Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Removal of Allegheny County Requirements Applicable to Gasoline Volatility in the Allegheny County Portion of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, 32076-32083 [2019-14258]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32076
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0144; FRL–9996–04–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Removal of Allegheny
County Requirements Applicable to
Gasoline Volatility in the Allegheny
County Portion of the PittsburghBeaver Valley Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action
approving a state implementation plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of the Allegheny County Health
Department (ACHD). The Pennsylvania
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
*
The District of Columbia ...
[FR Doc. 2019–14144 Filed 7–3–19; 8:45 am]
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
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 September 3, 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
pertaining to the District’s NNSR
program and the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
Applicable geographic
area
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
*
*
2008 8-Hour Ozone Certification for
Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR).
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).
State submittal
date
*
05/23/2018
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 J—District of Columbia
2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding the entry
‘‘2008 8-Hour Ozone Certification for
Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR)’’ at the end of the table to read
as follows:
■
§ 52.470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e)* * *
EPA approval date
*
*
07/05/2019, Insert Federal
Register citation].
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) submitted a SIP revision on
March 19, 2019 seeking to remove from
the Pennsylvania SIP an Allegheny
County requirement limiting
summertime gasoline volatility in
Allegheny County to 7.8 pounds per
square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP). The original purpose of that
gasoline requirement was 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). EPA acted in December 2018 to
remove similar 7.8 psi RVP
requirements that applied to the entire
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, as the
requirements are no longer needed to
address nonattainment in the area and
have been supplanted by other
emissions control measures. This action
serves to remove the separate
comparable requirement in the
Pennsylvania SIP that applies only to
Allegheny County. The approval of this
SIP revision is supported by the
demonstration prepared by
PO 00000
Dated: June 21, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
*
*
Additional explanation
*
Pennsylvania in support of the earlier
SIP revision. That demonstration shows
that, pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), removal of the 7.8 psi RVP
requirements from the SIP will not
interfere with the area’s ability to attain
or maintain any NAAQS, nor will it be
inconsistent with any other CAA
requirements. EPA is approving this
revision to remove the ACHD
requirements for use of 7.8 psi RVP
gasoline in summer months from the
Pennsylvania SIP, in accordance with
the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July
5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0144. 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
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is (215) 814–2176.
Mr. Rehn can also be reached via
electronic mail at rehn.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 26, 2019 (84 FR 17762), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
proposing to approve its revision to
remove from the Pennsylvania SIP the
ACHD requirements for use of 7.8 psi
RVP gasoline during summer months in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The
formal SIP revision requesting this
removal of the ACHD summertime low
RVP program for the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area was submitted by PADEP,
on Allegheny County’s behalf, on March
19, 2019. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
to approve Pennsylvania’s request to
remove the 7.8 psi RVP summertime
gasoline requirement in Allegheny
County from the Pennsylvania SIP.
EPA received several adverse
comments on the April 26, 2019
proposed rulemaking. EPA has
addressed the public comments
received on this action below, in
Section IV of this preamble. EPA is
finalizing approval of Pennsylvania’s
request to remove the ACHD 7.8 psi
RVP summer gasoline requirements
applicable to Allegheny County from
the SIP and has concluded that doing so
does not interfere with the PittsburghBeaver Valley Area’s ability to attain or
maintain any NAAQS under section
110(l) of the CAA.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
II. Summary of the Pennsylvania 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 then applicable ozone
NAAQS, the PADEP and ACHD
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
responded by adopting a range of ozone
precursor emission control measures for
the area—including adoption of separate
state and Allegheny County rules to
limit summertime gasoline volatility to
7.8 psi RVP. While Pennsylvania’s RVP
control rule applied to the entire
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area—
Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,
Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland
Counties—ACHD adopted a
substantially similar rule applicable
only in Allegheny County.
Each of these overlapping RVP control
rules was separately submitted to EPA
for inclusion in the Pennsylvania SIP.
PADEP promulgated its rule applicable
to the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area in the November 1, 1997
Pennsylvania Bulletin (27 Pa.B. 5601,
effective November 1, 1997), codifying
its rule at Subchapter C of Chapter 126
of the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations
(25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter
C). Pennsylvania first submitted that
rule for inclusion in the Pennsylvania
SIP on April 17, 1998, which EPA
approved on June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31116).
The ACHD initially adopted its own
substantially similar summertime
gasoline 7.8 psi RVP rule (applicable
only to Allegheny County) via
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 submitted this ACHD
rule to EPA for incorporation into the
Pennsylvania SIP, which EPA approved
on April 17, 2001 (66 FR 19724),
effective June 18, 2001.
B. PADEP and ACHD Actions To
Suspend Low RVP Gasoline
Requirements
In the 2013 through 2014 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 offset the
emissions reduction impact associated
with repeal of the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area 7.8 RVP gasoline
requirement. Act 50 directs PADEP to
repeal, upon EPA approval of its
NAAQS noninterference demonstration,
the summertime gasoline RVP limit
provisions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126,
Subchapter C.
On May 2, 2018, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision to EPA requesting removal
from the Pennsylvania SIP of the state
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32077
requirements of Chapter 126,
Subchapter C of the Pennsylvania Code,
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.]’’
On December 20, 2018 (83 FR 65301),
EPA approved Pennsylvania’s May 2018
request to remove from the SIP PADEP’s
rules under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126
requiring 7.8 psi RVP gasoline during
summer months in the greater
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. EPA’s
action also approved Pennsylvania’s
CAA 110(l) NAAQS noninterference
demonstration showing that the
emissions impact from repeal of the 7.8
psi gasoline volatility requirements in
the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
(including Allegheny County) is offset
by means of substitution of
commensurate emissions reductions
from other measures enacted by
Pennsylvania. Upon the effective date of
EPA’s December 2018 action, Allegheny
County remained subject to ACHD’s 7.8
psi RVP summer gasoline limits, while
the remainder of the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area became subject to Federal
9.0 RVP summer gasoline limits.
ACHD subsequently revised its own
7.8 psi RVP rule (codified at Article
XXI, §§ 2105.90 and 2107.15 of the
Rules and Regulations of the Allegheny
County Health Department; amended
February 21, 2019, effective March 3,
2019) to suspend applicability of
ACHD’s 7.8 psi RVP summer gasoline
requirements. This ACHD Article XXI
rule revision established its effective
date as the date of EPA’s removal of the
revised Article XXI sections from the
Allegheny County portion of the
Pennsylvania SIP. On March 19, 2019,
PADEP submitted this SIP revision (on
behalf of ACHD) to EPA to request
removal of the ACHD’s RVP rule
requirements from the Pennsylvania
SIP. It is this March 2019 request to
remove the ACHD RVP program
requirements from the SIP that is the
subject of EPA’s current rulemaking
action.
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
32078
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
III. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s
SIP Revision
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
A. Pennsylvania’s Estimate of the
Impacts of Removing the 7.8 psi RVP
Requirement
EPA’s primary consideration for
determining the approvability of
Pennsylvania’s request (on behalf of
ACHD) to remove the County
requirements for a gasoline volatility
control program from its SIP is whether
this requested action complies with
section 110 of the CAA, and specifically
with section 110(l), governing removal
of an EPA-approved SIP requirement.1
Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA
from approving any SIP revision if such
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or
any other applicable requirement of the
CAA. An earlier Pennsylvania SIP
revision submitted to EPA on May 2,
2018 included a ‘‘noninterference
demonstration’’ explaining how the
removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement
would not interfere with attaining or
maintaining any NAAQS in the entire
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area,
including Allegheny County.
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), 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. 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, with
the purpose of providing that the status
quo air quality is preserved.
As discussed in the NPRM for this
action, for removal of the Allegheny
1 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
Allegheny County (or even the entire PittsburghBeaver Valley Area) were not included in the SIP
prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
County low-RVP requirement from the
SIP, PADEP and ACHD relied upon the
existing CAA 110(l) noninterference
demonstration that was prepared in
support of PADEP’s May 2, 2018 SIP
revision approved by EPA in December
2018. Because EPA had already acted on
that demonstration applicable to
removal of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the
entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area,
EPA did not completely reconsider the
content and findings of that
demonstration with respect to removal
in this action of ACHD’s similar rule
applicable only to Allegheny County.
EPA’s review of the Commonwealth’s
analysis is contained in the docket for
EPA’s prior action (published December
20, 2018 (83 FR 65301)) to remove the
PADEP 7.8 psi RVP program from the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. Based on
our review of the information provided,
EPA found 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 the purpose of
demonstrating noninterference with any
NAAQS under CAA 110(l).
The result of the analysis was that
with the substituted measures, the
entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
will experience lower levels of ozone
pollution precursors of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and of fine particulate matter
smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), with
the substitute measures in place than it
would with continued operation of the
7.8 psi RVP program in the area. In
reviewing ACHD’s March 2019
submittal, EPA considered whether
there was any new circumstances or
information since the May 2018
demonstration submitted by PADEP that
would cause EPA to reconsider whether
the prior analysis was still valid.
Neither EPA nor the commenters
identified any such changes in
circumstances which would invalidate
the May 2018 demonstration analysis.
EPA concludes that the
Commonwealth’s May 2018
demonstration supporting removal of
the PADEP low-RVP rule (which
covered the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area from the SIP, including
Allegheny County) continues to show
that removal of state and local 7.8 RVP
gasoline requirements will not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
any NAAQS in the area. Thus, the
removal of the 7.8 psi low RVP fuel
program requirements in the Allegheny
County portion of the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area does not interfere with
Pennsylvania’s ability to demonstrate
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
compliance with any NAAQS. Based on
the May 2018 PADEP CAA 110(l)
noninterference analysis approved by
EPA and reevaluated by EPA in this
action (which is included as a
supporting element of the March 2019
SIP revision), EPA concludes that the
current action to remove the 7.8 psi RVP
fuel requirement in Allegheny County
will not negatively impact the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area’s ability
to attain or maintain any NAAQS or
interfere with reasonable further
progress or with any other CAA
applicable requirement.
IV. Response to Comments Received
During the Public Comment Period on
the NPRM
EPA received comments from six
separate commenters on our April 26,
2019 (84 FR 17762) proposed action.
One of these commenters was
supportive of EPA’s proposed action,
while the rest opposed at least some
aspects of our proposed rulemaking.
EPA’s summary of the significant
adverse comments received during the
public comment period for the proposed
rulemaking and our responses to those
comments are listed below.
Comment 1: (EPA–R03–OAR–2019–
0144–0020) The commenter notes that
EPA granted a federal ‘‘preemption
waiver’’ under section 221 (sic) (Title II)
of the CAA but does not explain why
that waiver is now being revoked. The
commenter contends that EPA is on a
march to deregulate and remove CAA
protections to make sure areas such as
Pittsburgh don’t (sic) violate Federal
VOC and ozone standards. The
commenter recommends that EPA
disapprove the Commonwealth’s
request to remove the Allegheny County
7.8 psi RVP program from the SIP until
the preemption waiver is resolved. The
commenter suggests that if a preemption
waiver is no longer warranted, EPA
must formally remove the preemption
waiver from the SIP before EPA can
remove the County low-RVP gasoline
program from the SIP.
Response 1: EPA believes the
commenter is referring to exclusive
federal control over the regulation of
fuels and fuel additives granted by
section 211 of the CAA. Specifically,
CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts state
fuel controls that are different from
federal fuel controls and provides
exceptions to exclusive federal
regulation that include a waiver of
preemption. Under CAA section
211(c)(4)(A), states (or political
subdivisions thereof) are generally
prohibited from prescribing, for
purposes of motor vehicle emission
control, any control of a component of
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
a fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor
vehicle engine. However, under CAA
section 211(c)(4)(C), a state may regulate
fuel or fuel additives if it adopts such
a measure as part of a SIP, but EPA may
only approve such a program into a SIP
after finding that the state or local
control is necessary to achieve a
primary or secondary NAAQS and if
there are no other measures that would
bring about timely attainment. Section
211(c)(4)(C)(i). EPA waived preemption
and approved the Commonwealth’s SIP
requiring use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline
during summer months in the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
(including Allegheny County) in two
separate SIP revisions in 1998 and
2001.2 It is the 2001 SIP approval
requiring the use of low-RVP fuel in the
Allegheny County portion of the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area that the
County is now seeking to remove from
the SIP. On April 26, 2019 (84 FR
17764), EPA proposed to approve the
County request to remove the use of
low-RVP fuel in the Allegheny County
portion of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area from the SIP. As explained earlier,
EPA approval of a state fuel measure
entails the waiver of preemption
contained in CAA 211(c)(4)(C)(i). Under
this provision, EPA may approve state
fuel controls in a SIP if EPA determines
that the fuel control is necessary to
achieve the NAAQS that the SIP
implements.
In sum, the Agency is required to
consider CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)
requirements when approving a state or
local fuel control program that would
serve in lieu of the otherwise applicable
Federal fuel control program. EPA can
only waive preemption if the
requirements of CAA section
211(c)(4)(C)(i) and (v) are met. Nothing
in these provisions, however, preclude
either a state or local government from
subsequently removing an approved
state fuel measure.3 Thus, there is no
requirement for a ‘‘waiver’’ to remove
the 7.8 psi RVP requirement from either
the Allegheny County portion or the
2 On June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31116), EPA approved
a SIP revision (submitted December 3, 1997; as
revised April 17, 1998) by PADEP to require the use
of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in summer months in the
7-county Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. On April 17, 2001 (66 FR
19724), EPA approved a SIP revision (submitted
March 23, 2000) by PADEP, on behalf of ACHD, to
require the use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in summer
months in the Allegheny County portion of the
same 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA’s
rationale for granting a federal preemption waiver
under CAA 211(c)(4)(C) is explained in the June 8,
1998 final rule, with the same rationale serving as
the basis for the April 17, 2001 final rule.
3 See for e.g., SIP revision for the removal of 7.0
psi RVP from the state of Alabama SIP. 77 FR 23619
(April 20, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
Pennsylvania portion of the SIP.
Instead, as shown in Section III of this
rulemaking action, Allegheny County or
Pennsylvania need only comply with
CAA section 110(l) given that the
removal of 7.8 psi RVP requirement
entails a SIP revision. As previously
explained, CAA section 110(l) prohibits
EPA from approving any SIP revision if
such revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or
any other applicable requirement of the
CAA.
The 7.8 psi state and local rules were
cited as control measures that
contributed to ozone reduction in
Pennsylvania’s April 9, 2001
maintenance plan supporting the
Commonwealth’s request for
redesignation to attainment of the 1979
1-hour ozone NAAQS, which EPA
approved on October 19, 2001 (66 FR
53094). In that same final rule, EPA
determined that the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area had attained the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by its legal attainment
deadline, based on three years of air
quality data. On the basis of that
determination, EPA found that an
attainment demonstration (and other
related requirements under Part D of
Title I of the CAA) were not applicable
requirements under the CAA for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The
Commonwealth’s reasonable further
progress plan for the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area was prepared prior to
adoption of the 7.8 psi RVP rule, and
therefore did not include reductions
from that measure to demonstrate
progress towards achievement of the
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes the
only requirement that must be satisfied
prior to removing an EPA approved
state or local fuel control measure are
the provisions of CAA section 110
related to SIP actions—and specifically
the required showing that EPA approval
of a revision to the SIP does not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress towards
attainment, or other applicable CAA
requirement.
Comment 2: (EPA–R03–OAR–0144–
0016) The commenter contends that in
the proposed action, EPA certifies that
the action does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, but that
comments submitted by Sunoco LLC
during the County’s rule adoption
asserted that the rule revision will
‘‘have economic advantages to both
citizens and businesses of the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area.’’ The
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32079
commenter asks how EPA can certify
that the action has no significant
economic impact if one of the nation’s
largest oil producers emphasized the
economic savings and asks to see EPA’s
analysis showing that removal of the
program does not significantly impact
small entities.
Response 2: EPA does not agree that
it is required to assess the economic
impact of approving Allegheny County’s
request to remove the low-RVP gas
requirement from the Allegheny County
portion of the Pennsylvania SIP. As
explained in the introductory sentences
to the Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews section of the NPRM:
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission that
complies with the provisions of the Act 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 that they meet the
criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 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.);
84 FR 17762, 17767 (April 26, 2019).
EPA’s approval of the State’s request
to remove from the SIP the requirement
to use low-RVP gasoline in Allegheny
County merely approves an enacted
state law (ACHD’s removal of the lowRVP requirement from Allegheny
County’s regulations) as meeting the
Federal CAA requirements and does not
impose any additional requirements
beyond those already imposed by state
law. For this reason, EPA’s action in
approving this SIP revision does not
have a significant impact under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Comment 3: (EPA–R03–OAR–0144–
0016) The commenter contends that
EPA failed to require a noninterference
demonstration for the revoked 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. The commenter argues
that PADEP’s noninterference
demonstration (prepared by PADEP as
part of its April 2018 SIP revision,
supporting removal of both State and
County low-RVP gasoline rules from the
SIP) contains photochemical grid
modeling that addresses only the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS and not the prior,
revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The
commenter argues that because the 1hour ozone standard is based on a
substantially different averaging time
and exceedance framework than the 8hour NAAQS, EPA must ensure that
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
32080
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
removal of an area-wide requirement
(low-RVP fuel) is protective, as EPA
claims.
Response 3: The Commonwealth’s
CAA 110(l) demonstration focused on
demonstrating that current air quality
can be maintained for all NAAQS
without continuation of the existing 7.8
psi RVP gasoline control measure. The
basis for the Commonwealth’s
demonstration is through substitution of
equivalent or greater reductions in
primarily VOC and NOX emissions from
other measures to offset the VOC and
NOX reductions that would no longer be
achieved upon removal of the 7.8 psi
RVP gasoline control measure.
In evaluating whether a SIP revision
would interfere with maintenance or
attainment, 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. In assessing
compliance with CAA section 110(l),
EPA treats each submission as a unique
case, reviewing and acting upon each
one on a case-by-case basis through
regional SIP action. However, EPA did
broach the subject of compliance with
CAA 110(l) noninterference in guidance
prepared specifically for removal of
another control measure, entitled
‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II
Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and
Assessing Comparable Measures,’’
August 7, 2012 [EPA–457/B–12–001].
Therein, EPA stated that it could
propose to approve a SIP revision that
removes or modifies a control measure
if there is a basis in the state’s submittal
for concluding that the SIP revision
does not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS or
requirements related to reasonable
further progress towards attainment of a
NAAQS. Suggested methods listed in
that guidance document for
demonstrating noninterference include:
(1) Substitution of new control measures
that offset the reductions of the
pollutants addressed by the prior plan;
(2) offset of emissions due to excess
emission reductions not accounted for
in the current SIP; or (3) emissions
increases that are shown not to interfere
with attainment. Pennsylvania has
demonstrated that the emission
reductions achieved by the 7.8 low RVP
gasoline program have been offset by
emission reduction measures not
previously quantified or claimed in the
approved SIP, and EPA approved the
Commonwealth’s noninterference
demonstration for the entire PittsburghBeaver Valley Area as part of our
December 20, 2018 final rule approving
the Commonwealth’s removal of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
PADEP 7.8 psi low-RVP control measure
from the SIP (a measure that applied to
the 7-county Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area, including Allegheny County).
As the commenter noted, the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS was revoked by EPA
under the Agency’s requirements for
implementation of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.9(b), 62 FR 38894
(July 18, 1997), 69 FR 23951, 23969
(April 30, 2004). The 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was no longer applicable in the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as of June
15, 2005. We need not consider whether
this SIP revision interferes with the
revoked 1-hour NAAQS. By definition,
a revision cannot interfere with
something that is no longer in effect,
such as a revoked NAAQS. EPA has
dealt with the anti-backsliding concerns
related to revoked NAAQS by
promulgating regulations to address that
issue. Thus, so long as the antibacksliding requirements in the ozonerequirements rule are met, further
demonstration of noninterference under
110(l) are not necessary.
Comment 4: (EPA–R03–OAR–0144–
0016) The commenter asks why EPA
would remove a measure that achieves
VOC reductions for a county that EPA
has designated nonattainment for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, when VOC
reductions could help the area attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS, because VOCs can be
precursors to PM2.5 formation. The
commenter contends that EPA should
not allow Allegheny County to remove
the low-RVP gasoline program from the
SIP until it has been shown that the area
is able to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS
without the additional VOC reductions
achieved by this rule.
Response 4: Section 110(l) of the CAA
prohibits EPA from approving a plan
revision ’’ . . . if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, . . . or any
other applicable requirement of this
chapter.’’ In this SIP revision, EPA
believes that the noninterference
demonstration submitted by PADEP for
the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
does show that the small emission
increase of VOCs resulting from removal
of the low-RVP gasoline requirement are
more than offset by reductions in VOC
emissions from the shutdown of the
Guardian Glass facility and the adoption
of new limits on solvents, paints and
adhesive adopted by Pennsylvania. In
EPA’s guidance on removing stage II
gasoline vapor recovery controls, EPA
lays out several alternative means of
assessing noninterference. Therein, EPA
specifically states, ‘‘In evaluating
whether a given SIP would interfere
with attainment or maintenance, . . .
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 EPAapproved SIP. The EPA has not required
that a state produce a new, complete
attainment demonstration for every SIP
revision, provided that the status quo air
quality is preserved. See, e.g., Kentucky
Resources Council, Inc, v. EPA, 467 F.3d
986 (6th Cir. 2006).4’’
Pennsylvania has demonstrated
noninterference with all NAAQS
through primarily an emissions
substitution approach, using methods
prescribed by EPA guidance under
section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA
approved Pennsylvania’s CAA section
110(l) noninterference demonstration
for the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area (including Allegheny County) on
December 20, 2018 (83 FR 65301).
Comment 5: (EPA–R03–OAR–2019–
0144–0021) Commenter notes that in
Pennsylvania’s prior SIP revision
requesting removal of the state’s lowRVP gasoline rule applicable to the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, PADEP
stated that it wished to retain any
remaining balance of creditable
emission reductions from the permanent
closure of the Guardian Industries glass
manufacturing facility located in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
However, EPA’s proposed approval of
this prior SIP action states that no
remaining balance of credits would be
held by the state, and EPA’s final action
did not address whether the remaining
balance of creditable emission
reductions were forfeited or retained by
Pennsylvania. The commenter requests
that EPA clarify whether the remaining
balance of emission reductions are
retained by Pennsylvania for future use
and quantify how many remain and/or
are forfeited, so that there is no future
double counting of these emissions
reductions.
Response 5: EPA received a similar
comment in response to our proposal to
approve removal of PADEP’s 7.8 psi
RVP gasoline program from the nonAllegheny County portions of the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area.5 In our
final December 2018 rulemaking for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 7.8 psi
RVP program SIP removal action, EPA
clarified that emission reduction from
Guardian Glass closure remained
available. The Guardian Glass facility
permanently ceased operation in August
2015 but did not request that potentially
4 See p. 4, ‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Control Program from
SIPs and Assessing Comparable Measures,’’ (April
7, 2012) [EPA–457/B–12–001].
5 See 83 FR 27901, June 15, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
creditable emission reductions be
preserved in the emission inventory
within one year of closure, which is a
prerequisite for their use as emission
reduction credits (ERCs) for
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) purposes under Pennsylvania’s
rules governing that program (25 Pa.
Code 127.207(2)). As a result, the
reductions are no longer eligible for
future use as ERCs for NNSR offset
purposes, but they remain available for
other uses. As EPA stated in our
December 20, 2018 final rule, because
these surplus emission reductions no
longer qualify as ERCs under Pa. Code
Chapter 127, Subchapter E, EPA
believes they do not need to be
memorialized in either a state plan
approval, or a SIP revision or emission
inventory. The facility’s permits are no
longer valid, and reactivation of the
facility would be subject to NNSR and
re-permitting.
However, that does not mean that
these remaining emission reductions
from closure of this facility have no use.
PADEP reserved the right to request
consideration of these reductions for
future use for other SIP planning
purposes other than NNSR offsets—
potentially as part of a future
demonstration relating to NAAQS
planning requirements. Any such future
use would require a SIP revision at that
time, with a demonstration of the
emission reductions viability for use in
any future SIP revision. Although
PADEP quantified the remaining
reductions that are surplus after
offsetting removal of the low-RVP
gasoline program, the surplus reduction
quantities listed in EPA’s December 20,
2018 SIP action are not directly
translatable to any future SIP planning
use. Any future use of the remaining
emission reductions would need to be
reevaluated as part of a subsequent SIP
action supporting their potential use at
that time for SIP planning purposes.
EPA does not agree that it must
quantify the remaining surplus or the
amount that should be forfeited as part
of this action. EPA has clarified its
position that these reductions can no
longer be used for NNSR offset purposes
under the relevant state rule. EPA
cannot memorialize the remaining
emission reductions potentially
available for future SIP purposes as the
reductions must be re-evaluated in the
context of the specific SIP action for
which the Commonwealth wishes to use
the reductions.
Comment 6: (EPA–R03–OAR–2019–
0144–0019) The commenter argues that
EPA and Allegheny County have not
provided an adequate demonstration
that removal of the low-RVP gasoline
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
program will not interfere with
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS,
because VOCs are a precursor to
formation of ambient PM2.5. The
commenter contends that PADEP
should perform modeling regarding the
impacts of the removal of the RVP
requirement, rather than simply
comparing overall emissions increases
and decreases of VOCs. Commenter
claims that the submitted
noninterference analysis only compares
the magnitude of emissions reductions
from the 2015 shutdown of the
Guardian Industries facility and
reductions from a regulation for control
of VOCs from adhesives, sealants,
primers, and solvents, promulgated by
DEP, to the magnitude of the emissions
increases from discontinuation of the
low-RVP requirement. The commenter
notes that Allegheny County has
continued to be in nonattainment with
the PM2.5 standards despite the fact that
the reductions in emissions relied upon
by PADEP’s analysis occurred prior to
2016. Commenter believes this
continued nonattainment despite the
reductions from earlier shutdowns and
regulatory changes means the
Department should be looking more
closely at local impacts from regulatory
initiatives rather than offsetting
emissions at different locations.
Response 6: EPA is not evaluating the
adequacy of the state’s separate, ongoing
efforts to develop an appropriate
attainment area plan for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS for the Allegheny County
nonattainment area in this action. The
commenter’s concerns with respect to
the modeling and monitoring analyses
contained in the state’s draft PM2.5
attainment plan are not relevant to
EPA’s action to remove the 7.8. psi RVP
rule from the SIP, and as such do not
warrant consideration in this final rule.
As indicated in response to a prior
comment, in evaluating whether a SIP
revision (e.g., removal of an existing
rule from the SIP) would interfere with
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS,
per CAA section 110(l), EPA generally
considers whether the SIP revision will
allow for an increase in actual emissions
in the air over what is allowed under
the existing approved SIP, in an attempt
to ensure that the status quo with regard
to air quality is maintained. The EPA
has not required that a state produce a
new complete attainment demonstration
for every SIP revision, provided that the
status quo air quality is preserved.6
6 See p. 4, ‘‘Guidance on Removing Stage II
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Control Program from
SIPs and Assessing Comparable Measures,’’ (April
7, 2012) [EPA–457/B–12–001].
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32081
EPA has reviewed the
Commonwealth’s noninterference
demonstration for this action to remove
the 7.8 psi RVP rule from the
Pennsylvania SIP and determined that
the provided analysis shows that the
emissions from removal of that rule
have been fully offset by substitute
reductions in VOCs and NOX from other
measures not already in the approved
SIP, and this analysis included
consideration of the PM2.5 NAAQS.7
EPA believes that it would be
inappropriate to evaluate the removal of
the ACHD low-RVP rule from the SIP in
this action premised upon the potential
approvability of the County’s proposed
Allegheny County PM2.5 attainment
plan, as that plan is currently out for
public comment by the County and may
change in response to any comments
received before it is formally submitted
to EPA as a SIP revision. EPA is not
evaluating the adequacy of the state’s
separate ongoing efforts to develop an
appropriate attainment plan for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Allegheny County
nonattainment area in this action.
Further, the commenter’s concern with
respect to the modeling and monitoring
analyses contained in the
Commonwealth’s draft PM2.5 attainment
plan is not relevant to EPA’s action to
remove the 7.8. psi RVP rule from the
SIP, and as such do not warrant
consideration in this final rule.
Therefore, EPA is not directly
addressing the merits of these comments
in this action and recommends that the
commenter submit its comments to the
County during the County’s current
administrative process and also during
any future action EPA may take on that
plan after the state formally submits the
ultimate plan to EPA as a SIP revision.
ACHD intends to submit to EPA a PM2.5
attainment plan which will address the
PM2.5 issue. The proper place to
evaluate how to achieve PM2.5
attainment is in response to that plan.
Comment 7: The commenter contends
that PADEPs approach of direct
substitution of emissions of pollutants
with reductions associated with other
measures is inadequate to ensure that
there is no increase in ambient pollution
concentrations from such an approach,
and that ambient concentration
7 See Table 8 (p. 23) of PADEP’s ‘‘Final State
Implementation Plan Revision to Remove
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area Summertime Low
Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility
Requirements and Supporting Noninterference
Demonstration Under Section 110(l) of the Clean
Air Act’’ dated April 2018, which summarizes
direct PM2.5 (as well as VOC and NOX) emission
reductions from offsetting measures. The PADEP
noninterference demonstration also discusses the
Commonwealth’s evaluation of PM2.5
noninterference on pp. 25–26 of that document.
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
32082
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
modelling is warranted to ensure
NAAQS noninterference or other CAA
requirements, such as potential impact
on regional haze.
Response 7: While ambient
concentration modeling is necessary for
an attainment plan, it is not necessary
to demonstrate attainment for purposes
of amending the SIP to remove a rule.
As was discussed in response to a prior
comment, noninterference is the only
CAA required test for removal of a rule
that is not mandatory under the CAA,
nor an applicable Part D measure
mandated by the law. In demonstrating
noninterference under CAA 110(l),
ambient concentration modeling to
show the impact of the removal of a rule
is but one possible test of
noninterference—albeit not a required
one. Direct substitution of other
measures that achieve equivalent
emissions reductions to offset the
removed measure is an allowable
method of demonstrating CAA 110(l)
noninterference.
Comment 8: (EPA–R03–OAR–2019–
0144–0149) The commenter contends
that removal of the low-RVP
requirements may affect the control
strategy for the PM2.5 attainment
demonstration. The commenter claims
that PADEP should strengthen its
control strategy to reduce
concentrations of fine particulates
presenting harm to individuals rather
than finessing attainment by ignoring
data at the Liberty monitor through misinterpretation of an EPA guidance
document. Among other things, that
control strategy could include the
continuation of the RVP requirements,
depending on the results of a proper
factual analysis.
Response 8: EPA believes that this
comment should be addressed to
ACHD’s proposed attainment plan for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegheny
County, rather than to this action to
remove the ACHD low-RVP measure
from the SIP. The PM2.5 attainment plan
is currently undergoing the County’s
public comment process and has not yet
been formally submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision. As such, this comment should
be submitted during ACHD’s public
comment period for the PM2.5
attainment plan. Concerns raised by the
commenter with respect to whether the
area has actually attained the PM2.5
standard or done so in a timely manner,
or whether ACHD has followed EPA
guidance related to the monitoring or
modeling analyses that underlie that
demonstration, are not relevant to EPA’s
current action regarding whether to
approve the Commonwealth’s request
for removal the 7.8. psi RVP gasoline
rule from the SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
Comment 9: Commenter claims the
PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration is
flawed because it relies on
unrepresentative meteorological data
from the base year 2011 (p.4).
Commenter alleges that the 2011
meteorological data contains the second
lowest number of inversions (134) in a
year, which is lower than the typical
number of inversions in the last ten
years (157). Also, commenter states that
PADEP’s claim that the 2011 data is
more representative of normal years
because the Pittsburgh area has had
above normal temperatures and above
normal levels of precipitation in ‘‘recent
years’’ is not supported by the data.
Response 9: As explained above, this
comment concerns the PM2.5 attainment
demonstration, rather than this SIP
action, and EPA will therefore not
address this comment here because it is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking
action.
Comment 10: Commenter claims that
future emissions inventories for the
proposed attainment demonstration may
not be complete and accurate because
RVP 7.8 psi compliant fuel was burned
in the past but will not be burned in the
future and it is not clear how or whether
VOC emissions from the higher RVP
fuels that will be burned in the future
are tracked or accounted for in the
future emission inventory. Some
stationary sources have stored fuel with
varying RVP, ranging from 7 psi to 13
psi. See Appendix D (Emissions
Inventories) to Proposed Attainment
Demonstration. At a minimum, there is
a factual question regarding the degree
to which the removal of the RVP
requirements will affect the formation of
fine particulates.
Response 10: Because this comment is
questioning how the removal of lowRVP fuel will affect the emissions
inventory for the PM2.5 attainment
demonstration, EPA believes it should
be submitted as a comment on that plan.
EPA believes it would be more
appropriate to respond to this comment,
if submitted as a comment on any action
EPA proposes on ACHD’s PM2.5
attainment plan, in the context of
responding to comments on that plan.
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 fuel programs on
its website at: https://www.epa.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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, December 28, 2006).
The 7.8 psi RVP fuel program is a fuel
type that is included in EPA’s boutique
fuel list (published at 71 FR 78198,
December 28, 2006, and maintained
online at: https://www.epa.gov/gasolinestandards/state-fuels). Subsequent to
the final effective date of EPA’s
approval of Pennsylvania’s March 19,
2019 SIP revision to remove the ACHD
rule under Article XXI, EPA will update
the State Fuels and Gasoline Reid Vapor
Pressure web pages with the effective
date of the SIP removal. At that time,
the entry for Pennsylvania will be
deleted from the list of boutique fuels,
because Allegheny County was the final
remaining 7.8 psi RVP program area in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
However, the boutique fuels list will
retain the 7.8 psi RVP fuel type, as this
fuel program type continues to be in
other state SIPs.
VI. Final Action and Effective Date
A. Final Action
EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s
March 19, 2019 SIP revision requesting
the removal of ACHD’s 7.8 psi RVP
summer gasoline program for Allegheny
County (under Article XXI of the Rules
and Regulations of the Allegheny
County Health Department; amended
February 21, 2019, effective March 3,
2019) from the Pennsylvania SIP. Our
approval of the March 19, 2019 SIP
revision is being taken in accordance
with CAA requirements in section 110.
B. Notice of Effective Date
Section 553(d) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter
5, generally provides that rules may not
take effect earlier than 30 days after they
are published in the Federal Register.
EPA is issuing this final rule under CAA
section 307(d)(1) which states: ‘‘The
provisions of section 553 through 557
. . . of Title 5 shall not, except as
expressly provided in this subsection,
apply to actions to which this
subsection applies.’’ Thus, section
553(d) of the APA does not apply to this
rule. EPA is nevertheless acting
consistently with the policies
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
underlying APA section 553(d) in
making this rule effective on July 5,
2019. APA section 553(d) allows an
effective date less than 30 days after
publication for a rule ‘‘that grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This
rule fits within that exception because
it lifts a restriction on the introduction
into commerce of gasoline with an RVP
of greater than 7.8 psi sold in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania between June 1
and September 15 of each year. Because
ACHD adopted this rule in February
2019 (just prior to the commencement of
the May 1 regulatory compliance
deadline requiring use of low-RVP fuel
in the Summer 2019 fuel season) and
then submitted the rule to EPA in March
2019, EPA’s final action will coincide
with the summer low-RVP compliance
period, resulting in supply chain
uncertainty for affected gasoline
refining, distribution, and retail
industries. Additionally, the effective
date for ACHD’s revocation of the lowRVP gasoline requirement is based upon
EPA’s final rulemaking effective date,
creating further industry uncertainty
with respect to regulatory compliance in
the time prior to EPA’s final rule
effective date. Therefore, this action can
be considered to relieve a restriction
that would otherwise prevent the
introduction into commerce of gasoline
with an RVP of greater than 7.8 psi. By
setting the effective date of this action
to the date of final rule publication, EPA
could alleviate potential supply
disruption that might occur due to the
timing of this action during the 2019
summer fuel control season. Therefore,
EPA is making this action to remove the
Allegheny County program from the
Pennsylvania SIP effective on July 5,
2019.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
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).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
32083
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 September 3, 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 summer season
7.8 psi RVP gasoline requirements for
Allegheny County 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: June 24, 2019.
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)(2) is amended by removing:
■ a. The subheading entitled ‘‘Subpart
9—Transportation Related Sources’’ and
the entry ‘‘2105.90’’; and
■ b. Under ‘‘Part G—Methods’’ the entry
‘‘2107.15’’.
■
[FR Doc. 2019–14258 Filed 7–3–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32076-32083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0144; FRL-9996-04-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Removal of Allegheny County Requirements Applicable to
Gasoline Volatility in the Allegheny County Portion of 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, on behalf of the Allegheny County
Health Department (ACHD). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision on March 19, 2019 seeking
to remove from the Pennsylvania SIP an Allegheny County requirement
limiting summertime gasoline volatility in Allegheny County to 7.8
pounds per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). The original
purpose of that gasoline requirement was 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). EPA acted in December 2018 to remove
similar 7.8 psi RVP requirements that applied to the entire Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area, as the requirements are no longer needed to address
nonattainment in the area and have been supplanted by other emissions
control measures. This action serves to remove the separate comparable
requirement in the Pennsylvania SIP that applies only to Allegheny
County. The approval of this SIP revision is supported by the
demonstration prepared by Pennsylvania in support of the earlier SIP
revision. That demonstration shows that, pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirements from the SIP will not
interfere with the area's ability to attain or maintain any NAAQS, nor
will it be inconsistent with any other CAA requirements. EPA is
approving this revision to remove the ACHD requirements for use of 7.8
psi RVP gasoline in summer months from the Pennsylvania SIP, in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0144. 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
[[Page 32077]]
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, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is (215) 814-2176. Mr. Rehn can also be reached
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 26, 2019 (84 FR 17762), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing to
approve its revision to remove from the Pennsylvania SIP the ACHD
requirements for use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline during summer months in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The formal SIP revision requesting this
removal of the ACHD summertime low RVP program for the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area was submitted by PADEP, on Allegheny County's
behalf, on March 19, 2019. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to approve
Pennsylvania's request to remove the 7.8 psi RVP summertime gasoline
requirement in Allegheny County from the Pennsylvania SIP.
EPA received several adverse comments on the April 26, 2019
proposed rulemaking. EPA has addressed the public comments received on
this action below, in Section IV of this preamble. EPA is finalizing
approval of Pennsylvania's request to remove the ACHD 7.8 psi RVP
summer gasoline requirements applicable to Allegheny County from the
SIP and has concluded that doing so does not interfere with the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area's ability to attain or maintain any NAAQS
under section 110(l) of the CAA.
II. Summary of the Pennsylvania 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 then applicable ozone NAAQS, the
PADEP and ACHD responded by adopting a range of ozone precursor
emission control measures for the area--including adoption of separate
state and Allegheny County rules to limit summertime gasoline
volatility to 7.8 psi RVP. While Pennsylvania's RVP control rule
applied to the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area--Allegheny,
Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland
Counties--ACHD adopted a substantially similar rule applicable only in
Allegheny County.
Each of these overlapping RVP control rules was separately
submitted to EPA for inclusion in the Pennsylvania SIP. PADEP
promulgated its rule applicable to the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area in the November 1, 1997 Pennsylvania Bulletin (27 Pa.B. 5601,
effective November 1, 1997), codifying its rule at Subchapter C of
Chapter 126 of the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations (25 Pa. Code
Chapter 126, Subchapter C). Pennsylvania first submitted that rule for
inclusion in the Pennsylvania SIP on April 17, 1998, which EPA approved
on June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31116). The ACHD initially adopted its own
substantially similar summertime gasoline 7.8 psi RVP rule (applicable
only to Allegheny County) via 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 submitted this ACHD
rule to EPA for incorporation into the Pennsylvania SIP, which EPA
approved on April 17, 2001 (66 FR 19724), effective June 18, 2001.
B. PADEP and ACHD Actions To Suspend Low RVP Gasoline Requirements
In the 2013 through 2014 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 offset the emissions reduction impact associated with
repeal of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 7.8 RVP gasoline
requirement. Act 50 directs PADEP to repeal, upon EPA approval of its
NAAQS noninterference demonstration, the summertime gasoline RVP limit
provisions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter C.
On May 2, 2018, PADEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA requesting
removal from the Pennsylvania SIP of the state requirements of Chapter
126, Subchapter C of the Pennsylvania Code, 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.]''
On December 20, 2018 (83 FR 65301), EPA approved Pennsylvania's May
2018 request to remove from the SIP PADEP's rules under 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 126 requiring 7.8 psi RVP gasoline during summer months in the
greater Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. EPA's action also approved
Pennsylvania's CAA 110(l) NAAQS noninterference demonstration showing
that the emissions impact from repeal of the 7.8 psi gasoline
volatility requirements in the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
(including Allegheny County) is offset by means of substitution of
commensurate emissions reductions from other measures enacted by
Pennsylvania. Upon the effective date of EPA's December 2018 action,
Allegheny County remained subject to ACHD's 7.8 psi RVP summer gasoline
limits, while the remainder of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area became
subject to Federal 9.0 RVP summer gasoline limits.
ACHD subsequently revised its own 7.8 psi RVP rule (codified at
Article XXI, Sec. Sec. 2105.90 and 2107.15 of the Rules and
Regulations of the Allegheny County Health Department; amended February
21, 2019, effective March 3, 2019) to suspend applicability of ACHD's
7.8 psi RVP summer gasoline requirements. This ACHD Article XXI rule
revision established its effective date as the date of EPA's removal of
the revised Article XXI sections from the Allegheny County portion of
the Pennsylvania SIP. On March 19, 2019, PADEP submitted this SIP
revision (on behalf of ACHD) to EPA to request removal of the ACHD's
RVP rule requirements from the Pennsylvania SIP. It is this March 2019
request to remove the ACHD RVP program requirements from the SIP that
is the subject of EPA's current rulemaking action.
[[Page 32078]]
III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's SIP Revision
A. Pennsylvania's Estimate of the Impacts of Removing the 7.8 psi RVP
Requirement
EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
Pennsylvania's request (on behalf of ACHD) to remove the County
requirements for a gasoline volatility control program from its SIP is
whether this requested action complies with section 110 of the CAA, and
specifically with section 110(l), governing removal of an EPA-approved
SIP requirement.\1\ Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from
approving any SIP revision if such revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. An earlier Pennsylvania SIP revision submitted
to EPA on May 2, 2018 included a ``noninterference demonstration''
explaining how the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would not
interfere with attaining or maintaining any NAAQS in the entire
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, including Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 Allegheny County
(or even the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area) were not included
in the SIP prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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), 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. 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, with the purpose
of providing that the status quo air quality is preserved.
As discussed in the NPRM for this action, for removal of the
Allegheny County low-RVP requirement from the SIP, PADEP and ACHD
relied upon the existing CAA 110(l) noninterference demonstration that
was prepared in support of PADEP's May 2, 2018 SIP revision approved by
EPA in December 2018. Because EPA had already acted on that
demonstration applicable to removal of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the
entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, EPA did not completely reconsider
the content and findings of that demonstration with respect to removal
in this action of ACHD's similar rule applicable only to Allegheny
County. EPA's review of the Commonwealth's analysis is contained in the
docket for EPA's prior action (published December 20, 2018 (83 FR
65301)) to remove the PADEP 7.8 psi RVP program from the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area. Based on our review of the information provided,
EPA found 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 the purpose of
demonstrating noninterference with any NAAQS under CAA 110(l).
The result of the analysis was that with the substituted measures,
the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area will experience lower levels
of ozone pollution precursors of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and of fine particulate matter
smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), with the substitute
measures in place than it would with continued operation of the 7.8 psi
RVP program in the area. In reviewing ACHD's March 2019 submittal, EPA
considered whether there was any new circumstances or information since
the May 2018 demonstration submitted by PADEP that would cause EPA to
reconsider whether the prior analysis was still valid. Neither EPA nor
the commenters identified any such changes in circumstances which would
invalidate the May 2018 demonstration analysis.
EPA concludes that the Commonwealth's May 2018 demonstration
supporting removal of the PADEP low-RVP rule (which covered the entire
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area from the SIP, including Allegheny County)
continues to show that removal of state and local 7.8 RVP gasoline
requirements will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
any NAAQS in the area. Thus, the removal of the 7.8 psi low RVP fuel
program requirements in the Allegheny County portion of the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area does not interfere with Pennsylvania's ability to
demonstrate compliance with any NAAQS. Based on the May 2018 PADEP CAA
110(l) noninterference analysis approved by EPA and reevaluated by EPA
in this action (which is included as a supporting element of the March
2019 SIP revision), EPA concludes that the current action to remove the
7.8 psi RVP fuel requirement in Allegheny County will not negatively
impact the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area's ability to attain or
maintain any NAAQS or interfere with reasonable further progress or
with any other CAA applicable requirement.
IV. Response to Comments Received During the Public Comment Period on
the NPRM
EPA received comments from six separate commenters on our April 26,
2019 (84 FR 17762) proposed action. One of these commenters was
supportive of EPA's proposed action, while the rest opposed at least
some aspects of our proposed rulemaking. EPA's summary of the
significant adverse comments received during the public comment period
for the proposed rulemaking and our responses to those comments are
listed below.
Comment 1: (EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0144-0020) The commenter notes that
EPA granted a federal ``preemption waiver'' under section 221 (sic)
(Title II) of the CAA but does not explain why that waiver is now being
revoked. The commenter contends that EPA is on a march to deregulate
and remove CAA protections to make sure areas such as Pittsburgh don't
(sic) violate Federal VOC and ozone standards. The commenter recommends
that EPA disapprove the Commonwealth's request to remove the Allegheny
County 7.8 psi RVP program from the SIP until the preemption waiver is
resolved. The commenter suggests that if a preemption waiver is no
longer warranted, EPA must formally remove the preemption waiver from
the SIP before EPA can remove the County low-RVP gasoline program from
the SIP.
Response 1: EPA believes the commenter is referring to exclusive
federal control over the regulation of fuels and fuel additives granted
by section 211 of the CAA. Specifically, CAA section 211(c)(4)(A)
preempts state fuel controls that are different from federal fuel
controls and provides exceptions to exclusive federal regulation that
include a waiver of preemption. Under CAA section 211(c)(4)(A), states
(or political subdivisions thereof) are generally prohibited from
prescribing, for purposes of motor vehicle emission control, any
control of a component of
[[Page 32079]]
a fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle engine. However,
under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C), a state may regulate fuel or fuel
additives if it adopts such a measure as part of a SIP, but EPA may
only approve such a program into a SIP after finding that the state or
local control is necessary to achieve a primary or secondary NAAQS and
if there are no other measures that would bring about timely
attainment. Section 211(c)(4)(C)(i). EPA waived preemption and approved
the Commonwealth's SIP requiring use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline during
summer months in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area (including Allegheny
County) in two separate SIP revisions in 1998 and 2001.\2\ It is the
2001 SIP approval requiring the use of low-RVP fuel in the Allegheny
County portion of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area that the County is
now seeking to remove from the SIP. On April 26, 2019 (84 FR 17764),
EPA proposed to approve the County request to remove the use of low-RVP
fuel in the Allegheny County portion of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area from the SIP. As explained earlier, EPA approval of a state fuel
measure entails the waiver of preemption contained in CAA
211(c)(4)(C)(i). Under this provision, EPA may approve state fuel
controls in a SIP if EPA determines that the fuel control is necessary
to achieve the NAAQS that the SIP implements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31116), EPA approved a SIP revision
(submitted December 3, 1997; as revised April 17, 1998) by PADEP to
require the use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in summer months in the 7-
county Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. On
April 17, 2001 (66 FR 19724), EPA approved a SIP revision (submitted
March 23, 2000) by PADEP, on behalf of ACHD, to require the use of
7.8 psi RVP gasoline in summer months in the Allegheny County
portion of the same 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA's rationale
for granting a federal preemption waiver under CAA 211(c)(4)(C) is
explained in the June 8, 1998 final rule, with the same rationale
serving as the basis for the April 17, 2001 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the Agency is required to consider CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)
requirements when approving a state or local fuel control program that
would serve in lieu of the otherwise applicable Federal fuel control
program. EPA can only waive preemption if the requirements of CAA
section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) and (v) are met. Nothing in these provisions,
however, preclude either a state or local government from subsequently
removing an approved state fuel measure.\3\ Thus, there is no
requirement for a ``waiver'' to remove the 7.8 psi RVP requirement from
either the Allegheny County portion or the Pennsylvania portion of the
SIP. Instead, as shown in Section III of this rulemaking action,
Allegheny County or Pennsylvania need only comply with CAA section
110(l) given that the removal of 7.8 psi RVP requirement entails a SIP
revision. As previously explained, CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA
from approving any SIP revision if such revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See for e.g., SIP revision for the removal of 7.0 psi RVP
from the state of Alabama SIP. 77 FR 23619 (April 20, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7.8 psi state and local rules were cited as control measures
that contributed to ozone reduction in Pennsylvania's April 9, 2001
maintenance plan supporting the Commonwealth's request for
redesignation to attainment of the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which EPA
approved on October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53094). In that same final rule,
EPA determined that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area had attained the
1-hour ozone NAAQS by its legal attainment deadline, based on three
years of air quality data. On the basis of that determination, EPA
found that an attainment demonstration (and other related requirements
under Part D of Title I of the CAA) were not applicable requirements
under the CAA for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The Commonwealth's reasonable further progress plan
for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area was prepared prior to adoption of
the 7.8 psi RVP rule, and therefore did not include reductions from
that measure to demonstrate progress towards achievement of the NAAQS.
Therefore, EPA believes the only requirement that must be satisfied
prior to removing an EPA approved state or local fuel control measure
are the provisions of CAA section 110 related to SIP actions--and
specifically the required showing that EPA approval of a revision to
the SIP does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment, or other
applicable CAA requirement.
Comment 2: (EPA-R03-OAR-0144-0016) The commenter contends that in
the proposed action, EPA certifies that the action does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
but that comments submitted by Sunoco LLC during the County's rule
adoption asserted that the rule revision will ``have economic
advantages to both citizens and businesses of the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley area.'' The commenter asks how EPA can certify that the action
has no significant economic impact if one of the nation's largest oil
producers emphasized the economic savings and asks to see EPA's
analysis showing that removal of the program does not significantly
impact small entities.
Response 2: EPA does not agree that it is required to assess the
economic impact of approving Allegheny County's request to remove the
low-RVP gas requirement from the Allegheny County portion of the
Pennsylvania SIP. As explained in the introductory sentences to the
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews section of the NPRM:
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the
Act 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 that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. 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 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.);
84 FR 17762, 17767 (April 26, 2019).
EPA's approval of the State's request to remove from the SIP the
requirement to use low-RVP gasoline in Allegheny County merely approves
an enacted state law (ACHD's removal of the low-RVP requirement from
Allegheny County's regulations) as meeting the Federal CAA requirements
and does not impose any additional requirements beyond those already
imposed by state law. For this reason, EPA's action in approving this
SIP revision does not have a significant impact under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Comment 3: (EPA-R03-OAR-0144-0016) The commenter contends that EPA
failed to require a noninterference demonstration for the revoked 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. The commenter argues that PADEP's noninterference
demonstration (prepared by PADEP as part of its April 2018 SIP
revision, supporting removal of both State and County low-RVP gasoline
rules from the SIP) contains photochemical grid modeling that addresses
only the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and not the prior, revoked 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. The commenter argues that because the 1-hour ozone
standard is based on a substantially different averaging time and
exceedance framework than the 8-hour NAAQS, EPA must ensure that
[[Page 32080]]
removal of an area-wide requirement (low-RVP fuel) is protective, as
EPA claims.
Response 3: The Commonwealth's CAA 110(l) demonstration focused on
demonstrating that current air quality can be maintained for all NAAQS
without continuation of the existing 7.8 psi RVP gasoline control
measure. The basis for the Commonwealth's demonstration is through
substitution of equivalent or greater reductions in primarily VOC and
NOX emissions from other measures to offset the VOC and
NOX reductions that would no longer be achieved upon removal
of the 7.8 psi RVP gasoline control measure.
In evaluating whether a SIP revision would interfere with
maintenance or attainment, 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. In assessing
compliance with CAA section 110(l), EPA treats each submission as a
unique case, reviewing and acting upon each one on a case-by-case basis
through regional SIP action. However, EPA did broach the subject of
compliance with CAA 110(l) noninterference in guidance prepared
specifically for removal of another control measure, entitled
``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures,'' August
7, 2012 [EPA-457/B-12-001]. Therein, EPA stated that it could propose
to approve a SIP revision that removes or modifies a control measure if
there is a basis in the state's submittal for concluding that the SIP
revision does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS
or requirements related to reasonable further progress towards
attainment of a NAAQS. Suggested methods listed in that guidance
document for demonstrating noninterference include: (1) Substitution of
new control measures that offset the reductions of the pollutants
addressed by the prior plan; (2) offset of emissions due to excess
emission reductions not accounted for in the current SIP; or (3)
emissions increases that are shown not to interfere with attainment.
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the emission reductions achieved by
the 7.8 low RVP gasoline program have been offset by emission reduction
measures not previously quantified or claimed in the approved SIP, and
EPA approved the Commonwealth's noninterference demonstration for the
entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as part of our December 20, 2018
final rule approving the Commonwealth's removal of the PADEP 7.8 psi
low-RVP control measure from the SIP (a measure that applied to the 7-
county Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, including Allegheny County).
As the commenter noted, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked by EPA
under the Agency's requirements for implementation of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.9(b), 62 FR 38894 (July 18, 1997), 69 FR 23951, 23969
(April 30, 2004). The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was no longer applicable in
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as of June 15, 2005. We need not
consider whether this SIP revision interferes with the revoked 1-hour
NAAQS. By definition, a revision cannot interfere with something that
is no longer in effect, such as a revoked NAAQS. EPA has dealt with the
anti-backsliding concerns related to revoked NAAQS by promulgating
regulations to address that issue. Thus, so long as the anti-
backsliding requirements in the ozone-requirements rule are met,
further demonstration of noninterference under 110(l) are not
necessary.
Comment 4: (EPA-R03-OAR-0144-0016) The commenter asks why EPA would
remove a measure that achieves VOC reductions for a county that EPA has
designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, when VOC
reductions could help the area attain the PM2.5 NAAQS,
because VOCs can be precursors to PM2.5 formation. The
commenter contends that EPA should not allow Allegheny County to remove
the low-RVP gasoline program from the SIP until it has been shown that
the area is able to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS without the
additional VOC reductions achieved by this rule.
Response 4: Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from approving
a plan revision '' . . . if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, . . . or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.''
In this SIP revision, EPA believes that the noninterference
demonstration submitted by PADEP for the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area does show that the small emission increase of VOCs
resulting from removal of the low-RVP gasoline requirement are more
than offset by reductions in VOC emissions from the shutdown of the
Guardian Glass facility and the adoption of new limits on solvents,
paints and adhesive adopted by Pennsylvania. In EPA's guidance on
removing stage II gasoline vapor recovery controls, EPA lays out
several alternative means of assessing noninterference. Therein, EPA
specifically states, ``In evaluating whether a given SIP would
interfere with attainment or maintenance, . . . 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.
The EPA has not required that a state produce a new, complete
attainment demonstration for every SIP revision, provided that the
status quo air quality is preserved. See, e.g., Kentucky Resources
Council, Inc, v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006).\4\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See p. 4, ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Recovery Control Program from SIPs and Assessing Comparable
Measures,'' (April 7, 2012) [EPA-457/B-12-001].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania has demonstrated noninterference with all NAAQS
through primarily an emissions substitution approach, using methods
prescribed by EPA guidance under section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA
approved Pennsylvania's CAA section 110(l) noninterference
demonstration for the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area (including
Allegheny County) on December 20, 2018 (83 FR 65301).
Comment 5: (EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0144-0021) Commenter notes that in
Pennsylvania's prior SIP revision requesting removal of the state's
low-RVP gasoline rule applicable to the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area,
PADEP stated that it wished to retain any remaining balance of
creditable emission reductions from the permanent closure of the
Guardian Industries glass manufacturing facility located in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. However, EPA's proposed approval of this prior
SIP action states that no remaining balance of credits would be held by
the state, and EPA's final action did not address whether the remaining
balance of creditable emission reductions were forfeited or retained by
Pennsylvania. The commenter requests that EPA clarify whether the
remaining balance of emission reductions are retained by Pennsylvania
for future use and quantify how many remain and/or are forfeited, so
that there is no future double counting of these emissions reductions.
Response 5: EPA received a similar comment in response to our
proposal to approve removal of PADEP's 7.8 psi RVP gasoline program
from the non-Allegheny County portions of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area.\5\ In our final December 2018 rulemaking for the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area 7.8 psi RVP program SIP removal action, EPA
clarified that emission reduction from Guardian Glass closure remained
available. The Guardian Glass facility permanently ceased operation in
August 2015 but did not request that potentially
[[Page 32081]]
creditable emission reductions be preserved in the emission inventory
within one year of closure, which is a prerequisite for their use as
emission reduction credits (ERCs) for nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) purposes under Pennsylvania's rules governing that program (25
Pa. Code 127.207(2)). As a result, the reductions are no longer
eligible for future use as ERCs for NNSR offset purposes, but they
remain available for other uses. As EPA stated in our December 20, 2018
final rule, because these surplus emission reductions no longer qualify
as ERCs under Pa. Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, EPA believes they do
not need to be memorialized in either a state plan approval, or a SIP
revision or emission inventory. The facility's permits are no longer
valid, and reactivation of the facility would be subject to NNSR and
re-permitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 83 FR 27901, June 15, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, that does not mean that these remaining emission
reductions from closure of this facility have no use. PADEP reserved
the right to request consideration of these reductions for future use
for other SIP planning purposes other than NNSR offsets--potentially as
part of a future demonstration relating to NAAQS planning requirements.
Any such future use would require a SIP revision at that time, with a
demonstration of the emission reductions viability for use in any
future SIP revision. Although PADEP quantified the remaining reductions
that are surplus after offsetting removal of the low-RVP gasoline
program, the surplus reduction quantities listed in EPA's December 20,
2018 SIP action are not directly translatable to any future SIP
planning use. Any future use of the remaining emission reductions would
need to be reevaluated as part of a subsequent SIP action supporting
their potential use at that time for SIP planning purposes.
EPA does not agree that it must quantify the remaining surplus or
the amount that should be forfeited as part of this action. EPA has
clarified its position that these reductions can no longer be used for
NNSR offset purposes under the relevant state rule. EPA cannot
memorialize the remaining emission reductions potentially available for
future SIP purposes as the reductions must be re-evaluated in the
context of the specific SIP action for which the Commonwealth wishes to
use the reductions.
Comment 6: (EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0144-0019) The commenter argues that
EPA and Allegheny County have not provided an adequate demonstration
that removal of the low-RVP gasoline program will not interfere with
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, because VOCs are a precursor
to formation of ambient PM2.5. The commenter contends that
PADEP should perform modeling regarding the impacts of the removal of
the RVP requirement, rather than simply comparing overall emissions
increases and decreases of VOCs. Commenter claims that the submitted
noninterference analysis only compares the magnitude of emissions
reductions from the 2015 shutdown of the Guardian Industries facility
and reductions from a regulation for control of VOCs from adhesives,
sealants, primers, and solvents, promulgated by DEP, to the magnitude
of the emissions increases from discontinuation of the low-RVP
requirement. The commenter notes that Allegheny County has continued to
be in nonattainment with the PM2.5 standards despite the
fact that the reductions in emissions relied upon by PADEP's analysis
occurred prior to 2016. Commenter believes this continued nonattainment
despite the reductions from earlier shutdowns and regulatory changes
means the Department should be looking more closely at local impacts
from regulatory initiatives rather than offsetting emissions at
different locations.
Response 6: EPA is not evaluating the adequacy of the state's
separate, ongoing efforts to develop an appropriate attainment area
plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Allegheny County
nonattainment area in this action. The commenter's concerns with
respect to the modeling and monitoring analyses contained in the
state's draft PM2.5 attainment plan are not relevant to
EPA's action to remove the 7.8. psi RVP rule from the SIP, and as such
do not warrant consideration in this final rule. As indicated in
response to a prior comment, in evaluating whether a SIP revision
(e.g., removal of an existing rule from the SIP) would interfere with
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS, per CAA section 110(l), EPA
generally considers whether the SIP revision will allow for an increase
in actual emissions in the air over what is allowed under the existing
approved SIP, in an attempt to ensure that the status quo with regard
to air quality is maintained. The EPA has not required that a state
produce a new complete attainment demonstration for every SIP revision,
provided that the status quo air quality is preserved.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See p. 4, ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Recovery Control Program from SIPs and Assessing Comparable
Measures,'' (April 7, 2012) [EPA-457/B-12-001].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed the Commonwealth's noninterference demonstration
for this action to remove the 7.8 psi RVP rule from the Pennsylvania
SIP and determined that the provided analysis shows that the emissions
from removal of that rule have been fully offset by substitute
reductions in VOCs and NOX from other measures not already
in the approved SIP, and this analysis included consideration of the
PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ EPA believes that it would be inappropriate
to evaluate the removal of the ACHD low-RVP rule from the SIP in this
action premised upon the potential approvability of the County's
proposed Allegheny County PM2.5 attainment plan, as that
plan is currently out for public comment by the County and may change
in response to any comments received before it is formally submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision. EPA is not evaluating the adequacy of the
state's separate ongoing efforts to develop an appropriate attainment
plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Allegheny County
nonattainment area in this action. Further, the commenter's concern
with respect to the modeling and monitoring analyses contained in the
Commonwealth's draft PM2.5 attainment plan is not relevant
to EPA's action to remove the 7.8. psi RVP rule from the SIP, and as
such do not warrant consideration in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Table 8 (p. 23) of PADEP's ``Final State Implementation
Plan Revision to Remove Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area Summertime Low
Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Requirements and Supporting
Noninterference Demonstration Under Section 110(l) of the Clean Air
Act'' dated April 2018, which summarizes direct PM2.5 (as
well as VOC and NOX) emission reductions from offsetting
measures. The PADEP noninterference demonstration also discusses the
Commonwealth's evaluation of PM2.5 noninterference on pp.
25-26 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, EPA is not directly addressing the merits of these
comments in this action and recommends that the commenter submit its
comments to the County during the County's current administrative
process and also during any future action EPA may take on that plan
after the state formally submits the ultimate plan to EPA as a SIP
revision. ACHD intends to submit to EPA a PM2.5 attainment
plan which will address the PM2.5 issue. The proper place to
evaluate how to achieve PM2.5 attainment is in response to
that plan.
Comment 7: The commenter contends that PADEPs approach of direct
substitution of emissions of pollutants with reductions associated with
other measures is inadequate to ensure that there is no increase in
ambient pollution concentrations from such an approach, and that
ambient concentration
[[Page 32082]]
modelling is warranted to ensure NAAQS noninterference or other CAA
requirements, such as potential impact on regional haze.
Response 7: While ambient concentration modeling is necessary for
an attainment plan, it is not necessary to demonstrate attainment for
purposes of amending the SIP to remove a rule. As was discussed in
response to a prior comment, noninterference is the only CAA required
test for removal of a rule that is not mandatory under the CAA, nor an
applicable Part D measure mandated by the law. In demonstrating
noninterference under CAA 110(l), ambient concentration modeling to
show the impact of the removal of a rule is but one possible test of
noninterference--albeit not a required one. Direct substitution of
other measures that achieve equivalent emissions reductions to offset
the removed measure is an allowable method of demonstrating CAA 110(l)
noninterference.
Comment 8: (EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0144-0149) The commenter contends that
removal of the low-RVP requirements may affect the control strategy for
the PM2.5 attainment demonstration. The commenter claims
that PADEP should strengthen its control strategy to reduce
concentrations of fine particulates presenting harm to individuals
rather than finessing attainment by ignoring data at the Liberty
monitor through mis-interpretation of an EPA guidance document. Among
other things, that control strategy could include the continuation of
the RVP requirements, depending on the results of a proper factual
analysis.
Response 8: EPA believes that this comment should be addressed to
ACHD's proposed attainment plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for
Allegheny County, rather than to this action to remove the ACHD low-RVP
measure from the SIP. The PM2.5 attainment plan is currently
undergoing the County's public comment process and has not yet been
formally submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. As such, this comment
should be submitted during ACHD's public comment period for the
PM2.5 attainment plan. Concerns raised by the commenter with
respect to whether the area has actually attained the PM2.5
standard or done so in a timely manner, or whether ACHD has followed
EPA guidance related to the monitoring or modeling analyses that
underlie that demonstration, are not relevant to EPA's current action
regarding whether to approve the Commonwealth's request for removal the
7.8. psi RVP gasoline rule from the SIP.
Comment 9: Commenter claims the PM2.5 Attainment
Demonstration is flawed because it relies on unrepresentative
meteorological data from the base year 2011 (p.4). Commenter alleges
that the 2011 meteorological data contains the second lowest number of
inversions (134) in a year, which is lower than the typical number of
inversions in the last ten years (157). Also, commenter states that
PADEP's claim that the 2011 data is more representative of normal years
because the Pittsburgh area has had above normal temperatures and above
normal levels of precipitation in ``recent years'' is not supported by
the data.
Response 9: As explained above, this comment concerns the
PM2.5 attainment demonstration, rather than this SIP action,
and EPA will therefore not address this comment here because it is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking action.
Comment 10: Commenter claims that future emissions inventories for
the proposed attainment demonstration may not be complete and accurate
because RVP 7.8 psi compliant fuel was burned in the past but will not
be burned in the future and it is not clear how or whether VOC
emissions from the higher RVP fuels that will be burned in the future
are tracked or accounted for in the future emission inventory. Some
stationary sources have stored fuel with varying RVP, ranging from 7
psi to 13 psi. See Appendix D (Emissions Inventories) to Proposed
Attainment Demonstration. At a minimum, there is a factual question
regarding the degree to which the removal of the RVP requirements will
affect the formation of fine particulates.
Response 10: Because this comment is questioning how the removal of
low-RVP fuel will affect the emissions inventory for the
PM2.5 attainment demonstration, EPA believes it should be
submitted as a comment on that plan. EPA believes it would be more
appropriate to respond to this comment, if submitted as a comment on
any action EPA proposes on ACHD's PM2.5 attainment plan, in
the context of responding to comments on that plan.
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 fuel programs 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, December 28, 2006).
The 7.8 psi RVP fuel program is a fuel type that is included in
EPA's boutique fuel list (published at 71 FR 78198, December 28, 2006,
and maintained online at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels). Subsequent to the final effective date of EPA's approval of
Pennsylvania's March 19, 2019 SIP revision to remove the ACHD rule
under Article XXI, EPA will update the State Fuels and Gasoline Reid
Vapor Pressure web pages with the effective date of the SIP removal. At
that time, the entry for Pennsylvania will be deleted from the list of
boutique fuels, because Allegheny County was the final remaining 7.8
psi RVP program area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, the
boutique fuels list will retain the 7.8 psi RVP fuel type, as this fuel
program type continues to be in other state SIPs.
VI. Final Action and Effective Date
A. Final Action
EPA is approving Pennsylvania's March 19, 2019 SIP revision
requesting the removal of ACHD's 7.8 psi RVP summer gasoline program
for Allegheny County (under Article XXI of the Rules and Regulations of
the Allegheny County Health Department; amended February 21, 2019,
effective March 3, 2019) from the Pennsylvania SIP. Our approval of the
March 19, 2019 SIP revision is being taken in accordance with CAA
requirements in section 110.
B. Notice of Effective Date
Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier
than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. EPA is
issuing this final rule under CAA section 307(d)(1) which states: ``The
provisions of section 553 through 557 . . . of Title 5 shall not,
except as expressly provided in this subsection, apply to actions to
which this subsection applies.'' Thus, section 553(d) of the APA does
not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting consistently with
the policies
[[Page 32083]]
underlying APA section 553(d) in making this rule effective on July 5,
2019. APA section 553(d) allows an effective date less than 30 days
after publication for a rule ``that grants or recognizes an exemption
or relieves a restriction.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This rule fits within
that exception because it lifts a restriction on the introduction into
commerce of gasoline with an RVP of greater than 7.8 psi sold in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania between June 1 and September 15 of each
year. Because ACHD adopted this rule in February 2019 (just prior to
the commencement of the May 1 regulatory compliance deadline requiring
use of low-RVP fuel in the Summer 2019 fuel season) and then submitted
the rule to EPA in March 2019, EPA's final action will coincide with
the summer low-RVP compliance period, resulting in supply chain
uncertainty for affected gasoline refining, distribution, and retail
industries. Additionally, the effective date for ACHD's revocation of
the low-RVP gasoline requirement is based upon EPA's final rulemaking
effective date, creating further industry uncertainty with respect to
regulatory compliance in the time prior to EPA's final rule effective
date. Therefore, this action can be considered to relieve a restriction
that would otherwise prevent the introduction into commerce of gasoline
with an RVP of greater than 7.8 psi. By setting the effective date of
this action to the date of final rule publication, EPA could alleviate
potential supply disruption that might occur due to the timing of this
action during the 2019 summer fuel control season. Therefore, EPA is
making this action to remove the Allegheny County program from the
Pennsylvania SIP effective on July 5, 2019.
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).
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 September 3, 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 summer
season 7.8 psi RVP gasoline requirements for Allegheny County 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: June 24, 2019.
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)(2) is amended by
removing:
0
a. The subheading entitled ``Subpart 9--Transportation Related
Sources'' and the entry ``2105.90''; and
0
b. Under ``Part G--Methods'' the entry ``2107.15''.
[FR Doc. 2019-14258 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
