32526 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Port Lake Michigan will cause notice of 

enforcement of the safety zone 

established by this section to be made 

by all appropriate means to the affected 

segments of the public including 

publication in the Federal Register as 

practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 

165.7(a). Such means of notification 

may also include, but are not limited to 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local 

Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying 

the public when enforcement of the 

safety zone established by this section is 

suspended. 

(e) Exemption. Public vessels as 

defined in paragraph (b) of this section 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this section. 

(f) Wavier. For any vessel, the Captain 

of the Port Lake Michigan or a 

designated representative may waive 

any of the requirements of this section, 

upon finding that operational 

conditions or other circumstances are 

such that application of this section is 

unnecessary or impractical for the 

purposes of safety or environmental 

safety. 

Dated: June 6, 2007. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E7–11343 Filed 6–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0004; FRL–8324–6] 

RIN 2060–AN92 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Removal of Vacated 

Elements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is amending its 

regulations to eliminate the pollution 

control project (PCP) and clean unit 

(CU) provisions included in its 

December 31, 2002 rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Baseline Emissions 

Determination, Actual-to-future-actual 

Methodology, Plantwide Applicability 

Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution 

Control Projects.’’ This final rule 

conforms the regulations to the decision 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit, New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 

(D.C. Cir. 2005), vacating the PCP and 

CU provisions. This action is exempt 

from notice-and-comment rulemaking 

because it is ministerial in nature. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0004. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., 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 Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Painter, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, (C504–03), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 

541–5515, fax number (919) 541–5509, 

e-mail: painter.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does This Regulation Apply to Me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

final action include sources in all 

industry groups. The majority of sources 

potentially affected are expected to be in 

the following groups. 

Industry group SIC a NAICSb

Electric Services ............................................................................. 491 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122. 

Petroleum Refining ......................................................................... 291 32411. 

Chemical Processes ....................................................................... 281 325181, 32512, 325131, 325182, 211112, 325998, 331311, 

325188. 

Natural Gas Transport .................................................................... 492 48621, 22121. 

Pulp and Paper Mills ...................................................................... 261 32211, 322121, 322122, 32213. 

Paper Mills ...................................................................................... 262 322121, 322122. 

Automobile Manufacturing .............................................................. 371 336111, 336112, 336712, 336211, 336992, 336322, 336312, 

33633, 33634, 33635, 336399, 336212, 336213. 

Pharmaceuticals ............................................................................. 283 325411, 325412, 325413, 325414.

aStandard Industrial Classification 

b North American Industry Classification System. 

Entities potentially affected by this 

final action also include State, local, 

and tribal governments that are 

delegated authority to implement these 

regulations. This table is not intended to 

be exhaustive, but rather provides a 

guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be affected by this action. Other 

types of entities not listed in the table 

could also be affected. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected 

by this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria in 

parts 51 and 52 of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. 

II. Background and Rationale for 

Action 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published a final rule (67 FR 80186) 

which established CU and expanded 

upon provisions pertaining to PCP 

which were initially promulgated on 

July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32314). On June 24, 

2005, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (the Court) issued an opinion 

vacating those portions of the 2002 and 

1992 rules that pertained to CU and 

PCP. New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. 

Cir.), reh’g. and reh’g. en banc den. 431 

F.3d 801 (2005). 

This action removes from the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) all provisions 

for CU and PCP containing the 

provisions vacated by the Court. It 

should be noted that nearly identical CU 

and PCP provisions are found in 40 CFR 

52.21, 51.165, and 51.166, and that the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32527 

1Memorandum dated July 1, 1994. ‘‘Pollution 

Control Projects and New Source Review (NSR) 

Applicability’’ from John S. Seitz, Director, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air 

Directors, Regions I–X. 

2 In its Opinion, the Court stated on pages 8–9 

that ‘‘EPA also erred in exempting from NSR certain 

Pollution Control Projects (‘‘PCPs’’) that decrease 

emissions of some pollutants but cause collateral 

increases of others. The statute authorizes no such 

exception.’’

Court’s opinion specifically addressed 

the CU and PCP provisions in § 52.21, 

but not the provisions in §§ 51.165 and 

51.166. Even so, the plain language of 

the Court’s opinion clearly applies to 

the parallel constructions in those latter 

provisions; and as a result, today’s 

action removes those provisions as well. 

Because the Court vacated the language 

of the CU and PCP provisions as well as 

the legal constructs upon which they 

were based, the EPA is rescinding the 

CU and PCP provisions by way of a final 

rulemaking which is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

are not providing an opportunity for 

comment. 

The Administrative Procedure Act of 

1946 (APA) makes provision for the 

procedural path we are following in this 

action. In general, the APA requires that 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. Such notice must provide an 

opportunity for public participation in 

the rulemaking process. The APA does 

provide an avenue for an agency to 

directly issue a final rulemaking in 

certain specific instances. This may 

occur, in particular, when an agency for 

good cause finds (and incorporates the 

finding and a brief statement of reasons 

therefore in the rules issued) that notice 

and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B). 

In this action, the Agency finds that 

notice and comment is unnecessary. 

This action is ministerial in nature. It 

simply implements the decision of the 

D.C. Circuit as it pertains to CU and 

PCP. 

In addition, notice and comment 

would be contrary to the public interest 

by unnecessarily delaying the removal 

of the unlawful CU and PCP provisions 

in the CFR. Owner/operators of facilities 

capable of causing air pollution are 

subject to CAA regulations governing 

the manner in which they might act. 

Substantial costs are frequently 

associated with project delays or 

inappropriate actions. To resolve 

regulatory concerns up front, those who 

would pursue projects which might be 

subject to Federal restrictions rely upon 

the CFR to provide authoritative 

answers as to what requirements apply 

to a given proposed project. 

III. Implementation 

For the reasons cited above, EPA is 

making this action effective upon 

publication. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This 

action removes content from the CFR 

that has been found to be contrary to the 

CAA by a Federal appeals court. This is 

a ministerial but necessary action on the 

part of the EPA. Given the substantial 

costs to owner/operators of projects 

associated with delays and uncertainty, 

EPA has good cause to act in the public 

interest to implement the court’s 

remedy by amending the CFR without 

delay. 

The Court’s vacatur of PCP and CU 

provisions meant that these provisions 

could no longer be used. Thus, today’s 

rule changes are immediately effective 

for jurisdictions using the Federal PSD 

program (codified at § 52.21 for areas 

without an approved PSD program, for 

which we are the reviewing authority, 

or for which we have delegated our 

authority to issue permits to a State or 

local reviewing authority) and for State 

and local agency programs 

implementing part C (PSD permit 

program in § 51.166) or part D 

(nonattainment NSR permit program in 

§ 51.165) under an approved State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Permitting 

authorities with approved SIPs 

containing any or all of the 2002 CU, 

2002 PCP, or 1992 PCP provisions 

should remove those provisions as soon 

as feasible, which may be in 

conjunction with the next available SIP 

revision. Furthermore, recognizing that 

some States also adopted our past 

guidance policy on PCP 1 into their 

approved SIPs, we believe that these 

portions of their SIPs should also be 

removed in light of the Court decision.2

Because of the Court decision, these 

provisions are unlawful and may not be 

applied even prior to their removal from 

the SIPs. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) determined this rule is a 

significant regulatory action for the 

purpose of EO 12866 and requested that 

we submit the rule for OMB review. It 

does not meet requirements for review 

under Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). It 

also does not meet the requirements for 

review under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 104–4), Executive Order 13132, 

entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), Executive Order 

13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000), Executive Order 13211, 

entitled Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), or Executive Order 12898, 

entitled Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). In addition, this rule does not 

impose any impact on small entities and 

thus does not require preparation of a 

regulatory flexibility analysis under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

The deletion of CU and PCP 

provisions from NSR and PSD 

requirements will reduce the associated 

overall reporting and recordkeeping 

burden estimates, but this action does 

not require any review or approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. At 

some point in the future, EPA will redetermine the total burden associated 

with the NSR and PSD rules and will 

adjust the estimates to reflect the effects 

of this action. The reporting and 

recordkeeping burdens associated with 

NSR and PSD are approved by OMB 

under OMB No. 2060–0003. The current 

public reporting burden for NSR and 

PSD is estimated to be 4,878,634 hours. 

These estimates include the time 

needed for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 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. However, section 808 of that 

Act provides that any rule for which the 

issuing agency for good cause finds (and 

incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefore in the 

rule) that notice and public procedure 

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, 

or contrary to the public interest, shall 

take effect at such time as the agency 

promulgating the rule determines (5 

U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated previously, 

EPA has made such a good cause 

finding, including the reasons therefore, 

and established an effective date of June 

13, 2007. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
32528 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 165–169, 171–

173, and 301 of the Act as amended (42 

U.S.C. 7475–7479, 7501–7503, and 

7601). This rulemaking is also subject to 

section 307(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 

7407(d)). 

VI. Judicial Review 

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

judicial review of this final rule is 

available only by the filing of a petition 

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit by 

August 13, 2007. Any such judicial 

review is limited to only those 

objections that are raised with 

reasonable specificity in timely 

comments. Under section 307(b)(2) of 

the Act, the requirements that are the 

subject of this final rule may not be 

challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by us to enforce 

these requirements. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Baseline emissions, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Plantwide 

applicability limitations, Pollution 

control projects, Sulfur oxides. 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Baseline emissions, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Plantwide 

applicability limitations, Pollution 

control projects, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: June 5, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 51—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q. 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 51.165 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(1)(v)(C)(8). 

■ b. By removing paragraph 

(a)(1)(vi)(C)(3). 

■ c. By removing paragraph 

(a)(1)(vi)(E)(5). 

■ d. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(1)(xxv). 

■ e. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(1)(xxix). 

■ f. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E). 

■ g. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(F). 

■ h. By removing paragraph (a)(2)(iv). 

■ i. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(H) and (I). 

■ j. By revising paragraph (a)(6) 

introductory text. 

■ k. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 

§ 51.165 Permit requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(F) Hybrid test for projects that 

involve multiple types of emissions 

units. A significant emissions increase 

of a regulated NSR pollutant is projected 

to occur if the sum of the emissions 

increases for each emissions unit, using 

the method specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(ii)(C) through (D) of this section as 

applicable with respect to each 

emissions unit, for each type of 

emissions unit equals or exceeds the 

significant amount for that pollutant (as 

defined in paragraph (a)(1)(x) of this 

section). 

* * * * * 

(6) Each plan shall provide that the 

following specific provisions apply to 

projects at existing emissions units at a 

major stationary source (other than 

projects at a source with a PAL) in 

circumstances where there is a 

reasonable possibility that a project that 

is not a part of a major modification may 

result in a significant emissions increase 

and the owner or operator elects to use 

the method specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(xviii)(B)(1) through (3) of this 

section for calculating projected actual 

emissions. Deviations from these 

provisions will be approved only if the 

State specifically demonstrates that the 

submitted provisions are more stringent 

than or at least as stringent in all 

respects as the corresponding provisions 

in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 51.166 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(e). 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(f). 

■ c. By removing paragraph (a)(7)(vi). 

■ d. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(h). 

■ f. By removing paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(d). 

■ g. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(31). 

■ h. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(41). 

■ i. By revising paragraph (r)(6) 

introductory text. 

■ j. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (t), (u), and (v). 

§ 51.166 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. 

(a) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(f) Hybrid test for projects that involve 

multiple types of emissions units. A 

significant emissions increase of a 

regulated NSR pollutant is projected to 

occur if the sum of the emissions 

increases for each emissions unit, using 

the method specified in paragraphs 

(a)(7)(iv)(c) through (d) of this section as 

applicable with respect to each 

emissions unit, for each type of 

emissions unit equals or exceeds the 

significant amount for that pollutant (as 

defined in paragraph (b)(23) of this 

section). 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(6) Each plan shall provide that the 

following specific provisions apply to 

projects at existing emissions units at a 

major stationary source (other than 

projects at a source with a PAL) in 

circumstances where there is a 

reasonable possibility that a project that 

is not a part of a major modification may 

result in a significant emissions increase 

and the owner or operator elects to use 

the method specified in paragraphs 

(b)(40)(ii)(a) through (c) of this section 

for calculating projected actual 

emissions. Deviations from these 

provisions will be approved only if the 

State specifically demonstrates that the 

submitted provisions are more stringent 

than or at least as stringent in all 

respects as the corresponding provisions 

in paragraphs (r)(6)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 5. Section 52.21 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(e). 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(f). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32529 

■ c. By removing paragraph (a)(2)(vi). 

■ d. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(h). 

■ e. By removing paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(d). 

■ f. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(32). 

■ g. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(42). 

■ h. By revising paragraph (r)(6) 

introductory text. 

■ j. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (x), (y), and (z) 

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(f) Hybrid test for projects that involve 

multiple types of emissions units. A 

significant emissions increase of a 

regulated NSR pollutant is projected to 

occur if the sum of the emissions 

increases for each emissions unit, using 

the method specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(iv)(c) through (d) of this section as 

applicable with respect to each 

emissions unit, for each type of 

emissions unit equals or exceeds the 

significant amount for that pollutant (as 

defined in paragraph (b)(23) of this 

section). 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(6) The provisions of this paragraph 

(r)(6) apply to projects at an existing 

emissions unit at a major stationary 

source (other than projects at a source 

with a PAL) in circumstances where 

there is a reasonable possibility that a 

project that is not a part of a major 

modification may result in a significant 

emissions increase and the owner or 

operator elects to use the method 

specified in paragraphs (b)(41)(ii)(a) 

through (c) of this section for calculating 

projected actual emissions. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–11289 Filed 6–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0590; FRL–8325–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Request for Rescission 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the 

rescission of the Federal 

implementation plan promulgated 

under the Clean Air Act for the 

regulation of fugitive sulfur oxides 

emissions from a copper smelter that 

had operated in the State of Nevada but 

that is no longer in existence. This 

rescission was proposed in the Federal 

Register on August 28, 2006. The 

intended effect is to rescind 

unnecessary provisions from the 

applicable plan. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on July 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0590 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–

4126, rose.julie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s Response 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50875), 

EPA proposed approval and disapproval 

of portions of the State’s rescission 

request and approval of certain 

replacement provisions. One of the 

rescission requests for which we 

proposed approval involved a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) that we 

promulgated in the 1970’s at 40 CFR 

52.1475(c), (d), and (e) to regulate sulfur 

oxides from the Kennecott Copper 

Company smelter located in White Pine 

County, Nevada. As described further in 

our Technical Support Document (TSD) 

for the proposed rule, we found that the 

last vestige of the Kennecott Copper 

Company McGill facility, which was the 

subject of the FIP requirements in 

52.1475, was removed from the area in 

1993, and, therefore, the related FIP 

provisions are obsolete. The TSD 

contains more information about our 

proposed action. On January 3, 2007 (72 

FR 11), we took final action on most of 

the provisions for which we had 

proposed action on August 28, 2006. 

This is the second final action related to 

our August 28, 2006 proposal. We will 

take final action on the remaining few 

provisions for which we proposed 

action on August 28, 2006 in a third 

separate action. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments 

related to the proposed rescission of the 

FIP for regulation of the Kennecott 

Copper Company smelter in White Pine 

County, Nevada. 

III. EPA Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Clean Air Act, EPA is finalizing the 

approval of the rescission of the Federal 

implementation plan promulgated for 

the regulation of fugitive sulfur oxides 

emissions from the Kennecott Copper 

Company smelter that had operated in 

White Pine County, Nevada, but that is 

no longer in existence. EPA is codifying 

this action by revising 40 CFR 52.1475 

to remove paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ This action will rescind a 

Federally promulgated rule for an air 

pollution emissions source that no 

longer exists. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This action 

will merely rescind a Federally 

promulgated rule for an air pollution 

emissions source that no longer exists. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES