Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2005-PA-0007-0030
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-07-13T04:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
52
[
R03­
OAR­
2005­
PA­
0007;
FRL­
]

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
[
Insert
date
30
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

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
www.
regulations.
gov
website.
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
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
for
public
inspection
2
during
normal
business
hours
at
the
Air
Protection
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

Region
III,
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103.
Copies
of
the
State
submittal
are
available
at
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
Bureau
of
Air
Quality,
P.
O.

Box
8468,
400
Market
Street,
Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania
17105.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
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.
3
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
email
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
(
Public
Law
104­
4).
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
AProtection
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.).
5
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
[
insert
date
60
days
from
date
of
publication
of
this
document
in
the
Federal
Register].
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.
6
This
action,
pertaining
to
RACT
for
Koppers
Industry,
Lycoming
County
may
not
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.

/
s/
_________________
__________________________
Dated:
June
26,
2006
William
T.
Wisniewski,
Acting
Regional
Administrator,
Region
III.
7
40
CFR
part
52
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
52
­
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
52
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

Subpart
NNB
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:

'
52.2020
Identification
of
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
*
*
*

(
1)*
*
*

Name
of
source
Permit
number
County
State
effective
date
EPA
approval
date
Additional
explanation/

'
52.2063
citation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Koppers
Industry,
Inc.
OP­
41­
0008
Lycoming
3/
30/
99
[
Insert
Federal
Register
publication
date]
[
Insert
page
number
where
the
document
begins]
52.2020(
d)(
1)(
s)

*
*
*
*
*