[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2454-2459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-731]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA037/072/184-4190a; FRL-7421-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Demonstration for the Warren 
County Nonattainment Area and Permit Emission Limitations for Two 
Individual Sources in Warren County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 
(PADEP). This revision contains enforceable operating permit emission 
limitations for the Reliant Warren Generating Station and the United 
Refining Company, and an air quality modeling demonstration that 
indicates that the allowable emission limits will provide for the 
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the Conewango Township, Pleasant 
Township, Glade Township, and the City of Warren nonattainment area. 
The modeling demonstration assumes new SO2 limits for the 
Reliant Warren Generating Station and the United Refining Company. This 
SIP revision replaces all previously submitted SIP revisions for the 
SO2 nonattainment areas in Warren County, Pennsylvania. The 
implementation plan was submitted by Pennsylvania to satisfy the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) pertaining to nonattainment 
areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 18, 2003 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by February 18, 2003. 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 Walter Wilkie, Deputy 
Branch 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, Washington, DC 20460, and the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 
Quality, PO Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
17105.

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 telephone and e-mail, formal comments must be submitted in 
writing, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Conewango Township

    On March 3, 1978, (43 FR 8962) EPA designated Conewango Township, 
Warren County, Pennsylvania, as nonattainment for SO2 as 
part of EPA Region III's initial SO2 designations. EPA acted 
on the recommendation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to designate 
this area as nonattainment for SO2. Upon designation, part D 
of the CAA was triggered for Conewango Township. Part D required 
Pennsylvania to submit to EPA for approval, a plan revision for 
achieving the SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The 
basis of the recommendation was air quality dispersion modeling 
conducted in 1976. This modeling analysis was later found suspect 
because EPA determined that the study did not meet modeling guidelines 
and that meteorological data may have been suspect. On December 27, 
1982, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) 
submitted a request to have Conewango Township reclassifed to 
``unclassifiable'', but EPA rejected the request because the statutory 
attainment date (December 31, 1982) had passed by the time EPA received 
the request. A March 17, 1983, request to have the area redesignated to 
``attainment'' was rejected by EPA because the request did not contain 
adequate modeling in support of the request.
    After Penelec reported monitored exceedances of the SO2 
NAAQS, the EPA on February 24, 1984, notified PADER that it must submit 
a SIP revision for the area to address the NAAQS nonattainment. In 
accordance with EPA's request, PADER and Penelec entered into a Consent 
Order and Agreement (COA) on December 5, 1984. The COA required Penelec 
to conduct a new air quality and meteorological monitoring study to 
select a dispersion model to be used to set an allowable emission rate 
for the Warren plant. This COA was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision 
on December 28, 1984. EPA proposed approval of this revision on May 9, 
1985 (50 FR 19548). Modeling activities and the air quality analyses 
conducted under the COA indicated that the data from the United 
Refining Company, located in adjacent Glade Township were necessary to 
complete the model evaluation study. United began to supply 
SO2 emission data necessary to complete the model study. 
Because of the unforeseen contributions of the United Refining Company, 
this SIP revision, as proposed, was no longer adequate. In June 1992, 
EPA notified the Commonwealth that it had failed to

[[Page 2455]]

submit the required SIP revision for Conewango Township, Warren County, 
and that it had 18 months in which to submit a SIP revision or face one 
of the sanctions detailed under section 179(b). On December 9, 1993, 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted a revision to its SIP for 
the Conewango Township SO2 nonattainment area. This SIP 
revision consisted of a COA entered into by and between the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Penelec dated April 1, 1993. The COA 
established interim and final emission limits for the Warren Generating 
Station in Conewango Township which would protect the NAAQS for 
SO2. On February 15, 1995, EPA published a final rule 
approving the SIP revision (60 FR 8566).
    EPA received adverse comments on this rulemaking and subsequently 
published a notice in the Federal Register on April 13, 1995 formally 
withdrawing the final rulemaking (60 FR 18750). On September 26, 1995, 
Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to amend the revision submitted 
on December 9, 1993, pertaining to SO2 nonattainment in 
Conewango Township. This SIP revision also addressed the SO2 
nonattainment issues related to Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and 
the City of Warren, Warren County, Pennsylvania. The EPA reviewed this 
SIP revision and requested additional modeling. Because of the 
interaction between the Conewango Township nonattainment area, and the 
Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren nonattainment 
area, PADEP has prepared a combined SIP revision addressing both areas.

B. Glade Township, Pleasant Township, City of Warren

    On December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67334), EPA designated the Glade and 
Pleasant Townships, and the City of Warren, Pennsylvania as 
nonattainment for SO2. The redesignation of these areas as 
nonattainment for SO2 was based upon conservative modeling 
that showed modeled exceedances of the short-term SO2 
standards at the United Refining Company in Glade Township. This area 
is adjacent to the Conewango Township nonattainment area. PADEP granted 
permission to United Refining Company to model the area, which included 
certain high terrain ``hotspots'' in the immediate vicinity of the 
facility. The modeling was performed using the EPA Guideline model 
CTSCREEN and was completed in April 1993. The modeling showed that the 
high terrain ``hotspots'' were in attainment of the NAAQS for 
SO2.
    On September 26, 1995, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision to 
amend the revision submitted on December 9, 1993 pertaining to 
SO2 nonattainment in Conewango Township. This SIP revision 
also addressed the SO2 nonattainment issues related to Glade 
Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren, Warren County, 
Pennsylvania. EPA reviewed this SIP revision and requested additional 
modeling. Because of the interaction between the Conewango Township 
nonattainment area, and the Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the 
City of Warren nonattainment area, PADEP has prepared a combined SIP 
revision addressing both areas.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On December 26, 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted a 
formal comprehensive SIP revision for the SO2 nonattainment 
area of Conewango Township, Pleasant Township, Glade Township, and the 
City of Warren, in Warren County, Pennsylvania, replacing all 
previously submitted SIP revisions for the SO2 nonattainment 
areas in Warren County. This SIP revision contains enforceable 
operating permit emission limitations for the Reliant Warren Generating 
Station and the United Refining Company, and an air quality modeling 
demonstration indicating attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 for 
Conewango Township, Pleasant Township, Glade Township, and the City of 
Warren, Warren County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 
essential compliance provisions of these permits are presented below.
1. Reliant Energy Mid Atlantic Power Holdings, Warren Generating 
Station Title V Operating Permit 62-00012
    Reliant Energy Mid Atlantic Power Holdings LLC (Reliant), formerly 
GPU Generation Corporation, and formerly Penelec, owns and operates the 
Warren Generating Station in Warren County, Pennsylvania. The Station 
has been in operation since 1948 and consists of four boilers feeding 
two turbine generators, one gas/oil-fired combustion turbine unit, and 
one oil-fired emergency diesel. Sulfur dioxide emissions are controlled 
by fuel specification. Reliant Energy's permit for this SIP revision 
consists of relevant portions of a Title V operating permit pertaining 
to SO2 only. The SO2 limitations specified for 
Boilers No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are: 4.000 lbs per million Btu over a 3-hour 
period; 3.530 lbs per million Btu over a 24-hour period, and 3.530 lbs 
per million Btu annual average. Compliance with these limits is 
determined by using a continuous emission monitor (CEM) required to be 
installed and operated in the single stack serving all four boilers. 
The SO2 limitations for the combustion turbine and emergency 
diesel generator are 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The 
effective date of the permit is November 21, 2001.
    Monitoring requirements stated in the permit require the permittee 
to install, operate, and maintain a continuous SO2 
monitoring system to monitor SO2 emissions from the four 
boilers where all four boilers exhaust into a common stack containing a 
single CEMS in compliance with 25 PA Code Chapter 139 subchapter C 
(relating to requirements of continuous in-stack monitoring for 
stationary sources). Results of emission monitoring shall be submitted 
to the Department on a regular basis in compliance with 25 PA Code 
Chapter 139, subchapter C. The Department may use the data from the 
SO2 monitoring devices to enforce the emission limitations 
for SO2 defined in this permit. The Department may use data 
from the SO2 monitoring systems to determine compliance with 
the applicable emission limitations for SO2 established in 
this permit. Reporting requirements require the permittee to submit to 
the Department the sulfur content (% by weight) of the fuel oil and CEM 
data reports on a quarterly basis.
2. United Refining Company, SO2 Permit l 62-017E
    United Refining Company owns and operates an oil refinery which 
processes fuels and asphalt from crude oil. This facility is located in 
the City of Warren, Warren County, that adjoins Conewango Township. 
Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren, PA were 
designated as nonattainment for SO2 by EPA on December 21, 
1993 (58 FR 67334). The United Refining Company operating permit is a 
Plan Approval permit and contains the SO2 emission 
limitations specified in the following table:

[[Page 2456]]



           Emission Rates for United Refining Company Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Emissions    Emissions
                    Source                       in pounds   in tons per
                                                  per hour       year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler house (boiler 1, 2, and 3)....       195.10       854.50
No. 4 Boiler..................................        24.30       106.40
FCC Charge Heater.............................         1.10         0.40
DHT1 Heater...................................         0.10         0.40
Prefractionator Reboiler......................        18.00        78.80
Old Reformer Heater (East Reformer Heater)....        91.30       399.90
Crude Heater (Wheco)..........................       207.70       909.70
Vacuum Heater.................................         0.80         3.50
Pretreater Heater.............................        28.00       122.60
New Reformer Heater (West Reformer Heater)....         2.20         9.60
Sat Gas Reboiler..............................         0.40         1.80
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCC                   285.00      1248.30
 Regenerator).................................
Combo Flare...................................         0.40         1.80
FCC Flare.....................................         0.10         0.40
No. 5 Boiler..................................         1.20         5.30
Sat Gas KVG Compressor Engine.................         0.10         0.40
T-241 Heater (Volcanic Heater)................         0.30         1.30
Distillate Hydrotreater Heater (DHT2).........        33.40       146.30
Sulfur Recovery Unit 2 (SRU2) Incinerator.....        12.00        52.60
SRU2 Hot Oil Heater...........................         0.10         0.40
Old FCC Unit (Only to be used when new FCC
 Charge Heater is not in use).................
West FCC KVG Compressor Engine (Standby basis
 only)........................................
Middle FCC KVG Compressor Engine..............         0.14         0.60
East FCC KVG Compressor.......................         0.14         0.60
VCU Unit......................................         0.81         0.76
                                               --------------
        Total Allowable.......................       902.69      3946.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monitoring and reporting requirements require the sources listed in 
the table above (except the SRU2 incinerator, and the FCC Regenerator) 
to monitor the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentration in the 
refinery fuel for the source. The H2S monitors for these 
sources shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated by the 
owner or operator of the facility in compliance with the requirements 
of the Department Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) Manual.
    The SRU2 Incinerator and the FCC Regenerator shall monitor 
SO2 emissions from the Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU2) and the 
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit respectively. The SO2 
emissions from the SRU2 shall not exceed 0.025% by volume of sulfur 
dioxide at 0% oxygen on a dry basis. A CEM system shall be installed 
and concentrations of SO2 in the gases discharged into the 
atmosphere from the tail gas treating unit shall be recorded. The span 
of the CEM shall be set at 500 ppm. The SO2 monitors for 
these sources shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated 
by the owner or operator of the facility in compliance with the 
requirements of the Department CEM Manual.
    This permit applies to the emissions of SO2 only. 
Emissions of other pollutants, including criteria pollutants, shall be 
governed by the existing Plan Approvals, Operating Permits, and 
applicable requirements and other rules and regulations of the 
Department. This permit does not require testing and monitoring beyond 
what is already required under the facility's Plan Approvals, Operating 
Permits, and the rules and regulations of the Department.
3. Dispersion Modeling
    A dispersion modeling analysis was performed to demonstrate 
compliance with the SO2 NAAQS. A summary of the analysis is 
available in the technical support document (TSD) for this rulemaking. 
The final dispersion modeling, based upon the SO2 emission 
limits of sources amended through operating permits in addition to a 
representative background, demonstrates that the maximum SO2 
impacts do not violate the SO2 NAAQS. The modeled impacts, 
including background concentrations, are as follows:

                                        Predicted Sulfur Dioxide Impacts
                                          [Micrograms per cubic meter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Percent of
                            Period                                  LAPPES           NAAQS            NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Hour.......................................................            1241.             1300            95.46
24-Hour......................................................            364.7              365            99.92
Annual.......................................................             75.6               80            94.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Air Quality
    The modeling demonstration shows that the extreme (highest second-
high 3-hour and 24-hour) concentrations approach but do not exceed the 
NAAQS. The maximum modeled annual concentration is about 95 percent of 
the NAAQS. All of these concentrations include an estimate of 
background SO2. The monitored values

[[Page 2457]]

are summarized in the TSD for this rulemaking.

III. Evaluation of State Submittal

    The CAA requires states to submit implementation plans that 
indicate how each state intends to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The 
1977 Amendments established specific requirements for implementation 
plans in nonattainment areas in part D, section 171-178. With respect 
to SO2, the 1990 Amendments did not change these 
requirements in any significant way and existing guidance remains 
valid. On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), EPA issued ``General Preamble 
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990,'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how it intends to 
interpret various provisions of Title I, primarily those concerning 
revisions required for nonattainment areas.
    In order to approve the SIP revision, all of the part D 
requirements must be evaluated and they must ensure that: (1) The 
revised allowable emission limitation demonstrates attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS for SO2 in the nonattainment area; 
(2) the emission limitation is clearly enforceable; and (3) that all 
applicable procedural and substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 51 
are met. The following is an evaluation of the part D requirements as 
described in the ``General Preamble.''
1. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACT)
    Pennsylvania's SIP revision provides for reasonably available 
control technology (RACT). The SIP revision complies with the 
requirements to implement RACT by providing for immediate attainment of 
the SO2 NAAQS through the emission limits and operating 
restrictions imposed on the culpable sources by their permits.
2. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    Reasonable further progress is achieved due to the immediate effect 
of the emission limits required by the plan.
3. Inventory
    The modeling demonstration submitted with the SIP revision 
contained a detailed emissions inventory of the allowable emissions for 
all of the sources of SO2 in the receptor grid. That 
inventory of the SO2 emissions in the Conewango Township, 
Pleasant Township, Glade Township, and the City of Warren, Warren 
County, Pennsylvania nonattainment area was found to be acceptable.
4. Identification and Quantification
    There are no new sources identified as being constructed in this 
area.
5. Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources
    Any new or modified sources constructed in the area must comply 
with a state submitted and federally approved New Source Review 
program. There are no new sources involved with this submittal. The 
existing Pennsylvania regulation 25 PA Code Chapter 127, `` 
Construction, Modification, Reactivation and Operation of Sources,'' 
adequately provides for review and permitting of new sources. This 
regulation applies statewide.
6. Other Measures
    The plan provides for immediate attainment of the SO2 
NAAQS through the emission limitations, operating requirements, and 
compliance schedules that are set forth within the permits.
7. Compliance with section 110(a)(2)
    This submission complies with section 110(a)(2). All of the 
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) are already required by the 
statutory provisions discussed in this plan, or have already been met 
by Pennsylvania's original May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842) SIP submission to 
EPA.
8. Equivalent Techniques
    A dispersion modeling analysis was performed to demonstrate 
compliance with the sulfur dioxide NAAQS. The models used in the 
compliance analysis included the LAPPES model, the RTDM, and the 
Multiple Point with Terrain (MPTER) model. Regulatory approval to use 
the LAPPES model for the Warren Generating Station was obtained as the 
result of a model performance comparison study which showed that LAPPES 
is superior to RTDM for determining air quality impacts from the Warren 
Generating Station in terrain above stack top. At the time of the model 
performance study, RTDM was specified by EPA's Guideline on Air Quality 
Models (GAQM) as the preferred model for complex terrain. The MPTER 
model was, at the time, the screening model preferred by GAQM for 
simple terrain.
    The final dispersion modeling consisted of a combination of 
modeling results with the model selected according to the source and 
the relative terrain. For the Warren Station, the LAPPES model was used 
for receptors in all terrain above stack top. The MPTER model was used 
for all receptors in terrain below stack top (simple terrain). For the 
sources at United Refining, the RTDM model was used for all receptors 
above the calculated plume height. The MPTER model was used for all 
simple terrain. For receptors above stack top but below plume height 
estimates were made with both RTDM and MPTER and the higher result, on 
a receptor-by-receptor basis, was selected as the estimate for that 
receptor.
9. Contingency Measures
    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines contingency measures as 
measures in a SIP which are to be implemented if an area fails to make 
RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and 
shall consist of other control measures that are not included in the 
control strategy. However, the General Preamble for the Implementation 
of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, (57 FR 13498), states that 
SO2 measures present special considerations because they are 
based upon what is necessary to attain the NAAQS. Because 
SO2 control measures are well established and understood, 
they are far less prone to uncertainty. It would be unlikely for an 
area to implement the necessary emissions control yet fail to attain 
the SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, for SO2 programs, 
contingency measures mean that the state agency has the ability to 
identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to 
undertake an aggressive followup for compliance and enforcement. This 
SIP revision requires the collection of continuous emission monitoring 
(CEM) data at the Reliant Energy and United Refining facilities. 
Therefore, PADEP has the necessary enforcement and compliance programs, 
as well as the means to identify violators, thus satisfying the 
contingency measures requirement.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Pennsylvania SIP revision for the Conewango 
Township, Pleasant Township, Glade Township, and the City of Warren, 
Warren County, Pennsylvania nonattainment area submitted on December 
26, 2001. This revision contains enforceable operating permit emission 
limitations for the Reliant Warren Generating Station and the United 
Refining Company, and is supported by a modeling analysis which 
demonstrates the adequacy of emission limits in providing for the 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for SO2 in and 
around this nonattainment area. This SIP revision satisfies the 
procedural and substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and

[[Page 2458]]

replaces all previously submitted SIP revisions for the SO2 
nonattainment areas in Warren County.
    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 
revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on 
March 18, 2003 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse 
comment by February 18, 2003. 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 (Pub. L. 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.).

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. 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. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 March 18, 2003. 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 a revision to the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania SIP for SO2 for nonattainment areas in Warren 
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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 4, 2002.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting 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 paragraph (c)(190) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (190) Revision to the Pennsylvania Regulations to attain and 
maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur 
dioxide in Warren County, Pennsylvania, submitted on December 26, 2001, 
by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of December 26, 2001 from the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection transmitting a revision to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and maintenance of sulfur 
dioxide NAAQS for Warren County.

[[Page 2459]]

    (B) Letter of August 20, 2002, transmitting a revised Reliant 
Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings LLC Warren Generating Station Title 
V permit.
    (C) The following Companies' Plan Approval and Operating Permits:
    (1) Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings LLC (Reliant) Warren 
Generating Station, Title V Operating Permit TV 62-00012, effective 
November 21, 2001.
    (2) United Refining Company, PA 62-017E, effective June 11, 2001, 
except for the expiration date.
    (ii) Additional Material.--Remainder of the State submittal 
pertaining to the revision listed in paragraph (c)(190)(i) of this 
section.

    3. Section 52.2033 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2033  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides.

* * * * *
    (b) EPA approves the attainment demonstration State Implementation 
Plan for the Conewango Township, Pleasant Township, Glade Township, and 
City of Warren area submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection on December 26, 2001.

[FR Doc. 03-731 Filed 1-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P