Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65301 

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. No 

comment were received from the 

published NPRM in regards to this 

section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. No 

comment were received from the 

published NPRM in regards to this 

section. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This rule 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This action is categorically 

excluded from further review, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (32) (e), of the 

Instruction. A Record of Environmental 

Consideration and a Memorandum for 

the Record are not required for this rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.1059 add paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.1059 Snohomish River, Steamboat 

Slough, and Ebey Slough. 

* * * * * 

(g) The draw of the Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge 

across Ebey Slough, mile 1.5, near 

Marysville, WA, shall open on signal if 

at least four hours notice is given. The 

opening signal is one prolonged blast 

followed by one short blast. During 

freshets, a draw tender shall be in 

constant attendance, and the draw shall 

open on signal when so ordered by the 

District Commander. 

David G. Throop, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27525 Filed 12–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0277; FRL–9988–14– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Removal of Department 

of Environmental Protection Gasoline 

Volatility Requirements for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

approving a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a SIP revision on May 2, 2018 

seeking the removal from the 

Pennsylvania SIP of the requirement 

limiting summertime gasoline volatility 

to 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) to address 

nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) in the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley ozone nonattainment area 

(hereafter Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Area). The submitted SIP revision 

includes a demonstration, pursuant to 

Clean Air Act (CAA), that amendment of 

the approved SIP will not interfere with 

the area’s ability to attain or maintain 

any NAAQS. EPA is approving this 

revision to remove the PADEP 

requirement for use of 7.8 psi RVP 

gasoline in summer months from the 

Pennsylvania SIP, in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 22, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0277. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Rehn, (215) 814–2176, or by email 

at rehn.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 15, 2018 (83 FR 27901 and 

82 FR 27937), EPA simultaneously 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) and a direct final 

rule (DFR) for the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania approving its revision to 

remove the PADEP’s 7.8 psi 

summertime RVP requirement from the 

Pennsylvania SIP. In the NPRM, EPA 

proposed to approve Pennsylvania’s 

request to remove the 7.8 psi RVP 

summertime gasoline requirement from 

the Pennsylvania SIP. However, EPA 

received adverse comments on the 

rulemaking and withdrew the DFR on 

August 6, 2018 (83 FR 38261) prior to 

its effective date of August 14, 2018. In 

this final rulemaking, EPA is responding 

to the comments submitted on the 

proposed revision to the Pennsylvania 

SIP and is approving Pennsylvania’s 

demonstration that removal of the 

program does not interfere with the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area’s ability 

to attain or maintain any NAAQS under 

section 110(l) of the CAA. The formal 

SIP revision requesting this removal of 

the PADEP summertime low RVP 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
65302 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Allegheny County Health Department 

(ACHD) later adopted a similar summertime 

gasoline low RVP rule (Allegheny County Order No. 

16782, Article XXI, sections 2102.40, 2105.90, and 

2107.15; effective May 15, 1998, amended August 

12, 1999). On March 23, 2000, PADEP formally 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA (on behalf of 

ACHD) to incorporate ACHD’s own gasoline RVP 

summertime requirements into the Pennsylvania 

SIP. EPA approved that SIP revision establishing an 

independent ACHD gasoline RVP limit on April 17, 

2001 (66 FR 19724), effective June 18, 2001. This 

action does not address ACHD requirements that 

are in the SIP. 

2Upon the effective date of EPA approval of this 

SIP revision, the 1.0 psi waiver for 10% ethanol 

blends will be allowed in the Pittsburgh area (with 

the exception of Allegheny County, which currently 

has a separate RVP summertime limit). If in the 

future EPA should approve a SIP revision removing 

the ACHD’s RVP rule from the approved SIP, the 

1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends would no longer 

apply there as well. 

3CAA section 193, with respect to removal of 

requirements in place prior to enactment of the 

1990 CAA Amendments, is not relevant because 

Pennsylvania’s RVP control requirements in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area were not included in 

the SIP prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA 

amendments. 

program for the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area was submitted by 

Pennsylvania on May 2, 2018. 

II. Summary of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

Revision 

A. Pennsylvania’s Gasoline Volatility 

Requirements for the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area 

On November 6, 1991, EPA 

designated and classified the PittsburghBeaver Valley Area as moderate 

nonattainment for the 1979 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. As part of 

Pennsylvania’s efforts to bring the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area into 

attainment of the ozone standard, the 

Commonwealth adopted and 

implemented a range of ozone precursor 

emissions control measures for the 

area—including adoption of a state rule 

to limit summertime gasoline volatility 

to 7.8 psi RVP. Pennsylvania’s RVP 

control rule applied to the entire 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area— 

Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, 

Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland 

Counties. PADEP promulgated this rule 

in the November 1, 1997 Pennsylvania 

Bulletin (27 Pa.B. 5601, effective 

November 1, 1997), which is codified in 

Subchapter C of Chapter 126 of the 

Pennsylvania Code of Regulations (25 

Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter C). 

On April 17, 1998, Pennsylvania 

submitted its state-adopted rule to EPA 

as a formal revision to its SIP and EPA 

subsequently approved Pennsylvania’s 

low RVP SIP requirements in a June 8, 

1998 Federal Register (63 FR 31116) 

and codified in the Code of Federal 

Regulations at 40 CFR 52.2020(c)(1).1

B. Pennsylvania’s Revision of Its Low 

RVP Gasoline Requirements 

In the 2013–14 session, the 

Pennsylvania General Assembly passed 

and Governor Corbett signed into law 

Act 50 (Pub. L. 674, No. 50 of May 14, 

2014). Act 50 amended the 

Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act, 

directing PADEP to initiate a process to 

obtain approval from EPA of a SIP 

revision that demonstrates continued 

compliance with the NAAQS, through 

utilization of substitute, commensurate 

emissions reductions to balance repeal 

of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 

RVP limit. Upon approval of that 

demonstration, Act 50 directs PADEP to 

repeal the summertime gasoline RVP 

limit provisions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

126, Subchapter C. 

On May 2, 2018, PADEP submitted a 

SIP revision requesting that EPA remove 

from the Pennsylvania SIP Chapter 126, 

Subchapter C of the Pennsylvania Code 

(specifically requesting removal of 25 

Pa. Code sections 126.301, 126.302, and 

126.303), based upon a demonstration 

that the repeal of the RVP requirements 

rule (coupled with other ozone 

precursor emission reduction measures) 

would not interfere with the PittsburghBeaver Valley Area’s attainment of any 

NAAQS, per the requirements for 

noninterference set forth in section 

110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) 

prohibits EPA from approving a SIP 

revision if the revision ‘‘would interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress . . . or any other 

applicable requirement of [the Act.]’’ 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision contains a 

noninterference demonstration, 

pursuant to CAA section 110(l). This 

demonstration is comprised of an 

analysis that the emissions impact from 

repeal of the 7.8 psi gasoline volatility 

requirement in Pittsburgh (to be 

replaced by the Federal 9.0 psi 

summertime gasoline requirement) 2

have been offset by means of 

substitution of commensurate emissions 

reductions from other measures enacted 

by Pennsylvania that were not 

previously credited in any SIP towards 

attainment or maintenance of any 

NAAQS. Pennsylvania’s May 2, 2018 

SIP revision references EPA’s updated 

photochemical grid modeling results for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which forecasts 

that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 

will continue to attain the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and maintain attainment of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS by 2023. 

Additionally, the Commonwealth’s SIP 

contains emission inventory projections 

prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Air Management Administration 

(MARAMA) showing declining 

emissions of ozone and particulate 

matter (PM) precursor emissions in 2018 

and 2023. 

The May 2, 2018 SIP revision 

references the Commonwealth’s 

regulatory amendment to Chapter 126, 

Subchapter C, as published in the April 

7, 2018 Pennsylvania Bulletin (48 Pa. B. 

1932, effective upon publication), which 

serves to repeal the PADEP requirement 

for 7.8 psi RVP summer gasoline by 

amending 25 Pa. Code Section 126.301 

(relating to gasoline volatility 

requirements) to remove the RVP 

requirement for the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area RVP upon the effective date 

of EPA’s approval of Pennsylvania’s 

May 2, 2018 SIP revision. As a result, 

both state and Federal repeal of the 

requirements for summertime RVP in 

the area will coincide with the effective 

date of EPA’s final action to approve the 

Commonwealth’s related SIP submittals. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s 

SIP Revision 

A. Pennsylvania’s Estimate of the 

Impacts of Removing the 7.8 psi RVP 

Requirement 

As the Commonwealth’s adoption of a 

7.8 psi summertime limit for gasoline 

RVP in Pittsburgh is not a mandatory 

requirement of the CAA, EPA’s primary 

consideration for determining the 

approvability of Pennsylvania’s request 

to rescind the requirements for a 

gasoline volatility control program is 

whether this requested action complies 

with section 110 of the CAA, 

specifically section 110(l), governing 

removal of an EPA–SIP requirement.3

Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that 

a revision to the SIP not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in section 171), or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. EPA evaluates each section 110(l) 

noninterference demonstration on a 

case-by-case basis considering the 

circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA 

interprets CAA section 110(l) as 

applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, 

including those that have been 

promulgated, but for which EPA has not 

yet made designations. In evaluating 

whether a given SIP revision would 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance, as required by CAA 

section 110(l), the EPA generally 

considers whether the SIP revision will 

allow for an increase in actual emissions 

into the air over what is allowed under 

the existing EPA-approved SIP. States 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65303 

do not necessarily need to produce a 

new complete attainment demonstration 

for each revision to the SIP, provided 

that the status quo air quality is 

preserved. In the absence of an 

attainment demonstration or 

maintenance plan that demonstrates 

removal of an emissions control 

measure will not interfere with any 

applicable NAAQS or requirement of 

the CAA under section 110(l), states 

may substitute equivalent emissions 

reductions to compensate for any 

change to a SIP-approved program. 

‘‘Equivalent’’ emission reductions mean 

reductions which are equal to or greater 

than those reductions achieved by the 

control measure approved in the SIP. To 

show that compensating emission 

reductions are equivalent, modeling or 

other adequate justification must be 

provided. The compensating, equivalent 

reductions should represent real 

emissions reductions achieved in a 

contemporaneous time frame to the 

change of the existing SIP control 

measure, in order to preserve the status 

quo level of emissions in the air. In 

addition to being contemporaneous, the 

equivalent emissions reductions should 

also be permanent, enforceable, 

quantifiable, and surplus to be approved 

into the SIP. 

Pennsylvania’s May 2, 2018 SIP 

revision contains a section 110(l) 

demonstration that uses equivalent 

emission reductions to offset ‘‘losses’’ 

from emission reductions resulting from 

the removal of the SIP approved 7.8 psi 

RVP summertime gasoline requirement 

in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area of 

Pennsylvania. Specifically, PADEP 

demonstrates the emission reductions 

associated with the 7.8 psi RVP fuel 

requirement will be substituted with 

equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions from: (1) An adopted, 

implemented Pennsylvania regulation 

relating to the use and application of 

adhesives, sealants, primers, and 

solvents at 25 Pa. Code Section 129.77; 

and (2) permanent shutdown of a 

facility in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Area. These substitute emissions are 

quantifiable, permanent, surplus, 

enforceable, and contemporaneous (i.e. 

occurring at approximately the same 

period of this demonstration and/or the 

anticipated cessation of the low RVP 

fuel program). With removal of the state 

7.8 psi summertime RVP requirement, 

the Federal 9.0 psi RVP limit remains as 

the applicable requirement. 

To determine the emissions impact of 

removing the 7.8 psi RVP program 

requirements in the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area, PADEP considered first the 

pollutants that impact any NAAQS that 

are controlled through lowering of 

gasoline RVP: Volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and direct emissions of fine 

particulate matter smaller than 2.5 

microns in diameter (PM2.5). PADEP’s 

analysis focuses on VOC and NOX

emissions because low RVP 

requirements were adopted by the 

Commonwealth to address the ozone 

NAAQS and because VOCs and NOX

emissions are the primary precursors for 

ground-level ozone formation. NOX, 

VOC, and direct PM2.5 emissions also 

contribute to formation of PM2.5 and 

therefore PADEP also analyzed the 

effect on the PM2.5 NAAQS. PADEP 

limited its analysis of emissions 

increases from removal of the RVP 

requirements to affected portions of the 

total emissions inventory for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area such as 

the highway vehicle emissions sector, 

nonroad vehicle emissions sector, and 

gasoline storage and distribution 

emissions sources within the stationary 

point source sector. EPA finds the 

Commonwealth’s analysis of the 

affected universe of emissions sources 

reasonable, as the 7.8 psi RVP gasoline 

requirement impacts only emission 

sources that store, distribute, or combust 

gasoline. PADEP studied the impacts of 

low RVP program removal on the 

emissions inventory at several points in 

time representing a period prior to 

removal of the low RVP program (i.e., 

2014), the year of cessation of the 

PADEP 7.8 psi low RVP program (i.e., 

2018), and a point five years in the 

future after program cessation (i.e., 

2023). 

To generate these estimates, PADEP 

used the latest version of EPA’s Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES), 

version MOVES2014a, to characterize 

motor vehicle emissions. EPA notes that 

PADEP’s analysis showed that 

increasing gasoline RVP in the 

Pittsburgh area in and of itself no longer 

results in an increase in emissions of 

VOCs in the highway vehicle sector, as 

increases in VOCs from evaporative loss 

and permeation through porous 

materials are offset by improved exhaust 

emissions reductions from 

improvements in new motor vehicles 

(e.g., improved engine control, air/fuel 

management, timing management, etc.). 

Thus, as newer vehicles replace older 

ones in the fleet, the VOC benefits from 

low RVP gasoline for the highway 

vehicle sector of the area’s total 

emission inventory are reduced. PADEP 

modelled nonroad emissions using the 

MOVES model, version 2014a, which 

incorporates EPA’s NONROAD 2008 

model, coupled with the 2014 NEI 

version 1 emission inventory, to 

compile a base year scenario. PADEP 

assumed this portion of the inventory 

would see an increase of three percent 

of total VOC emissions from removal of 

the Commonwealth’s 7.8 psi RVP 

gasoline program. 

Changes in gasoline RVP produce 

emissions from not only vehicles and 

equipment that store and combust the 

fuel, but also from evaporation and 

permeation from movement, storage, 

and transportation of the fuel as part of 

the gasoline distribution system. These 

sources include gasoline refineries and 

terminals, pipelines, gasoline tanker 

trucks, storage tanks, service station 

tanks, and portable gas cans comprising 

a mix of large, point emissions sources 

and much smaller area emissions 

sources. Emissions from larger sources 

(e.g., refineries and bulk gasoline 

terminals) can be estimated through 

direct measurement or calculated from 

energy input, and are listed as discrete 

sources in the periodic point source 

emission inventory, while smaller, areas 

sources can be estimated via look-up 

emission factors (e.g., from EPA’s AP–42 

compendium of emission factors) and 

use of activity information (or surrogates 

for activity like population) or gasoline 

sales numbers. Table 1 summarizes 

combined highway mobile, nonroad, 

and point and area source emissions 

impacts from the removal of the 

Commonwealth’s 7.8 psi low RVP 

program, for the 2018 and 2023 

scenarios evaluated for this SIP revision. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COMBINED EMISSION IMPACTS FROM REMOVAL OF THE 7.8 psi PROGRAM IN THE PITTSBURGHBEAVER VALLEY AREA IN 2018 AND 2023 

[Reductions (¥) and increases (+), in tons per year (tpy) and tons per day (tpd)] 

VOC NOX PM2.5

tpy tpd tpy tpd tpy 

2018: 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
65304 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COMBINED EMISSION IMPACTS FROM REMOVAL OF THE 7.8 psi PROGRAM IN THE PITTSBURGHBEAVER VALLEY AREA IN 2018 AND 2023—Continued 

[Reductions (¥) and increases (+), in tons per year (tpy) and tons per day (tpd)] 

VOC NOX PM2.5

tpy tpd tpy tpd tpy 

Highway ........................................................................ ¥41.4 ¥0.18 +43.5 +0.3 ¥2.0 

Nonroad ........................................................................ +153 +1 0 0 0 

Point/Area ..................................................................... +7 ¥0.02 0 0 0 

Total Change in 2018 Emissions .......................... +119 +0.84 +43.5 +0.3 ¥2.0 

2023: 

Highway ........................................................................ ¥46.5 ¥0.24 +13.1 +0.09 ¥2.2 

Nonroad ........................................................................ +155 +1.01 0 0 0 

Point/Area ..................................................................... +7 +0.02 0 0 0 

Total Change in 2023 Emissions .......................... +116 +0.79 +13.1 +0.09 ¥2.2 

Based on our review of the 

information provided, EPA finds that 

PADEP used reasonable methods and 

the appropriate tools (e.g., emissions 

estimation models, emissions factors, 

and other methodologies) in estimating 

the effect on emissions from removing 

the 7.8 psi RVP summertime gasoline 

program for purposes demonstrating 

noninterference with any NAAQS under 

CAA 110(l). PADEP determined that in 

2018 the emissions increase resulting 

from removal of the 7.8 psi RVP 

requirement (and replacement with the 

Federal 9.0 RVP gasoline program) 

would be 0.84 summertime tpd of VOC 

and 0.3 summertime tpd of NOX in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. PADEP’s 

demonstration shows that direct 

emissions of PM2.5 decrease by 2.0 tpy 

from removal of the 7.8 psi RVP 

requirement (and replacement with the 

Federal 9.0 RVP gasoline program). By 

2023, the emissions impact of removal 

of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would 

slightly increase emissions from 2018, 

to 0.79 tpd of VOCs and 0.09 tpd of 

NOX, with direct PM2.5 emissions 

decreasing slightly more than 2018 

estimates. 

B. Pennsylvania’s Substitution of 

Alternative Emissions Reduction 

Measures for the 7.8 psi Low RVP 

Gasoline Program 

PADEP estimated lost and 

compensating emission reductions for 

the year of removal of the 

Commonwealth’s low RVP gasoline 

program (after considering the benefits 

from replacement with the Federal 9.0 

RVP gasoline program). PADEP also 

estimated emissions impacts in the year 

2023 to examine the future impacts of 

removal of the 7.8 psi state summertime 

RVP requirement. To compensate for the 

emissions impact of repeal of this 

requirement in the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area, PADEP analyzed the 

emission benefits associated with two 

substitute measures previously 

implemented but not ‘‘claimed’’ in any 

prior SIP attainment plan (under CAA 

section 172) for the Commonwealth. 

These measures are: (1) Overcontrol of 

VOC emissions from Pennsylvania’s 

adhesives rule (25 Pa. Code § 129.77); 

and (2) Unclaimed creditable emissions 

reductions associated with the 

permanent closure in 2015 of a glass 

manufacturing facility in Allegheny 

County, Guardian Industries Jefferson 

Hills facility. 

A detailed description of these 

offsetting measures and the calculations 

prepared by PADEP are provided in 

EPA’s DFR for this action, which was 

published in the June 15, 2018 Federal 

Register (83 FR 27901), which was 

subsequently withdrawn by EPA in the 

August 6, 2018 Federal Register (83 FR 

38261). However, EPA’s description of 

the Commonwealth’s submittal and its 

overview of the CAA 110(l) 

noninterference demonstration are 

unchanged here from that presented by 

EPA in the June 15, 2018 DFR, and as 

such will not be restated here. 

C. Comparison of Emissions Impacts 

From Removal of the Commonwealth’s 

7.8 psi RVP Gasoline Program and the 

Uncredited Emission Reductions From 

Substitute Measures 

Pennsylvania relies upon NOX, VOC, 

and PM2.5 emission reductions from its 

adoption of the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) model adhesives 

rule and from the shutdown of Guardian 

Industries Jefferson Hills glass 

manufacturing facility in Allegheny 

County to offset the emissions impact of 

removing the Commonwealth’s 

summertime gasoline volatility control 

rule and to support its argument that 

removal of 7.8 psi RVP requirement 

from the SIP will not interfere with 

attainment of any NAAQS. To be 

conservative in its approach, 

Pennsylvania elected to adjust upward 

by 25 percent its estimates for the 

emission impact of the removal of the 

7.8 psi RVP gasoline program to account 

for uncertainty in its calculation of the 

estimates for the emissions benefits 

from that program (see Table 2). Table 

2 summarizes the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area emissions increases from 

repeal of the low RVP gasoline program 

compared to the emissions benefits 

resulting from the alternative emission 

reduction measures. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PITTSBURGH-BEAVER VALLEY IMPACTS FROM REMOVAL OF THE 7.8 psi GASOLINE VOLATILITY

PROGRAM COMPARED TO EMISSIONS BENEFITS FROM ALTERNATIVE MEASURES

[In 2018 and 2023] 

VOC NOX PM2.5

tpy tpd tpy tpd tpy 

2018: 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65305 

4This increase (or decrease) in emissions is the 

net emission change when comparing the 

Commonwealth’s 7.8 psi requirement for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area to the Federal 9.0 psi 

RVP program requirement that will remain upon 

removal of the Commonwealth’s program. 

5This increase (or decrease) in emissions is the 

net emission change when comparing the 

Commonwealth’s 7.8 psi requirement for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area to the Federal 9.0 psi 

RVP program requirement that will remain upon 

removal of the Commonwealth’s program. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PITTSBURGH-BEAVER VALLEY IMPACTS FROM REMOVAL OF THE 7.8 psi GASOLINE VOLATILITY

PROGRAM COMPARED TO EMISSIONS BENEFITS FROM ALTERNATIVE MEASURES—Continued 

[In 2018 and 2023] 

VOC NOX PM2.5

tpy tpd tpy tpd tpy 

Change in Emissions from RVP Rule Repeal 4 ........... 119 0.84 43.5 0.3 ¥2.0 

Emission Adjustment to RVP Change Estimate (25% 

increase) .................................................................... 30 0.21 11 0.08 ¥2.0 

Total Emissions Requiring Offset .......................... 149 1.05 54.5 0.38 

Adhesives Rule Reductions for Offset ......................... 1,163 3.2 0 0 0 

Facility Shutdown Reductions for Offset ...................... 13.8 0.04 625 1.8 26.5 

Total Available Offset Emissions ........................... 1,177 3.24 625 1.8 28.5 

Remaining Reductions After Offsetting Removal of 

State RVP Program [i.e., Total Emissions Requiring 

Offset—Total Available Offsets] ................................ 1,028 2.19 570.5 1.0 28.5 

2023: 

Change in Emissions from RVP Rule Repeal 5 ........... 116 0.79 13.1 0.09 ¥2.0 

Emission Adjustment to RVP Change Estimate (25% 

increase) .................................................................... 29 0.20 3.3 0.02 

Total Emissions Requiring Offset .......................... 144 0.99 16.4 0.11 ¥2.0 

Adhesives & Sealants Rule Reductions ....................... 1,159 3.19 0 0 0 

Guardian Industries Facility Shutdown Reductions ...... 13.8 0.04 625 1.8 26.5 

Total Available Offset Emissions ........................... 1,173 3.23 625 1.8 28.5 

Surplus Reductions After Offset [Total Emissions Requiring Offset—Total Available Offsets] .................... 1,028 2.24 608.6 1.69 28.5 

As indicated in Table 2, Pennsylvania 

has more VOC, NOX, and PM2.5

emission reductions from its alternative 

emission reduction measures than are 

necessary to offset fully the loss in 

emissions reductions resulting from 

repeal of the Commonwealth’s low RVP 

gasoline program—in both 2018 (the 

year of repeal of the low RVP gasoline 

program) and in the 2023 future case. 

Reductions from the Guardian 

Industries facility shutdown in 

Allegheny County far exceed what is 

needed to offset NOX from the removal 

of the low RVP requirement in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. The 

Guardian facility owner did not request 

that potential creditable emissions 

reductions be preserved in the emission 

inventory, as required by 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 127, Subchapter E (relating to 

new source review (NSR)) within one 

year of closure, thus forfeiting the 

ability to apply for transferable emission 

reduction credits (ERC) under 

Pennsylvania’s NSR rules. However, 

PADEP reserved the right to potentially 

request consideration of these remaining 

reductions as part of a future SIP 

demonstration relating to NAAQS 

planning requirements. However, such 

future usage would be the subject of a 

future SIP revision developed by PADEP 

at a later time. Any remaining 

reductions from the offsetting measures 

listed here in support of the May 2, 2018 

SIP revision are not being included in 

any inventory or memorialized for 

future use as part of this action. EPA 

believes they cannot be used by a new 

or modified facility as offsets for 

compliance to meet the NSR program in 

this nonattainment area. The reductions 

from the offsetting shutdown and 

adhesives and solvent rule have not 

been previously claimed for emissions 

reduction credit for any prior SIPapproved plan. These offsetting 

measures will help ensure that removal 

of the low RVP gasoline program will 

not interfere with any NAAQS for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. 

EPA believes that the removal of the 

7.8 psi low RVP fuel program 

requirements in the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area does not interfere with 

Pennsylvania’s ability to demonstrate 

compliance with any of the ozone or 

PM2.5 NAAQS, which could potentially 

have been impacted by the NAAQS 

pollutant precursors that are the subject 

of the SIP revision. EPA’s analyses of 

the Commonwealth’s SIP revision for 

CAA 110(l) impact is supported by its 

use of substitute emission reduction 

measures that ensure permanent, 

enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus 

emissions reductions are achieved 

within the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Area which far exceed the slight 

increase in NOX and VOC pollutants 

from the removal of low RVP fuel 

especially as Pennsylvania is still 

subject to the Federal RVP fuel 

requirement of 9.0 psi. Based on 

Pennsylvania’s CAA 110(l) analysis 

showing surplus emission reductions, 

EPA has no reason to believe that the 

removal of the low RVP fuel 

requirements in the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area will negatively impact the 

area’s ability to attain or maintain any 

NAAQS including specifically ozone 

and PM2.5 or interfere with reasonable 

further progress. In addition, EPA 

believes that removing the 7.8 psi low 

RVP program requirements in the 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
65306 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area will not 

interfere with any other CAA 

requirement as the Area will remain 

subject to the Federal low RVP fuel 

requirements. Other specific 

requirements of EPA’s action to approve 

the Commonwealth’s CAA 110(l) 

noninterference demonstration and the 

rationale for EPA’s action are explained 

in the EPA’s DFR for this action 

published in the June 15, 2018 Federal 

Register (83 FR 27901), which was 

subsequently withdrawn by EPA in the 

August 6, 2018 Federal Register (83 FR 

38261). These rationale and 

requirements from the June 2018 DFR 

will not be restated here. 

IV. Response to Comments Received 

During the EPA Public Comment Period 

on the NPRM 

EPA received comments from five 

separate commenters. Of these, 

comments from three anonymous 

commenters were not relevant to our 

proposed action, and as such, EPA will 

not address those non-relevant 

comments here. Based on the receipt of 

adverse public comments relevant to 

this action, EPA acted on August 6, 

2018 to withdraw our June 15, 2018 

DFR, based on the terms set forth in that 

action. EPA’s response to comments 

received is as follows below: 

Comment 1: Commenter contends that 

EPA can’t rely on the undated 

‘‘clarification letter’’ sent from Krishnan 

Ramamurthy, Director, Bureau of Air 

Quality, PADEP to Ms. Cristina 

Fernandez, Air Protection Division 

(3AP00) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, as Mr. Ramamurthy 

is not authorized to formally submit 

SIPs to EPA, as only the state Governor 

or their designee can submit SIPs for 

approval. Further, the commenter states 

that Ms. Fernandez is also not able to 

receive SIP submissions, as EPA 

regulations require submission to be 

sent to the Regional Administrator. 

Response 1: The clarification letter 

submitted electronically to EPA on May 

23, 2018 (and received in hard copy by 

EPA on May 25, 2018) by Mr. 

Ramamurthy to Ms. Fernandez does not 

constitute a formal SIP revision or SIP 

transmittal letter. Pennsylvania formally 

submitted the SIP that is the subject of 

this rulemaking action on May 2, 2018, 

via a letter from Secretary Patrick 

McDonnell of PADEP to EPA Regional 

Administrator Cosmo Servidio. 

Secretary McDonnell is the duly 

delegated representative of Governor 

Wolf for submission of a Pennsylvania 

SIP revision and Regional Administrator 

Servidio is the delegated recipient at 

EPA for receiving SIP revisions. The 

May 23, 2018 clarification letter merely 

reiterates and clarifies what was already 

stated in the May 2, 2018 SIP submittal 

letter. The May 2, 2018 submittal letter 

makes clear PADEP’s request that EPA 

remove 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, 

Subchapter C (relating to gasoline 

volatility requirements) as a Federally 

enforceable control measure from the 

Commonwealth’ SIP and that EPA not 

approve the final form state rulemaking 

amending Chapter 126, Subchapter C (as 

published in the April 7, 2018 

Pennsylvania Bulletin (Vol. 48, No. 14). 

Mr. Ramamurthy’s May 23, 2018 letter 

is not a formal SIP revision and did not 

need to follow EPA regulations for SIP 

submittals to be from a governor or 

governor’s delegate. EPA posted the 

letter to the docket as a formal 

communication from the State after the 

formal SIP submittal and referenced it 

in our June 15, 2018 DFR action as such. 

Comment 2: The commenter states 

that EPA can’t approve Pennsylvania’s 

SIP revision because PADEP has not 

submitted evidence that the rule has 

been repealed and that EPA regulations 

require SIP revisions to include a copy 

of the actual regulation submitted for 

approval, indicating the changes made 

to the prior version. The commenter 

argues that the SIP must include a copy 

of the official state regulation (signed, 

stamped, and dated by the appropriate 

state officials indicating it is state 

enforceable), with the effective date 

indicated in the regulation itself (or 

with a separate letter signed, stamped, 

and dated by the appropriate State 

official indicating the effective date). 

The commenter argues that PADEP’s 

May 2, 2018 SIP submittal letter and 

May 23, 2018 clarification letter can be 

interpreted one of two ways, with the 

result being either: (1) That the May 2nd 

SIP submission lacks evidence that the 

amended Chapter 126, Subchapter C 

rule has been adopted by PADEP in 

final form; or (2) that the 

Commonwealth has submitted evidence 

of a final rule which revises rather than 

removes Subchapter C. Under the latter 

interpretation, the commenter argues 

that instead of removing the State rule, 

the amended rule adds subsection (d) to 

§ 126.301 of the rule. The commenter 

contends that under either of these 

interpretations of the Commonwealth’s 

intent of the SIP submittal or the 

subsequent clarification letter, EPA 

can’t remove Chapter 126, Subchapter C 

from the SIP. The commenter contends 

that removal of a SIP-approved rule 

must contain evidence that the rule has 

been repealed by the state, citing prior 

EPA rulemaking examples where that 

was the case. These examples include: 

Wisconsin Stage II gasoline vapor 

recovery removal (EPA–R05–OAR– 

2017–0279); several examples of 

removal and addition of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

determinations for Maryland (EPA– 

R03–OAR–2016–0309) and North 

Carolina (EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0140); 

and replacement of the clean air 

interstate rule (CAIR) with the crossstate air pollution rule (CSAPR) in 

Virginia (EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0215) 

and West Virginia (EPA–R03–OAR– 

2016–0574). The commenter argues that 

EPA should require evidence of stateeffective regulatory repeal, prior to 

formal removal of a rule from the SIP, 

following past practice to avoid acting 

capriciously. 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. Removal of a state 

regulation from the Federally approved 

SIP does not require evidence that the 

state has repealed the regulation from 

state law. CAA section 110 addresses 

SIP revisions and 40 CFR part 51 

addresses SIP submittal requirements, 

but no provisions in the CAA or 

regulations require a state to repeal a 

regulation before requesting removal of 

a regulation from the SIP. PADEP 

indicated in its May 2, 2018 SIP 

submittal letter that it sought removal of 

Subchapter C from the SIP upon EPA 

approval of its demonstration of 

noninterference as required by CAA 

section 110(l) for SIP revisions. PADEP 

provided a 110(l) demonstration which 

EPA finds meets requirements of the 

CAA. None of the cited examples 

preclude EPA from removing 

Subchapter C from the SIP at the State’s 

request prior to the State’s repeal of 

Subchapter C from state law. 

Comment 3: A commenter contends 

that the Commonwealth’s revision to its 

25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter C 

(which added a new paragraph (d) to 

§ 126.301) can’t be approved into the 

SIP as there is no enforceable effective 

date for repealing Subchapter C and the 

revised rule plainly states that 

Subchapter C will no longer be in effect 

upon EPA’s removal of the Subchapter 

from the SIP. The commenter argues 

this is circular logic on the state’s part 

if EPA can only approve the rule into 

the SIP when they are adopted and 

state-effective, but the State’s rule only 

becomes effective once EPA removes the 

affected Subchapter C from the SIP. The 

commenter argues that the only options 

for EPA rulemaking are to approve the 

Commonwealth’s non-interference 

demonstration or to add to the SIP the 

state-approved subsection (d) of 

§ 126.301. The commenter believes that 

EPA is limited to action on the 

submitted non-interference 

demonstration, as the Commonwealth’s 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65307 

May 2 SIP submittal letter directs EPA 

not to approve the newly amended rule 

as an addition to the Pennsylvania SIP. 

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. First, the Commonwealth in 

the May 2, 2018 SIP submission has not 

sought to include the revised version of 

Subchapter C (with newly added 

subsection (d)) to the Pennsylvania SIP. 

Second, EPA’s decision in this 

rulemaking action is to approve the 

Commonwealth’s noninterference 

demonstration and to simultaneously 

remove the low RVP regulatory 

requirements from the SIP. Thus, the 

commenter’s concerns regarding the 

effective date of the revised version of 

Subchapter C are irrelevant, as the 

amended Chapter 126 is not in the SIP, 

nor has Pennsylvania sought to include 

it into the SIP. 

Comment 4: Commenter argues that 

EPA can’t remove Subchapter C from 

the SIP because Pennsylvania failed to 

follow the process set forth in state law 

related to removal of the state low RVP 

program (hereafter referred to as Act 50). 

The commenter contends that EPA can’t 

approve this SIP because PADEP does 

not have the legal authority to request 

removal of Subchapter C from the SIP 

until EPA approves the 

Commonwealth’s noninterference 

demonstration. The commenter 

indicates that Act 50 prohibits the 

PADEP from promulgating regulations 

to repeal Subchapter C until EPA 

approves a revision which demonstrates 

noninterference with the NAAQS. The 

commenter argues that since EPA has 

not yet approved a noninterference 

demonstration, PADEP has neither the 

authority to repeal 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

126, Subchapter C, nor to request its 

removal from the SIP. 

Response 4: EPA disagrees that 

PADEP has not acted in accordance 

with Pennsylvania’s Act 50. On May 2, 

2018, Pennsylvania submitted to EPA a 

request to remove Subchapter C from 

the SIP and a demonstration of 

noninterference with the NAAQS from 

removal of low RVP requirements from 

the SIP through use of emission 

reductions from alternate measures. In 

this rulemaking, EPA is approving the 

noninterference demonstration and 

removing the low RVP requirements 

from the SIP. Thus, PADEP has acted in 

accordance with Act 50 and may 

subsequently remove requirements from 

state law. PADEP addressed the issue of 

the order of events prescribed by Act 50 

(with respect to timing of its submission 

to and approval by EPA of a 

noninterference demonstration SIP 

versus that of the state repeal of the low 

RVP requirements) in its state 

rulemaking. See April 2, 2018 

Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol. 48 No. 14 

(responding to comments from 

Pennsylvania’s independent regulatory 

review commission (IRRC) on the issue 

of the sequence of the events required 

by Act 50). EPA believes the 

Commonwealth addressed concerns 

with Act 50 during Pennsylvania’s state 

regulatory adoption process. 

Pennsylvania has general authority to 

both enact and remove emission control 

measures and to request their inclusion 

as part of the Federal SIP or removal 

from the SIP. The provisions of Act 50 

have not curtailed PADEP’s authority 

and EPA believes PADEP acted in 

accordance with Act 50 by the May 2, 

2018 SIP submission prior to removing 

the low RVP requirements from state 

law. 

Comment 5: The commenter argues 

that EPA cannot fully approve this SIP 

revision because both EPA and PADEP 

failed to consider nonattainment of the 

1971 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS in 

Armstrong County as part of the 

noninterference demonstration required 

by section 110(l) of the CAA. Madison, 

Mahoning, Boggs, Washington, and Pine 

Townships in Armstrong County are 

still classified as nonattainment at 40 

CFR part 81, so the 1971 standard 

remains in effect. Since PADEP never 

submitted an attainment plan for this 

area, the commenter argues it is not 

possible to determine whether the 

removal of the PADEP 7.8 psi gasoline 

RVP program will adversely impact the 

area and that EPA can therefore only 

partially approve the noninterference 

demonstration (as EPA’s guidance 

requires a noninterference 

demonstration to consider the effect on 

all NAAQS in effect). 

Response 5: The commenter is correct 

that portions of Armstrong County were 

designated by EPA as nonattainment for 

the 1971 SO2 NAAQS, which was 

promulgated by EPA in April 1971 (36 

FR 8186, April 30, 1971), and were 

never subsequently redesignated by EPA 

to attainment. EPA promulgated a 

revised NAAQS for SO2 in June 2010 

(75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). EPA later 

designated portions of Allegheny and 

Beaver Counties as nonattainment under 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in October 2013 

(78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013). On 

October 3, 2017, PADEP submitted 

attainment demonstration plans to EPA 

for both the Allegheny and Beaver 

County areas for approval. These 

submitted plans purport to demonstrate 

attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in 

2018 based on air dispersion modelling. 

EPA has not yet taken final action to 

approve these plans. However, as 

PADEP indicated in its May 2, 2018 

noninterference demonstration SIP, 

emissions of SO2 from fuel combustion 

are directly related to the sulfur content 

of the fuel itself, with sulfur from the 

fuel bound to oxygen as a byproduct of 

combustion. Gasoline sulfur content is 

regulated by EPA via separate, Federal 

rules. Regulation of motor gasoline 

volatility has no direct impact on sulfur 

emissions, therefore Pennsylvania 

concluded that removal of PADEP’s 7.8 

low RVP requirements will not interfere 

with any portion of the affected 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area’s ability 

to attain or maintain any SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA concurs with Pennsylvania’s 

conclusion as discussed in this 

rulemaking. Likewise, EPA expects no 

interference with Armstrong County’s 

ability to attain the SO2 NAAQS because 

regulation of motor gasoline volatility 

does not impact SO2 tailpipe or 

evaporative emissions. The low RVP 

program was instead designed to reduce 

evaporative and combustion emissions 

of VOCs to reduce formation of ozone. 

Removal of the state RVP limit does not 

affect sulfur compound emissions or the 

secondary formation of SO2 from motor 

vehicles or nonroad engines and 

equipment. 

Comment 6: The commenter contends 

that although EPA designated the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 

attainment for 2015 ozone standard, 

recent air quality data from ACHD 

shows exceedances of the 2015 ozone 

standard this year and even potential 

violations of the NAAQS should current 

data be certified. PADEP’s 

noninterference demonstration refers to 

EPA photochemical air quality 

modeling for 2023 as proof the area will 

remain in attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS, but EPA’s modeling does not 

account for the sharp jump in 

exceedances from this summer, and the 

modeling is based on a scenario with 

low RVP gasoline in place. The 

commenter believes that recent air 

quality exceedances negate the PADEP 

noninterference demonstration premise 

that with no expected growth of NOX

and VOC emissions, there will be no 

future interference with attainment of 

the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 

commenter believes that additional 

emission reductions from this (and 

other) measures may be needed for 

future ozone NAAQS compliance. 

Response 6: While several ozone 

monitors in the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area have registered exceedances 

in the summer of 2018, this data is not 

considered valid until it has been 

determined to be complete, quality 

assured and quality controlled. On 

December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87819), EPA 

determined that the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area attained the 2008 8-hour 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
65308 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

6Based on MARAMA’s 2023 gamma inventory, 

referenced in Table 9 of Pennsylvania’s May 2, 2018 

SIP revision. 7Based on EPA’s 2014 National Emission 

Inventory (NEI) version 1 final, referenced in Table 

9 of Pennsylvania’s May 2, 2018 SIP revision. 

ozone NAAQS by its July 20, 2016 

attainment date, based on complete, 

certified, and quality assured ambient 

air quality monitoring data for the 2013– 

2015 monitoring period. Although the 

2016 action did not constitute 

redesignation to attainment, it 

demonstrated that monitored air quality 

for the area met the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Further, on November 16, 2017 (82 FR 

54232), EPA designated all counties in 

the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as 

attainment of the more stringent 0.070 

parts per million (ppm) 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. This information forms the 

basis for the Commonwealth’s 

statements that the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley Area is currently attaining all 

ozone NAAQS, and more recent, 

preliminary data for the area does not 

negate this decision. While it is possible 

the area will violate at some future date, 

the currently available data does not 

support EPA disapproving the 

Commonwealth’s removal of the low 

RVP program based on the data 

available at present. 

With respect to the Commonwealth’s 

reliance on future case photochemical 

grid modeling, prepared for MARAMA’s 

use in assessing regional ozone 

modeling and for EPA use for interstate 

ozone transport modeling, the 

modelling referred to by the commenter 

does not include increased emissions 

from removal of the state low RVP 

program, but the small increases from 

removal of the state program are far 

outweighed by the much larger actual 

and future expected reductions in 

stationary point source and overall 

highway mobile emission reductions. 

For the MARAMA modeling, future 

2023 VOC onroad emissions 6 are 

projected to decrease from 2014 levels 7

by 60 percent (over 8,550 tpy)—far 

outweighing any benefits from the state 

low RVP gasoline program (even 

without accounting for offsetting 

benefits from the substitution measures 

listed in the noninterference 

demonstration). During the same period, 

onroad NOX emissions are expected to 

drop from 28,142 tpy to 8,147 tpy, due 

primarily to new Federal vehicle and 

fuel standards. Stationary point source 

NOX emission reductions are even more 

dramatic in the same period, dropping 

from 54,711 tpy in 2014 to 33,813 tpy 

in 2023, primarily from shutdown and 

fuel switching of large electric 

generating units (EGUs). With respect to 

impact on the associated photochemical 

air modeling, these sector reductions far 

outweigh any reductions that would be 

provided from the retention of the 

PADEP low RVP measure. EPA agrees 

with the Commonwealth’s contention in 

their noninterference demonstration 

that the photochemical grid modeling 

(i.e., the results of the MARAMA 

regional modeling and EPA’s interstate 

ozone transport modeling) constitutes 

additional supporting evidence that, 

with respect to future attainment and 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS, the 

potential emissions benefit of retaining 

the PADEP low RVP program is greatly 

outweighed by other emissions 

reduction strategies that continue to 

impact this area. 

Comment 7: The commenter contends 

that EPA should require PADEP to 

submit a SIP revision to account for the 

permanent shutdown of the Guardian 

Industries Jefferson Hills glass 

manufacturing facility in Allegheny 

County. The commenter states that 

PADEP stated its intent to retain the 

balance of the creditable emissions 

reductions from this source not being 

used as part of the noninterference 

demonstration (i.e., any remaining 

available offsets after substitution for 

low RVP program, including a 25 

percent emissions adjustment) for 

potential future use by PADEP or ACHD 

for future SIP planning purposes. The 

commenter requests that EPA require 

PADEP to submit ERCs for approval into 

the SIP to keep track of the remaining 

balance for future SIP purposes, as has 

been required for shutdown sources in 

the past. The commenter cites several 

past examples where ERCs have been 

memorialized in the SIP for this 

purpose, which added USX Corp/US 

Steel Group-Fairless Hills and Rockwell 

Heavy Vehicle Inc.–New Castle Forge 

Plant permanent shutdowns to the SIP 

(See 61 FR 15709 and 64 FR 18818). 

Response 7: EPA disagrees with parts 

of the commenter’s premise regarding 

what Pennsylvania has requested with 

respect to the shutdown of this 

Guardian Industries facility. PADEP 

indicates in its noninterference 

demonstration that Guardian Industries 

permanently ceased operation in August 

2015 and that Guardian Industries did 

not request that potentially creditable 

reductions be preserved in the emission 

inventory within one year of closure, as 

required by Pennsylvania’s rules 

governing NSR at 25 Pa. Code 

127.207(2) for receipt of ERCs. As a 

result, PADEP states that Guardian 

Industries is ineligible to apply for 

ERCs. 

Although PADEP characterizes the 

shutdown emissions reductions as 

permanent, surplus, enforceable, and 

quantifiable, PADEP does not 

characterize them as ERCs—the 

generation and registration of which is 

governed by specific application criteria 

under Pa. Code Chapter 127, Subchapter 

E. Because the permanent emission 

reductions from the shutdown are not 

an ERC, as defined at Chapter 127, 

Subchapter E, EPA believes that Chapter 

127 of the PA Code thus does not 

require inclusion of these reductions in 

either a state plan approval or in the 

Pennsylvania SIP. Thus, EPA disagrees 

with the commenter’s contention that 

PADEP should be required to submit a 

SIP revision to account for the 

permanent shutdown of the Guardian 

Industries Jefferson Hills glass 

manufacturing facility in Allegheny 

County. The facility’s permits for 

Guardian Industries are no longer valid 

and the facility cannot be reactivated 

without undergoing NSR and being repermitted. EPA believes that the 

Guardian Industries shutdown is 

permanent, enforceable, surplus, and 

verifiable based on the information 

provided by PADEP in the SIP submittal 

to remove low RVP from the SIP and 

that the source is no longer eligible to 

apply for ERCs given the governing 

regulations for ERCs. Because a SIP 

submittal is not required for PADEP to 

use the permanent emissions reductions 

from Guardian in its noninterference 

demonstration, EPA also disagrees with 

the commenter regarding the ability to 

use any remaining reductions from 

Guardian not relied upon in the 

noninterference demonstration for use 

in future SIP planning purposes. 

Comment 8: The commenter cites 

EPA’s statement in section IV.B.2 of its 

June 15, 2018 DFR that, ‘‘PADEP asserts 

the reductions have not been used and 

cannot be used in the future by 

Pennsylvania to meet any other 

obligation, including attainment 

demonstration, facility emission 

limitation, reasonable further progress, 

or maintenance plan requirements for 

the area.’’ The commenter disagrees 

with EPA, believing that PADEP states 

in its submission that they wish to 

retain the balance of the creditable 

emission reductions from the Guardian 

Industries shutdown emissions for use 

by PADEP or ACHD to offset future 

emission increases in the PittsburghBeaver Valley Area. The commenter 

requests that EPA clarify this 

inconsistency between PADEP 

statements in its SIP submission and 

EPA ‘s statement in the June 15, 2018 

DFR. 

Response 8: The commenter is correct 

that PADEP states in the May 2, 2018 

noninterference demonstration SIP its 

desire to retain the balance of the 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65309 

creditable emission reductions not used 

in the demonstration (including a 25 

percent PADEP allowance to the 

projected RVP removal emissions 

increase). PADEP estimates that the 

remaining available creditable emission 

reductions will total 1028 tpy (2.19 tpd) 

of VOCs, 571 tpy (or 1.0 tpd) of NOX, 

and 28.5 tpy of PM2.5 in 2018. By 2023, 

PADEP projects the remaining available 

emission credits will total 1028 tpy (or 

2.24 tpd) of NOX, 609 tpy (or 1.69 tpd) 

of VOC, and 28.5 tpy of PM2.5. EPA 

inadvertently incorrectly stated in our 

DFR that we believed Pennsylvania 

could not use any remaining available 

creditable emission reductions for any 

other future purpose. EPA intended to 

state that Pennsylvania could not use 

the emission reductions from the 

Guardian closure, which it relies upon 

for the noninterference demonstration, 

in any future planning activities under 

the CAA. EPA did not intend to address 

the remaining available creditable 

emissions reductions and any future 

uses PADEP may have for those 

remaining reductions. EPA’s intention 

in the June 15, 2018 DFR was to state 

that the shutdown reductions from 

Guardian Industries cannot be used as 

ERCs to offset future stationary source 

growth, as the facility did not apply for 

the creation of ERCs prior to the 

deadline in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127. 

Use of any remaining surplus creditable 

emissions by the Commonwealth is not 

relevant to today’s action, and in any 

case the use of the reductions would be 

part of a future SIP revision, which 

would require a separate determination 

of non-interference under section 110(l) 

that would be evaluated on its merits at 

that time. Any remaining emission 

reduction credit would need to be 

determined at that time to be surplus, 

enforceable, quantifiable, and 

contemporaneous (if being used in 

substitution for another measure) and 

shown to not be included in a base cases 

emissions inventory previously 

approved as part of the SIP. 

Comment 9: PADEP’s onroad analyses 

failed to perform winter weekday runs 

to determine winter time PM levels and 

whether reductions would be needed. 

PM typically increases during winter 

time as stated in EPA’s MOVES 

guidance and so summer time PM or 

annual PM runs may not be 

representative of actual PM occurring 

during winter months. This is especially 

important since the PM NAAQS is a 24- 

hour standard and not an annual 

standard so only relying on annual or 

summer runs will not be representative 

of the worst-case scenario. 

Response 9: The MOVES emissions 

modeling performed for this SIP 

revision was performed for purposes of 

demonstrating that PADEP’s removal of 

the low RVP program would not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP), or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. This noninterference requirement 

prohibits EPA from approving a SIP 

revision that revises a SIP without a 

demonstration that such removal or 

modification will not interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Pennsylvania’s 

110(l) noninterference demonstration 

focuses on showing that any emissions 

increases from removal of the PADEP 

low RVP summertime control program 

(for any pollutant that would affect any 

NAAQS applicable to the Pittsburgh 

area) are fully offset by other substitute 

emission control measures. Because the 

low RVP program being removed is a 

control measure only in effect from May 

through September, it is unnecessary to 

perform MOVES modeling of the 

program in winter months. While the 

PADEP low RVP program is a VOC 

control measure, originally adopted to 

reduce VOC emissions as ozone 

precursors, the program does slightly 

impact summertime NOX and PM2.5

emissions. Pennsylvania’s 

noninterference demonstration does 

analyze these summertime impacts on 

those emissions that affect both the 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. PM2.5

emissions are typically inventoried and 

analyzed on an annualized tonnage 

(expressed as tons per year) for purposes 

of SIP planning. However, there is no 

impact from removal of the summertime 

PADEP low RVP program requirements 

on wintertime emissions because EPA 

does not regulate gasoline RVP outside 

of the June 1st through September 15th 

period. During the remaining portion of 

the year, gasoline RVP is governed by 

standards established by the American 

Society for Testing and Materials for the 

purposes of ensuring drivability during 

colder weather. Generally, gasoline RVP 

is higher during the colder portion of 

the year. 

Comment 10: The commenter requests 

that EPA explain how it reviewed the 

onroad and nonroad MOVES runs as it 

appears that PADEP did not include any 

input files used to compile the onroad 

and nonroad inventories or much 

information at all to be able to perform 

an independent analysis. EPA must be 

an independent reviewer of the state’s 

demonstration—it can’t simply approve 

anything and everything the state 

submits. The commenter argues that 

since the input and output files were 

not available in the public docket, the 

public was not able to verify whether 

PADEPs modeling was performed 

correctly, and therefore EPA should ask 

PADEP to supplement the docket to 

include these materials and EPA should 

reopen the comment period to provide 

the public time to review the 

supplementary information. 

Response 10: PADEP prepared its 

emissions analysis for its 

noninterference demonstration using a 

methodology similar to that used in 

preparing highway emission inventories 

to satisfy the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. For highway 

mobile source emissions, this entailed 

utilization of a regional mobile source 

highway emission inventory for the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. PADEP’s 

contractor, Michael Baker, prepared a 

projection inventory of summer 

weekday and annual conditions for 

2018 and 2023 analysis years. The 

Commonwealth’s May 2, 2018 SIP 

revision contains a summary of the 

methodology used to generate highway 

mobile emissions estimates using 

MOVES2014a. Appendix D to the May 

2, 2018 SIP includes attachments 

detailing the highway mobile analysis 

methodology, MOVES input 

assumptions and input parameters, and 

MOVES sample input files. The 

Commonwealth utilizes custom MOVES 

post-processing software to calculate 

hourly vehicle speeds and to prepare 

batch traffic input files to the MOVES 

model. This analysis methodology is 

consistent with past statewide inventory 

efforts, including state input to the 2014 

NEI. While this inventory level analysis 

makes review of the MOVES input 

information more difficult, the 

Commonwealth has attempted to clearly 

document the input information used, 

the results generated, and to provide 

MOVES input file samples that underlie 

the analysis. This is not a new means of 

inventory level mobile source analysis 

for Pennsylvania, as Pennsylvania uses 

this method for all highway emissions 

inventory plans submitted to EPA. EPA 

therefore disagrees with the commenter 

that the analysis is unverifiable, or that 

the Commonwealth should be required 

to supplement its documentation for the 

docket for this action. EPA does not 

agree that the comment period should 

be reopened to allow for additional time 

to review Pennsylvania’s analysis as 

sufficient information supporting 

PADEP’s demonstration supporting the 

SIP revision was available for review. 

Comment 11: PADEP assumes a three 

percent increase in emissions for 

stationary area and point sources but 

never explains where this three percent 

originated. PADEP says the assumption 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
65310 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

8TANKS is a Windows-based, EPA-created 

computer software program used to estimate VOC 

and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from 

fixed- and floating-roof storage tanks. TANKS is 

based on the emission estimation procedures from 

Chapter 7 of EPA’s Compilation Of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors (AP–42). The TANKS model was 

developed using software that is now outdated, and 

therefore, the model is not reliably functional on 

computers using certain operating systems such as 

Windows Vista or Windows 7. EPA no longer 

supports TANKS and instead recommends use of 

AP–42 emission factors for this purpose. 

comes from the similar increase seen in 

nonroad emissions but there’s no reason 

to believe nonroad emissions would 

increase at the same rate as area or point 

sources. Nonroad vehicles are not the 

same as area or point sources, nonroad 

vehicles typically emit VOCs from 

combustion exhaust, leaking gas caps, or 

permeation through gas tanks but area 

and point sources emit VOCs from 

leaking tanks, expansion valves in 

tanks, bad connections, or spillage from 

transferring gas. EPA has never allowed 

cross-category (i.e. nonroad to area/ 

point categories) emission factors to 

estimate expected emissions from 

sources, this has never been done before 

in emissions inventories. EPA should 

require PADEP to better explain the 

three percent assumption to ensure their 

assumptions are valid and reasonable. 

Response 11: EPA agrees that PADEP 

has not presented supporting 

information to validate its assumption 

that affected point area sources would 

see the same increase in emissions as 

would affected nonroad mobile sources 

from removal of the state RVP rule, as 

VOC emissions from area point sources 

of gasoline transport and storage are 

mostly evaporative in nature and not 

necessarily consistent with those from 

nonroad mobile sources VOC emissions 

(which have tailpipe, evaporative 

permeation, and engine hot soak and 

evaporative emissions). However, it 

would have proven difficult for PADEP 

to specifically estimate emissions 

impact from the affected point area 

sources, as EPA no longer updates the 

TANKS emissions estimation model 8

and instead refers to the original AP–42 

equations for use in determining 

emission factors for storage tanks. Use of 

AP–42 factors to determine the change 

in emissions on these sources from 

removal of the PADEP low RVP gasoline 

rule would require extensive tank and 

product specific information from each 

source that PADEP would need to 

calculate and project. EPA believes the 

change in emission factors would be 

small and that any error caused by use 

of this assumption would not 

dramatically impact the emissions 

impact on this sector from removal of 

the PADEP 7.8 RVP rule. 

The VOC emissions from area point 

sources affected by removal of the 

PADEP low RVP requirement total 217 

tpy in the 2014 NEI. Assuming three 

percent growth in emissions from 

removal of the rule results an increase 

of only seven tpy of VOCs (or 0.02 tpd). 

Because emissions from this sector are 

so small, even doubling PADEP’s 

estimate would only lead to a negligible 

increase in 2018 or 2023 VOC emissions 

from this sector. EPA therefore finds 

that PADEP’s assumption of a three 

percent growth in VOC emissions in the 

area point sector resulting from removal 

of the state RVP rule, while simplistic 

for emission inventory purposes, is 

reasonable for this CAA 110(l) analysis 

and even if it results in understatement 

of the increase in emissions from 

removal of the low RVP rule, as it is 

more than overcome by PADEP’s 

conservative approach to the analysis, 

as PADEP buffers the overall results on 

all sectors by increasing by 25 percent 

the overall impact on all sectors for both 

NOX and VOC emissions to account for 

uncertainty in their analysis. PADEP’s 

simplistic three percent growth 

assumption for emissions from point 

area sources would translate to a very 

small overall emissions change for the 

sector and is reasonable for purposes of 

this CAA 110(l) analysis. 

Comment 12: A commenter contends 

that EPA should disapprove PADEP’s 

SIP submission because 25 Pa. Code 

129.77 is not a ‘‘surplus’’ emission 

reduction, as Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) is required 

under section 184 of the CAA for the 

State to meet RACT requirements for 

states in the Northeast Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR), as this category of 

emissions is covered by an EPA-issued 

Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). As 

a result, the commenter argues that 

reductions from RACT can’t be 

considered ‘‘surplus’’ because the 

reductions achieved are necessary to 

satisfy mandatory requirements separate 

from attainment or maintenance plans, 

since states in an OTR are required to 

enact RACT on a statewide basis. 

Response 12: In evaluating whether a 

given SIP revision would interfere with 

attainment or maintenance, as required 

by CAA section 110(l), EPA generally 

considers whether the SIP revision will 

allow for an increase in actual emission 

into the air over what is allowed under 

the existing EPA-approved SIP. EPA has 

not required that a state produce a new 

complete attainment demonstration for 

every SIP revision, provided the status 

quo air quality is preserved. See 

Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. 

EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006). EPA 

elaborated on compliance options for 

complying with the CAA 

noninterference clause in our 

‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II 

Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from 

State Implementation Plans and 

Assessing Comparable Measures’’ (EPA– 

457/B–12–001, dated August 7, 2012). 

In that guidance, EPA indicated that 

110(l) noninterference could be 

demonstrated if an increase in 

emissions from removal of a measure 

would be offset by excess emission 

reductions not accounted for in the 

current SIP. Per this guidance, a state 

has wide latitude in selecting additional 

controls, including substitution of NOX

controls, as long as the offsetting 

emission controls are contemporaneous 

with a rule being phased-out. The 

guidance indicates that the offsetting 

measures can come from substitution of 

additional emission controls not already 

in the SIP, or alternatively through 

offset of emissions due to excess 

emission reductions not accounted for 

in the current SIP (e.g., changes to an 

area’s stationary or area source emission 

inventory resulting from changes in 

industrial population or activity, or 

from shutdown of a source.) EPA 

believes that Pennsylvania’s use of the 

term ‘‘surplus’’ in reference to the RACT 

‘‘overcontrol’’ from the adhesives source 

category is, for CAA 110(l) purposes, a 

reference to the fact that the PADEP 

adhesives rule adopts the OTC model 

rule that exceeds EPA requirements for 

CTG RACT in this category and also that 

the benefits of the rule have not been 

previously claimed in a prior EPAapproved control strategy SIP (e.g., a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

maintenance plan, or attainment 

demonstration, etc.). Therefore, the 

adhesives and sealant rule generates 

emission reductions that could serve to 

offset the increases from removal of the 

low RVP requirement, in a 

contemporaneous timeframe to that 

removal. Given that the PittsburghBeaver Valley Area has no requirements 

to demonstrate RFP of any ozone 

NAAQS, the focus of CAA 110(l) 

demonstration in this case is to show 

that removal of the provision will 

maintain the status quo of air quality in 

the area and thereby not interfere with 

attainment of any ozone NAAQS. While 

part of Pennsylvania’s adhesives and 

sealants rule addresses the requirements 

of the adhesives CTG to demonstrate 

compliance with RACT, (and is a 

mandatory component of the SIP), part 

of Pennsylvania’s adhesives and 

sealants rule addresses emissions and 

activities not covered by the CTG, and 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65311 

9 Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor 

Control Programs from State Implementation Plans 

and Assessing Comparable Measures, August 2012. 

10 Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor 

Control Programs from State Implementation Plans 

and Assessing Comparable Measures, August 2012, 

section 2.2. 

are surplus to the requirement of the 

adhesives CTG. Also, since the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area has no 

outstanding Reasonable Available 

Control Measure (RACM) requirement 

because they have no attainment plan 

requirement under CAA 172(c) and 

182(b), the pertinent applicable 

requirement under CAA 110(l) is 

demonstrating that this action will not 

interfere with maintenance of ozone or 

any other NAAQS. EPA finds 

Pennsylvania has done that through its 

analysis. 

Further, EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that reductions from a RACT 

measure (required for an OTR state) 

cannot be used to show noninterference 

under CAA 110(l). Nothing in CAA 

110(l) prevents consideration of 

required RACT or CTG measures from 

being considered as offsetting 

reductions for noninterference 

purposes. Thus, the fact that the 

adhesives and sealant rule, relied upon 

by PADEP to assist in showing removal 

of low RVP requirements will not 

interfere with the NAAQS, is part of a 

RACT measure is not relevant to the 

inquiry. EPA discussed how removal of 

the low RVP requirement will not 

interfere with the NAAQS, RFP or any 

other CAA requirement in the DFR and 

herein relying upon Federal fuel 

requirements to minimize emission 

increases as well as reductions in 

pollutants from Guardian’s closure and 

the adhesives and sealants rule. The 

status of the adhesives rule as a RACT 

requirement does not alter EPA’s 

conclusion of non-interference with the 

ozone or any other NAAQS from the 

removal of the fuel requirement from 

the Pennsylvania SIP. 

Comment 13: The commenter states as 

part of the noninterference 

demonstration required by CAA 110(l), 

EPA must consider the ozone forming 

potential of VOC reductions being used 

to offset the increased VOC stemming 

from the removal of the state gasoline 

RVP limit through photochemical grid 

modeling that considers temperature 

increased due to climate change. 

Response 13: EPA reviews 110(l) on a 

case-by-case basis through individual 

SIP actions. EPA issued guidance in 

2012 addressing removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery requirements from SIPs, 

which contains guidance that is relevant 

here.9 Specifically, the EPA Stage II 

removal guidance discusses compliance 

with 110(l) as possible even with slight 

emission increases, in cases where those 

increases do not interfere with 

attainment, or are very small foregone, 

near-term emissions reductions that are 

expected to diminish rapidly over time 

that are assumed too small (or 

temporary in nature) to interfere with 

attainment or RFP towards attainment of 

a NAAQS. The guidance suggests this 

may be particularly evident in areas that 

are already attaining the NAAQS, or 

where emissions and/or air quality 

projections demonstrate the area is 

likely to maintain the NAAQS in the 

future. Although the Stage II program 

removal guidance recommends use of 

photochemical grid modeling as a 

means to demonstrate noninterference, 

it indicates that non-interference can be 

demonstrated through other means for 

purposes of CAA 110(l).10

Pennsylvania’s section 110(l) 

demonstration for RVP removal takes 

the approach that minor increases in 

emissions from removal of the PADEP 

low RVP program will be offset by other 

contemporaneous measures, that future 

modeling continues to show emissions 

of pollutants contributing to ozone will 

drop dramatically in the near term, and 

that EPA’s preliminary ozone transport 

photochemical grid modeling for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS shows future 

attainment. 

Given the scale of emission 

reductions underlying that modeling as 

discussed in PADEP’s SIP submittal, the 

relatively tiny emission increases from 

removal of the low RVP program are not 

expected to influence continued 

attainment of the NAAQS in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area in the 

near term. Nothing in CAA 110(l) 

requires an attainment demonstration or 

airshed modeling showing that the 

measure being removed would impact 

the NAAQS at any level to make a 

satisfactory showing of noninterference 

under CAA section 110(l). Pennsylvania 

refers to the modeling that shows future 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS as part 

of its noninterference demonstration to 

support removal of the 7.8 RVP program 

from the SIP. The commenter has not 

explained why photochemical grid 

modeling is necessary for section 110(l) 

purposes or why EPA must consider 

temperature increases attributed to 

climate change for these purposes. The 

commenter points to no specific 

statutory requirement regarding climate 

change with which this SIP revision to 

remove RVP requirements would 

interfere or which would affect our 

conclusion regarding PADEP’s section 

110(l) analysis. Further, the commenter 

provided no information to counter the 

modeling from MARAMA or from EPA 

which is referenced in the 

Commonwealth’s submitted SIP 

revision. Thus, no further response is 

provided to this comment. 

Comment 14: The commenter states 

that EPA must consider the 

consequences of increased gasoline 

consumption from removal of the 

PADEP low RVP requirement. 

Response 14: The commenter did not 

indicate what linkage exists between 

gasoline consumption and gasoline RVP 

limit. PADEP did not analyze the 

impacts of additional gasoline usage 

directly related to any expected lower 

cost of gasoline attributed with removal 

of the state RVP summertime limit. 

While PADEP examined price impact 

from RVP limits using historical retail 

gasoline prices during its rulemaking 

process, the commenter did not provide 

sufficient information to justify that any 

such relationship exists between 

consumption and gasoline RVP limits. 

Further, PADEP did consider impacts 

of RVP pricing on consumption in the 

state rulemaking process. PADEP’s own 

historic price analysis indicates that 

retail prices for low RVP fuel in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area were 9 

cents per gallon more on average than 

statewide average retail gasoline price 

during the 2014 state low RVP control 

season (May–Sept), ranging from 1.6 to 

9.2 cents per gallon over statewide 

gasoline prices during the 2011–2015 5- 

year period. PADEP’s regulatory 

calculations assumed that removal of 

the State RVP summertime requirement 

would save an average Pittsburgh driver 

between $1.60 to $9.20 per summer 

season, if they purchased 100 gallons of 

gasoline during the period of retail 

purchase applicability. PADEP’s 

modeling analysis of the highway 

vehicle emissions impact from removal 

of the low RVP program used MOVES 

emissions modeling emission factors 

and an apportionment of statewide 

vehicle miles of travel (based on 

Pittsburgh’s apportionment of statewide 

gasoline usage). However, PADEP’s 

emissions modeling did not rely upon 

direct assumption of gasoline usage, as 

the MOVES model estimates emissions 

using a variety of inputs (e.g., traffic 

volume, vehicle speeds, vehicle fleet 

composition, fuel characteristics, and 

other local emission control programs, 

etc.). However, gasoline consumption 

was not a direct input into the computer 

model. 

EPA believes that due to the low 

expected per gallon gasoline cost 

savings attributed to removal of the 

PADEP low RVP program, the short 

duration of the program (i.e., 4 months 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
65312 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

of the year), and the relatively indirect 

nature of gasoline consumption on the 

modeled highway emission reductions, 

it is unlikely that vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) will rise dramatically from 

removal of the program or that any 

slight rise in gasoline usage for part of 

the year would dramatically increase 

emissions compared to a scenario where 

the PADEP low RVP program is not 

removed. Therefore, EPA believes it 

unnecessary for PADEP to reflect a 

projection scenario in its emissions 

modeling for its noninterference 

demonstration where gasoline usage is 

increased beyond normal gasoline 

growth assumptions and thus PADEP’s 

emissions analysis remains reasonable 

without such consideration. 

Furthermore, to account for uncertainty 

in their emissions impact estimates, 

PADEP added a 25% upwards 

adjustment to their estimate of total 

substitute emission reductions 

necessary to offset the loss in emissions 

reductions from removal of the state low 

RVP program. EPA believes this 

additional level of overcontrol more 

than makes up for the impact of 

potential additional fuel sales in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area due to 

potential fuel price differences and fuel 

sales resulting from removal of the state 

summertime low RVP program. 

V. Impacts on the Boutique Fuels List 

Section 1541(b) of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 required EPA, in 

consultation with the U.S. Department 

of Energy, to determine the number of 

fuels programs approved into all SIPs as 

of September 1, 2004 and to publish a 

list of such fuels. On December 28, 2006 

(71 FR 78192), EPA published the list of 

boutique fuels. EPA maintains the 

current list of boutique fuels on its 

website at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

gasoline-standards/state-fuels. The final 

list of boutique fuels was based on a fuel 

type approach. CAA section 

211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III) requires that EPA 

remove a fuel from the published list if 

it is either identical to a Federal fuel or 

is removed from the SIP in which it is 

approved. Under the adopted fuel type 

approach, EPA interpreted this 

requirement to mean that a fuel would 

have to be removed from all states’ SIPs 

in which it was approved in order to 

remove the fuel type from the list. (71 

FR 78195). The 7.8 psi RVP fuel 

program (as required by Pa. Code 

Chapter 126, Subchapter C), as 

approved into Pennsylvania’s SIP, is a 

fuel type that is included in EPA’s 

boutique fuel list (71 FR 78198–99; 

https://www.epa.gov/gasolinestandards/state-fuels). The specific 

counties in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

Area where summer low RVP gasoline 

is required are identified on EPA’s 

Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure web page 

(https://www.epa.gov/gasolinestandards/gasoline-reid-vaporpressure). Subsequent to the final 

effective date of EPA’s approval of 

Pennsylvania’s May 2, 2018 SIP revision 

to remove Pennsylvania’s Chapter 126, 

Subchapter C 7.8 psi RVP requirement 

from the SIP, EPA will update the State 

Fuels and Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure 

web pages with the effective date of the 

SIP removal. However, the entry for 

Pennsylvania will not be completely 

deleted from the list of boutique fuels, 

as Allegheny County remains subject to 

a separate, SIP-approved 7.8 psi RVP 

gasoline requirement of ACHD’s Rules 

and Regulations, Article XXI, pending 

future action by ACHD to repeal that 

rule and submit a formal SIP revision 

requesting its repeal from the 

Pennsylvania SIP. This deletion of 

Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, 

Washington, and Westmoreland 

Counties from the list will not result in 

an opening on the boutique fuels list 

because the 7.8 psi RVP fuel type 

remains for one Pennsylvania County, 

and in other state SIPs. 

VI. Final Action 

EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s May 

2, 2018 SIP demonstration that removal 

of PADEP’s low RVP summertime 

gasoline program does not interfere with 

the Commonwealth’s ability to attain or 

maintain any NAAQS in the PittsburghBeaver Valley Area, in compliance with 

the requirements of CAA section 110(l). 

With this action, EPA is also granting 

Pennsylvania’s request to remove 

PADEP’s low RVP summertime gasoline 

requirements at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

126, Subchapter C from the 

Pennsylvania SIP. Our approval of the 

May 2, 2018 SIP submittal is in 

accordance with CAA requirements in 

section 110, including section 110(l) 

specifically. 

EPA’s approval of the May 2, 2018 

Pennsylvania SIP revision does not 

remove the separate SIP requirement 

applicable requiring use of 7.8 psi RVP 

gasoline during summertime months in 

Allegheny County, under requirements 

set forth in Article XXI, Rules and 

Regulations of the ACHD, which were 

approved by EPA as part of the 

Commonwealth’s SIP on April 17, 2001 

(66 FR 19724). PADEP will submit a SIP 

revision, at a later date, on behalf of 

ACHD to remove or otherwise amend 

the separate Allegheny County low RVP 

gasoline program rule. Neither ACHD’s 

rule nor the related approved 

Pennsylvania SIP for Article XXI are the 

subject of this action or the 

Pennsylvania May 2, 2018 low RVP 

gasoline SIP revision. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided they meet the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65313 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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 action 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 19, 2019. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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 to 

approve Pennsylvania’s request for 

removal of summertime low RVP 

gasoline requirements from the SIP 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 10, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

§ 52.2020 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) is amended by removing the 

heading and entries for ‘‘Subchapter C— 

Gasoline Volatility Requirements’’ 

under Title 25, Chapter 126 Standard for 

Motor Fuels. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27481 Filed 12–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 180807736–8999–02] 

RIN 0648–BI41 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Framework Adjustment 12 to 

the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS approves and 

implements Framework Adjustment 12 

to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. 

This rule allows the possession of 

Atlantic mackerel after of the domestic 

annual harvest is projected to be caught 

instead of prohibiting the possession of 

Atlantic mackerel for the rest of the 

calendar year. This final rule 

implements this measure because it is 

necessary to prevent unintended 

negative economic impacts to other 

fisheries, such as Atlantic herring. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared a supplemental environmental 

assessment (SEA) for Framework 

Adjustment 12 that describes the 

Council’s preferred management 

measure and other alternatives 

considered and provides a thorough 

analysis of the impacts of the all 

alternatives considered. Copies of the 

Framework 12 SEA and the preliminary 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) analysis 

are available from: Christopher Moore, 

Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 

800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The 

SEA/RIR is accessible via the internet at 

http://www.greater

atlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or http://

www.mafmc.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alyson Pitts, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9352, 

alyson.pitts@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 5, 2018, the Council adopted 

a final measure under Framework 

Adjustment 12 to the Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). On August 17, 

2018, the Council submitted the 

framework and draft SEA to NMFS for 

preliminary review, with final 

submission on October 18, 2018. NMFS 

published a proposed rule that included 

implementing regulations on October 3, 

2018 (83 FR 50059). The public 

comment period for the proposed rule 

ended on October 19, 2018. 

The Council developed Framework 

Adjustment 12 and the measure 

described in the proposed rule under 

the discretionary provision specified in 

section 303(b)(12) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.; 

1853(b)(12)). The objective of this action 

is to change to possession limits when 

100 percent of the domestic annual 

harvest (DAH) is landed, from zero 

possession to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg). The 

primary purpose of this action is to 

avoid adverse economic impacts to the 

commercial fishing industry once the 

DAH is projected to be harvested. 

Details concerning the development of 

these measures are contained in the SEA 

prepared for this action and 

summarized in the preamble of the 

proposed rule, therefore they are not 

repeated here. 

Approved Measure 

The approved measure will allow the 

possession of up to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) 

of Atlantic mackerel after 100 percent of 

the DAH has been projected to be 

harvested for the remainder of the 2018 

fishing year and moving forward. 

Current regulations prohibit the 

possession of Atlantic mackerel after 

100 percent of the DAH is harvested. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received four comments on 

this action, one was unrelated to the 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES