions. In a letter dated December 6, 2004, EPA 
granted NRDC's and EIP's petition for reconsideration and declined the 
petitioners' request that we take action to stay the effectiveness of 
the risk-based provisions.
    On July 29, 2005 (70 FR 44012), we published a notice of 
reconsideration and requested comment on the issues in the petition for 
reconsideration, including the full content of appendix B to subpart 
DDDD. In a separate notice published on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 44012), we 
proposed amendments to subpart DDDD and both of the appendices to 
subpart DDDD including a request for comment on whether the MACT 
compliance date should be extended for sources submitting low-risk 
demonstrations or for all sources. On February 16, 2006, EPA 
promulgated amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products. In the 2006 final 
rule, we promulgated a revised compliance deadline of October 1, 2008, 
for sources subject to the rule, which was 1 year later than the date 
originally promulgated.
    Following promulgation of the 2004 final PCWP rule, four petitions 
for judicial review of the final PCWP rule were filed with the Court by 
NRDC and Sierra Club (No. 04-1323, D.C. Cir.), EIP (No. 04-1235, D.C. 
Cir.), Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (No. 04-1328, D.C. Cir.), and 
Norbord Incorporated (No. 04-1329, D.C. Cir.). The four cases were 
consolidated. The NRDC, Sierra Club, and EIP petitions for judicial 
review \2\ addressed three major concerns: (1) EPA's legal authority to 
create and delist a low-risk subcategory; (2) EPA's re-setting of the 
compliance date; and (3) EPA's failure to set emission standards for 
HAP from all emission points. In March 2007, before the Court decided 
the PCWP case, it ruled in Sierra Club, 479 F.3d 875, that ``EPA's 
failure to set floors for existing small tunnel brick kilns and new 
periodic brick kilns violated [the] CAA * * * noting that the court had 
held unlawful EPA's ``no control'' emissions floors for categories in 
which the best performers used no emission control technology.'' 
Subsequently, in April 2007, EPA requested a voluntary remand and 
vacatur of the 2004 final MACT determinations for PCWP emissions points 
that do not have emission limits (i.e., the ``no emission reduction'' 
MACT determinations also commonly known as ``no-control MACT floors'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and Norbord Incorporated 
petition for judicial review did not result in any change to the 
PCWP NESHAP and is not discussed in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 19, 2007, the Court issued its opinion remanding and 
vacating EPA's no emission reduction MACT determinations, the low-risk 
provisions,

[[Page 61062]]

and the October 1, 2008 compliance date.
    While today's rule implements the Court's order regarding the 
compliance date and low-risk subcategory provisions, EPA will 
separately reconsider the MACT determinations for the emission points 
for which EPA had previously determined MACT to be ``no emissions 
reduction,'' and publish our proposed responses to the Court's remand 
of those decisions in a separate notice.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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. Because 
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not 
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this preamble), it is not subject to the regulatory 
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a 
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This rule will 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 
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This final rule does not involve technical standards; 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. The rule 
also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice 
related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate ambiguity as required by section 3 of Executive 
Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
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.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for 
the underlying rule is discussed in the July 30, 2004 Federal Register 
notice.
    The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (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 808 allows the issuing agency to 
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the 
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is 
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This 
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 
As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including 
the reasons therefore. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 
and other required information to the United States Senate, the United 
States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: October 18, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(54), (f)(3) and 
(f)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (54) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved 
for Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of this part as specified in the subpart.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
* * * * *
    (3) NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02, Impinger/Canister Source Sampling 
Method for Selected HAPs and Other Compounds at Wood Products 
Facilities, January 2004, Methods Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle 
Park, NC, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of this part.
    (4) NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01, Impinger Source Sampling Method 
for Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar Compounds, December 2005, 
Methods Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle Park, NC, IBR approved for 
table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart DDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.2231 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.2231  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you meet the criteria in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.2233 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.2233  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007.
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must 
be in compliance with this subpart by October 1, 2007 or

[[Page 61063]]

upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source, 
whichever is later.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text and removing paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2291  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) * * *
* * * * *

Appendices B and C--[Removed]

0
6. Appendices B and C to Subpart DDDD of part 63 are removed.

[FR Doc. 07-5295 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P