[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57155-57159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22727]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA-172-4194a; FRL-7271-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Addressing Sulfur Dioxide in Philadelphia County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted 
by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The 
revisions consists of Operating Permits modifying the sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) allowable emissions at four facilities in Philadelphia 
County, Pennsylvania. The Operating Permits were issued to Trigen-
Philadelphia Energy Corporation, Schuylkill Station, Grays Ferry 
Cogeneration Partnership, PECO Energy Company, Schuylkill Generating 
Station, and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) Philadelphia Refinery. EPA is approving 
these revisions to incorporate the four Operating Permits into the 
Federally-approved SIP. The intention of this action is to regulate 
SO2 emissions in accordance with the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on November 8, 2002, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 9, 2002. 
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, 
Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to 
this action are available 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; 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room B108, Mail Code 
6102T, Washington, DC 20460; the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 
Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105; and the Department of 
Public Health, Air Management Services (AMS), 321 University Avenue, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denis Lohman, (215) 814-2192, or Ellen 
Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by e-mail at [email protected] or 
[email protected]. Please note that while questions may be posed 
via e-mail, formal comments must be submitted, in writing, as indicated 
in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 23, 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted 
formal revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions apply to sources in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, 
subject to Air Management Regulation (AMR) XIII under the authority of 
25 PA Code Chapter 127, ``Construction, Modification, Reactivation and 
Operation of Sources,'' to prevent and control air pollution from the 
emissions of SO2. The SIP revisions consist of four 
Operating Permits issued by the Philadelphia Department of Public 
Health, AMS, with authority under 25 PA Code Chapter 127, for four 
facilities in the County.

A. What Action Is EPA Taking in This Rulemaking?

    The EPA is approving as SIP revisions and incorporating by 
reference into the Pennsylvania SIP, four Operating Permits containing 
new SO2 emission limits for four facilities located in 
Philadelphia County. The facilities are Trigen-Philadelphia Energy 
Corporation, Schuylkill Station, Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership, 
PECO Energy Company, Schuylkill Generating Station, and Sunoco, Inc. 
(R&M) Philadelphia Refinery. This action approves these Operating 
Permits into the SIP and makes them Federally-enforceable.

B. Why Were Changes in Emission Rates Necessary?

    A modeling analysis for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permit for replacement boilers at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 
revealed potential exceedances of the 24-hour SO2 National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Preliminary modeling indicated 
that these four sources at their existing allowable emission rates, 
were substantial contributors to violations of the NAAQS for 
SO2. The Philadelphia Department of Public Health, AMS, 
required each of the sources with significant contributions to the 
exceedances to re-evaluate their emissions and, if necessary, to define 
new emission limitations to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 
SO2 standards. The PSD permit was issued to the Philadelphia 
Naval Shipyard in 1996 when it was determined that the facility did not 
have a significant contribution to the modeled exceedances.
    With the authority under the Pennsylvania Code Title 25, 
Philadelphia Code Title III, and AMR XIII, AMS issued these permits to 
address the potential deficiencies of the Philadelphia portion of the 
Pennsylvania SIP. Three of the sources, Trigen-Philadelphia Energy 
Corporation, Schuylkill Station, Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership, 
and PECO Energy Company, Schuylkill Generating Station are at a common 
location in what is termed, the Philadelphia Energy Complex (PEC). The 
fourth source is the Sunoco Inc. (R&M) Philadelphia Refinery which 
includes a combined cycle project PSD analysis.

C. What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop air pollution 
regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality 
meets the NAAQS established by the EPA. These ambient air quality 
standards are established under the Clean Air Act and they address six 
criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 
lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit regulations and control strategies to EPA 
for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. Each 
state has a SIP designed to protect its air quality. These SIPs are 
extensive, containing regulations, enforceable emission limits, 
emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. 
The Pennsylvania SIP contains various permits to meet the SIP 
requirements and other state statutory requirements. The permits are 
developed to contain specific conditions for a particular source and 
can provide specific conditions such as, emission limits, hours of 
operation, recordkeeping requirements, production rates, compliance 
demonstration requirements, etc. Once properly issued, state-
enforceable Operating Permits are approved by EPA as SIP revisions and

[[Page 57156]]

are incorporated by reference into the SIP and become Federally-
enforceable.

D. What Are the Procedural Requirements Pennsylvania Must Follow for 
Approval?

    The CAA requires states to observe certain procedural requirements 
while developing SIP revisions for submission to and approval by EPA. 
Section 110(1) of the CAA requires that a revision to a SIP must be 
adopted by such state after reasonable notice and public hearing. The 
EPA must also determine whether a submittal is complete and warrants 
further action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's 
completeness criteria for SIP revision submittals are found at 40 Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, appendix V.
    Pennsylvania's March 23, 2001 submittal for Philadelphia County was 
determined to be administratively complete by EPA through a letter to 
the Director of PADEP, Bureau of Air Quality, dated July 17, 2001. The 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania held a public hearing on this SIP revision 
on April 18, 2000. The SIP revision was then submitted by PADEP to EPA 
by cover letter dated March 23, 2001. The SIP revision demonstrates 
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Philadelphia County, 
Pennsylvania.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA 
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the 40 CFR 
part 52. The actual state regulations and permits which are approved as 
SIP revisions are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR but are 
``incorporated by reference,'' with a specific effective date.

E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With This Criteria Pollutant?

    Sulfur dioxide belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases. These 
gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is 
burned, and during metal smelting, and other industrial processes. 
Sulfur dioxide is a rapidly-diffusing reactive gas that is very soluble 
in water. Sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen are the major 
precursors to acidic deposition (acid rain), and are associated with 
the acidification of lakes and streams, corrosion of buildings and 
monuments. They are also associated with reduced visibility. Sulfur 
dioxide in the Philadelphia area is emitted principally from combustion 
or processing of sulfur-containing fossil fuels and ores. At elevated 
concentrations, sulfur dioxide can adversely affect human health. The 
major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations 
of SO2 include effects on breathing, respiratory illness, 
alterations in the lungs' defenses, and aggravation of existing 
cardiovascular disease. Sulfur dioxide can also produce damage to the 
foliage of trees and agricultural crops.

F. What Are the NAAQS for SO2?

    The primary NAAQS for sulfur oxides, measured as SO2, 
are 0.14 parts per million (ppm), or 365 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m \3\), averaged over a period of 24 hours and not to be 
exceeded more than once per year, and an annual standard of 0.030 ppm, 
or 80 [mu]g/m \3\ never to be exceeded. The secondary standard for 
SO2 is 0.50 ppm, or 1300 [mu]g/m \3\ averaged over a three-
hour period. The secondary standard may not be exceeded more than once 
per year.

II. Summary of the SIP Revisions

    1. The purpose of these revisions is to ensure the Federal-
enforceability of Operating Permits entered between the City of 
Philadelphia, Department of Public Health, AMS, and four sources in 
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The essential special compliance 
provisions of the four Operating Permits are presented below. Each 
Operating Permit also contains generic provisions requiring compliance 
with AMR III, the Control of Emission Oxides of Sulfur Compounds, as 
well as good air pollution control practices.

(1) Trigen-Philadelphia Energy Corporation, Schuylkill Station SO2 
Operating Permit # SO2-95-002

    The Trigen-Philadelphia Energy Corporation, Schuylkill Station, 
operates a steam generating facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The 
SO2 emission limits defined in the Operating Permit mandate 
that Boilers 23, 24, and 26, may not burn fuel oil that contains sulfur 
in excess of 0.5 percent by weight. Work practice standards require 
that no more than four of the following units can be operated at the 
same time: Boilers 23, 24, 25 and 26, and the Combustion Turbine/Heat 
Recovery Steam Generator (CT/HRSG). Boilers 23 or 24 can be operated at 
any load when only one unit is operating at a time. Boilers 23 and 24 
are limited to 73.7 percent of full load when both units are operating 
simultaneously. Boilers 23, 24, 25, 26 and the CT/HRSG are to be 
operated in accordance with the stack and diameter parameters 
established in the dispersion model submitted to AMS on December 1, 
1997.
    Monitoring requirements stated in the permit require the facility 
to monitor the percent sulfur in each fuel oil upon delivery. In 
addition, an oil sample must be tested for each barge delivery and a 
daily composite tested for each truck delivery. Reporting requirements 
require any violation of an emission limitation to be reported (by 
phone call or facsimile transmission) to AMS within 24 hours of 
detection and followed by written notification within thirty-one (31) 
days. The facility must also submit to AMS semiannual reports of the 
performance of the facility using the City of Philadelphia Monitoring 
Report Form. These reports shall consist of a description of any 
deviations from permit requirements that occurred during the six-month 
reporting period, the probable cause of such deviations, and corrective 
actions or preventive measures taken.

(2) Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership SO2 Operating 
Permit # SO2-95-002A

    The Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership owns and operates an 
electrical and steam generating facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
The SO2 emission limits defined in the Operating Permit 
mandate that the CT/HRSG and Boiler 25 may not burn fuel oil that 
contains sulfur in excess of 0.2 percent by weight. Work practice 
standards require that no more than four of the following units can be 
operated simultaneously: Boilers 23, 24, 25, 26 and the CT/HRSG. Boiler 
23 or 24 can be operated at any load when only one unit is operating at 
a time. Boilers 23 and 24 are limited to 73.7 percent of full load when 
both units are operating simultaneously. Boilers 23, 24, 25, 26 and the 
CT/HRSG are to be operated in accordance with the stack and diameter 
parameters established in the dispersion model submitted to AMS on 
December 1, 1997.
    Monitoring requirements defined in the permit require the facility 
to monitor the percent sulfur in each fuel oil upon delivery. In 
addition, an oil sample must be tested for each barge delivery and a 
daily composite tested for each truck delivery. The permit also 
mandates that the CT and HRS cannot be connected to FML02 (the fuel oil 
storage tank for the boilers). Reporting requirements require any 
violation of an emission limitation to be reported (by phone call or 
facsimile transmission) to AMS within 24 hours of detection and 
followed by written notification within thirty-one (31) days. The 
facility must also submit to AMS semiannual reports of the performance 
of the facility using the City of Philadelphia Monitoring

[[Page 57157]]

Report Form. These reports shall consist of a description of any 
deviations from permit requirements that occurred during the six-month 
reporting period, the probably cause of such deviations, and the 
corrective actions or preventive measures taken.

(3) PECO Energy Company Schuylkill Generating Station SO2 
Operating Permit # SO2-95-006

    PECO Energy Company owns and operates an electrical generation 
facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The SO2 emission 
limits defined in the Operating Permit mandate that Boiler 1 may not 
burn fuel oil that contains sulfur in excess of 0.5 percent by weight. 
In addition, the CT 10 and 11 may not burn fuel oil 
that contains sulfur in excess of 0.09 percent by weight, and the 
emergency Diesel Generator may not burn fuel oil that contains sulfur 
in excess of 0.2 percent by weight. Work practice standards require 
that the facility operate its sources in accordance with the stack and 
diameter parameters established in the dispersion model submitted to 
AMS on December 1, 1997.
    Monitoring requirements defined in the permit require the facility 
to monitor the percent sulfur in each fuel oil upon delivery. In 
addition, an oil sample must be tested for each 6 fuel oil 
delivery and a daily composite tested for each 2 fuel oil 
delivery. The CT cannot be connected to the fuel oil storage tank for 
the boilers or the Emergency Diesel Generator. The Operating Permit 
also states that the Emergency Diesel Generator can not be connected to 
the fuel oil storage tank for the boilers. Reporting requirements 
require any violation of an emission limitation to be reported (by 
phone call or facsimile transmission) to AMS within 24 hours of 
detection followed by written notification within thirty-one (31) days. 
The facility is required to submit to AMS semiannual reports of the 
performance of the facility using the City of Philadelphia Monitoring 
Report Form. These reports shall consist of a description of any 
deviations from permit requirements that occurred during the six-month 
reporting period, the probable cause of such deviations, and corrective 
actions or preventive measures taken.

(4) Sunoco Inc. (R&M) Philadelphia Refinery SO2 Operating 
Permit # SO2-95-039

    Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) owns and operates a refinery in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. The SO2 emission limits defined in the 
Operating Permit mandate that the CO Boiler at Girard Point--CD-004 
(the CO boiler at the 1232 FCCU) not exceed 500 parts per million dry 
volume (ppmvd) SO2 at any time. In addition, the permit 
establishes an emission limit for the heaters and boilers at Girard 
Point of 0.53 lb. SO2 /MMBTU and a rolling 365 day average 
emission limit of 0.33 lb.SO2/MMBTU.
    The SO2 emission limits for the sources at Point Breeze 
as defined in the Operating Permit, require that the C-129 (heater 
8H101) not exceed 0.1 gr.H2S/dscf. In addition, the combined 
SO2 emission rate from P-659 & P-660 (the Sulfur Recovery 
units) cannot exceed 31.72 lb./hour, and the SO2 emission 
rate from P-661 (FCCU) cannot exceed 358 lb./hour. The permit also 
establishes emission limits for the boilers and heaters at Point Breeze 
of 0.034-0.53-lb.SO2/MMBTU and a rolling 365 day average 
emission limit of 0.33-0.034 lb.SO2 /MMBTU. Work practice 
standards require that the facility operate its sources consistent with 
all parameters established in the dispersion model submitted to AMS on 
August 6, 1999. These parameters are explicitly defined in the 
Operating Permit. Monitoring requirements defined in the permit require 
that the facility monitor the process rates for sources P-661 (FCCU 
868), P-659, and P-660 (SRU 867) on a daily basis. The facility must 
demonstrate compliance with the SO2 emission limitations 
through use of Continuous Emission Monitors (CEM) in accordance with 25 
PA Code Chapter 139 procedure. For all other combustion units excluding 
flares, the facility must monitor the fuel type and fuels usage for 
each combustion unit, boiler, process heater, etc., on a daily basis. 
The facility shall demonstrate compliance with the SO2 
emission limitations by monitoring the sulfur content of the fuel 
burned. For sources P-117 (the Flare for Unit 1231), P-118 (the Flare 
for Unit 1232), P-642 (North Flare), and P-643 (South Flare), the 
facility must monitor the fuel type and fuels usage and sulfur content 
of the fuel burned for each flare pilot on a daily basis. The facility 
must also monitor that the feed to the flares does not exceed the worst 
case scenario used in the modeling demonstration. The facility shall 
determine SO2 emissions using the same analysis and 
calculations used in the modeling demonstration.
    Reporting requirements require the facility to submit to AMS, the 
CEM report for SO2 in accordance with 25 PA Code Chapter 139 
procedure, quarterly. The report must contain, at a minimum, the date, 
time, duration, and magnitude of excess emissions; the reason for any 
excessive emissions; corrective action taken; for each day, the number 
of valid monitoring hours, the causes for any invalid monitoring hours 
contained in daily average and corrective actions taken; and the 
results of all quality control and quality assurance actions taken. The 
permit also requires the facility to submit to AMS, quarterly reports 
of the performance of the facility using the City of Philadelphia 
Monitoring Report Form. These reports shall consist of a description of 
any deviations from permit requirements that occurred during the three-
month reporting period; the probable cause of such deviations, and 
corrective actions or preventive measures taken; a description of any 
malfunction of processes, air pollution control equipment, or 
monitoring equipment that occurred during the three month reporting 
period; the date and duration of the incidents; the probable cause of 
the incidents, and actions taken to remediate such incidents; a 
description of any sources which have not operated in more than one 
year; and annual compliance certification.
    2. Two dispersion modeling analyses are included with the SIP 
submittal, each of which uses the Industrial Source Complex--Short Term 
(ISCST) model specified as preferred in appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 
(Guideline on Air Quality Models). One analysis is for the PEC. The 
second analysis is for the combined cycle energy project at the Sunoco 
Refinery.
    The final dispersion modeling, based upon current SIP allowable 
SO2 emission limits and the SO2 emission limits 
of sources amended through Operating Permits, demonstrate that the 
maximum SO2 impacts \1\ do not violate the SO2 
NAAQS. The modeled impacts, including background concentrations are as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SO2 3-hour and 24-hour NAAQS are determined 
by the highest second-highest concentration in a year. One 
exceedance per year does not constitute a violation.

[[Page 57158]]



                                Predicted High Second-High Sulfur Dioxide Impacts
                                          [micrograms per cubic meter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Period                             ISCST3   Background    Total    NAAQS   % of NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-hour....................................................   734.84        20.11    754.95    1300        58.07
24-hour...................................................   332.58        31.58    364.36     365        99.82
Annual....................................................    51.91        27.86     79.77      80        99.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Evaluation

    Section 110 of the CAA identifies what each SIP should contain. 
Each SIP must have the following elements: (1) A description of the air 
quality, (2) a comprehensive emissions inventory, (3) emission 
limitations and compliance schedules necessary for NAAQS attainment, 
(4) a permit program for new sources, (5) monitoring and reporting 
requirements, and (6) enforcement procedures. These required SIP 
elements are discussed here and in greater detail in the Technical 
Support Document (TSD) prepared for this rulemaking.
    The modeling demonstration shows that the maximum annual average 
and the highest second-high 24-hour concentrations approach but do not 
exceed the NAAQS. All of these concentrations include an estimate of 
background SO2. The modeling demonstration with the SIP 
contained two detailed emissions inventories. One inventory listed the 
nearby sources modeled for the PEC attainment demonstration. The second 
inventory listed the nearby sources modeled for the Sun attainment 
demonstration.
    The Operating Permits for the four sources all contain emission 
limitations. The emission limitations became effective as of the date 
of the signing of the Operating Permit.
    The Sun Oil analysis includes a dispersion modeling protocol and 
analysis for a combined cycle energy project at the Sunoco refinery. 
The existing AMS Regulation XIII under the authority of 25 PA Code 
Chapter 127, adequately provides for review and permitting of new 
sources. AMS Regulation XIII continues to apply throughout the city and 
County of Philadelphia.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving these SIP revisions because they satisfy all the 
requirements of Section 110 of the CAA and contain an acceptable 
demonstration that the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide are attained and will 
continue to be maintained in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. EPA is 
publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views 
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment 
given the fact that the affected sources have all agreed to the SIP 
revision's provisions. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of 
today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that 
will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions if adverse 
comments are filed. This rule will be effective on November 8, 2002, 
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 
9, 2002. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if 
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of 
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of 
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are 
not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Administrative Requirements

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). 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.).

[[Page 57159]]

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 four named sources.

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 November 8, 2002. 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 approving revisions to the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania SIP for SO2 for Philadelphia County, may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 16, 2002.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
    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 NN--Pennsylvania

    2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(193) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (193) Revisions to the Pennsylvania regulations to attain and 
maintain the sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) in Philadelphia County, submitted on March 23, 2001, by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of March 23, 2001 from the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection transmitting a revision to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Attainment and Maintenance of Sulfur 
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Philadelphia County.
    (B) The following companies' Operating Permits:
    (1) Trigen-Philadelphia Energy Corporation, Schuylkill Station, OP-
SO2-95-002, effective July 27, 2000.
    (2) Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership, OP-SO2-95-002A, effective 
July 27, 2000.
    (3) PECO Energy Company, Schuylkill Generating Station, OP SO2-95-
006, effective July 27, 2000.
    (4) Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) Philadelphia Refinery, OP-SO2-95-039, 
effective July 27, 2000.
    (ii) Additional Material.--Remainder of the State submittal 
pertaining to the revision listed in paragraph (c)(193)(i) of this 
section.

[FR Doc. 02-22727 Filed 9-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P