[Federal Register: January 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 12)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2454-2459]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ja03-10]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 lohman.denny@epa.gov,
or wentworth.ellen@epa.gov. 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