[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65301-65313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27481]


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

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd8f989593d39f8f949c93bd988d9cd39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f88a9d9096d69a8a919996b89d8899d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 65302]]

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 Pittsburgh-
Beaver 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Pittsburgh-Beaver 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Upon 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (NO<INF>X</INF>), and direct emissions of fine 
particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>). PADEP's analysis focuses on VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions because low RVP requirements were adopted by the Commonwealth 
to address the ozone NAAQS and because VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions are the primary precursors for ground-level ozone formation. 
NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions also 
contribute to formation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and therefore PADEP also 
analyzed the effect on the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Pittsburgh-Beaver
                                          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       tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
2018:

[[Page 65304]]

 
    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             +119           +0.84           +43.5            +0.3            -2.0
         Emissions...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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             +116           +0.79           +13.1           +0.09            -2.2
         Emissions...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. PADEP's 
demonstration shows that direct emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, with direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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       tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
2018:

[[Page 65305]]

 
    Change in Emissions from              119            0.84            43.5             0.3            -2.0
     RVP Rule Repeal \4\.....
    Emission Adjustment to                 30            0.21              11            0.08            -2.0
     RVP Change Estimate (25%
     increase)...............
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Emissions                   149            1.05            54.5            0.38
         Requiring Offset....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adhesives Rule Reductions           1,163             3.2               0               0               0
     for Offset..............
    Facility Shutdown                    13.8            0.04             625             1.8            26.5
     Reductions for Offset...
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Available                 1,177            3.24             625             1.8            28.5
         Offset Emissions....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Remaining Reductions                1,028            2.19           570.5             1.0            28.5
     After Offsetting Removal
     of State RVP Program
     [i.e., Total Emissions
     Requiring Offset--Total
     Available Offsets]......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023:
    Change in Emissions from              116            0.79            13.1            0.09            -2.0
     RVP Rule Repeal \5\.....
    Emission Adjustment to                 29            0.20             3.3            0.02
     RVP Change Estimate (25%
     increase)...............
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Emissions                   144            0.99            16.4            0.11            -2.0
         Requiring Offset....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adhesives & Sealants Rule           1,159            3.19               0               0               0
     Reductions..............
    Guardian Industries                  13.8            0.04             625             1.8            26.5
     Facility Shutdown
     Reductions..............
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Available                 1,173            3.23             625             1.8            28.5
         Offset Emissions....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Surplus Reductions After            1,028            2.24           608.6            1.69            28.5
     Offset [Total Emissions
     Requiring Offset--Total
     Available Offsets]......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in Table 2, Pennsylvania has more VOC, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SIP-approved 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This 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.
    \5\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> or interfere with 
reasonable further progress. In addition, EPA believes that removing 
the 7.8 psi low RVP program requirements in the

[[Page 65306]]

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 Sec.  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 
cross-state 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 state-effective 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  126.301. The commenter believes that EPA is limited to action on 
the submitted non-interference demonstration, as the Commonwealth's

[[Page 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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> in 
June 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). EPA later designated portions 
of Allegheny and Beaver Counties as nonattainment under the 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS because regulation 
of motor gasoline volatility does not impact SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 65308]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Based on MARAMA's 2023 gamma inventory, referenced in Table 
9 of Pennsylvania's May 2, 2018 SIP revision.
    \7\ Based on EPA's 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI) 
version 1 final, referenced in Table 9 of Pennsylvania's May 2, 2018 
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 re-permitted. 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 Pittsburgh-Beaver 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

[[Page 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, and 28.5 tpy of PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 2018. 
By 2023, PADEP projects the remaining available emission credits will 
total 1028 tpy (or 2.24 tpd) of NO<INF>X</INF>, 609 tpy (or 1.69 tpd) 
of VOC, and 28.5 tpy of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions. Pennsylvania's noninterference 
demonstration does analyze these summertime impacts on those emissions 
that affect both the ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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

[[Page 65310]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ TANKS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 EPA-
approved 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 
Pittsburgh-Beaver 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

[[Page 65311]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 65312]]

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/gasoline-standards/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/gasoline-standards/gasoline-reid-vapor-pressure). 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 Pittsburgh-Beaver 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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).

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania


Sec.  52.2020   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>