Julander may not proceed as a petitioner in this court. * Parts I, II, and IV are written by Judge Rogers. Part III is written by Judge Kavanaugh, as are his dissenting opinion in Part II.B.2 and his concurring opinion in Part IV. 1 . See 1 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, at 1416-17 (1993) (statement by Rep. Oxley) (indicating that the provision authorizing regulation of EGUs would "avoid! ] the imposition of excessive and unnecessary costs” by ensuring that EPA can regulate "only if the studies described in section 112(n) clearly establish that emissions ... from such units cause a significant risk of serious adverse effects on public health”). 2 . See Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 511-12, 101 S.Ct. 2478, 69 L.Ed.2d 185 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153,
holding that federal appellate courts are authorized to engage in constitutional harmless error analysis in the first instance when a state appellate court does not undertake such an analysis and that such error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case recognizing the long hegemony of costbenefit analysis under pennsylvania law holding that analysis under section 1301g is not the same as the analysis under section 1301f and that the existence of accident or mistake is irrelevant because appellants moved for relief only under section 1301f holding that osha is not required to conduct a costbenefit analysis in promulgating a standard under section 6b5 of the occupational safety and health act because congress uses specific language when intending that an agency engage in costbenefit analysis