[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27901-27909]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12703]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0277; FRL-9979-44--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Removal of Department of Environmental Protection
Gasoline Volatility Requirements for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on May 2, 2018. This
revision seeks the removal, from the Pennsylvania SIP, of the
requirement limiting summertime gasoline volatility to 7.8 pounds per
square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) to address nonattainment
under the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area (hereafter
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area). The submitted SIP revision also
includes a section 110(l) demonstration as required by the Clean Air
Act (CAA) addressing emission impacts associated with the removal of
the program. EPA is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 14, 2018 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by July 16, 2018.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0277 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
    A. Federal Gasoline Volatility Controls Under the CAA

    B. State Gasoline Volatility Controls for the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area
II. What changes have been made to Pennsylvania's gasoline
volatility standards?
III. What is the historic reason for adoption of gasoline volatility
control and the status of air quality in the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area?
    A. The Status of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area With Respect
to the Ozone NAAQS
    B. The Status of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area With Respect
to the Fine Particulate Matter NAAQS
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's submittal?
    A. Pennsylvania's Estimate of the Impacts of Removing the 7.8
psi RVP Requirement
    B. Pennsylvania's Substitution of Alternative Emissions
Reduction Measures for the 7.8 psi Low-RVP Gasoline Program
    1. Pennsylvania's Adhesives, Sealants, Primers, and Solvents
Rule
    2. Shutdown of Guardian Industries Jefferson Hills Facility
    C. Comparison of Emissions Impacts of Removal of the
Commonwealth's 7.8 psi RVP Gasoline Program and the Uncredited
Emission Reductions From Substitute Measures
V. Impacts on the Boutique Fuels List
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Federal Gasoline Volatility Controls Under the CAA

    Under section 211(c) of the CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on
March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum federal limits for the
RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were
established on a state-by-state basis in the final rule. The regulatory
control periods applied during the summer months when peak ozone
concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of
a two phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the
volatility of commercial gasoline during the high ozone season.
Depending on the state and month, gasoline RVP was not to exceed 10.5
psi, 9.5 psi, or 9.0 psi. Phase I was applicable to calendar years 1989
through 1991. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more
stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control
program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0
psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's
initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS). Phase II is applicable to 1992 and subsequent years.
    The 1990 amendments to the CAA established a new section, 211(h),
to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h)(1) requires EPA to
promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale,
dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into
commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the
high ozone season. Section 211(h)(2) prohibits EPA from establishing a
volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area,
except that the Agency may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in
any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to make them consistent with section 211(h). The
modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline, beginning in
1992, with a RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for
ozone. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained
the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR
23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain
areas.
    Under these requirements, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was
required to meet a 9.0 psi RVP standard during the summer RVP control
period, with the exception of the Philadelphia Area, which was at that
time was designated as severe ozone nonattainment, and as such was
subject to more stringent gasoline requirements of the reformulated
gasoline program established under CAA section 211(k).

B. State Gasoline Volatility Controls for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area

    On November 15, 1990, the CAA amendments of 1990 were signed into
law. On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area as moderate nonattainment for the 1979 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. As part of Pennsylvania's efforts to bring the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area into attainment of the ozone standard, the Commonwealth
adopted and implemented a range of ozone precursor emissions control
measures for the area, including adoption of a state rule to limit
summertime gasoline volatility to 7.8 psi RVP. Pennsylvania's RVP
control rule applies to the entire Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area--
Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and
Westmoreland Counties.
    PADEP promulgated this rule in the November 1, 1997 Pennsylvania
Bulletin (27 Pa.B. 5601, effective November 1, 1997), which is codified
in Subchapter C of Chapter 126 of the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations
(25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter C). On April 17, 1998,
Pennsylvania submitted this state-adopted rule to EPA as a formal
revision to its approved SIP. EPA published a final action approving
Pennsylvania's RVP SIP revision in the June 8, 1998 Federal Register
(63 FR 31116) and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR
52.2020(c)(1).
    The local air pollution control agency for Allegheny County, ACHD,
later adopted a similar summertime gasoline volatility limit (Allegheny
County Order No. 16782, Article XXI, sections 2102.40, 2105.90, and
2107.15; effective May 15, 1998, amended August 12, 1999). On March 23,
2000, PADEP formally submitted a SIP revision to EPA (on behalf of
ACHD) to incorporate ACHD's own gasoline RVP summertime requirements
into the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA approved that SIP revision establishing
an independent ACHD gasoline RVP limit on April 17, 2001 (66 FR 19724),
effective June 18, 2001.

II. What changes have been made to Pennsylvania's gasoline volatility
standards?

    In the 2013-14 session of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, the
legislature 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 to direct PADEP to initiate a process to obtain
approval from EPA of a SIP revision that demonstrates continued
compliance with the NAAQS, through utilization of substitute,
commensurate emissions reductions to balance repeal of the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area RVP limit. Upon approval of that demonstration
revision, Act 50 directs PADEP to repeal the summertime gasoline RVP
limit provisions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter C.
    On May 2, 2018, PADEP submitted a SIP revision requesting that EPA
remove from the Pennsylvania SIP Chapter 126, Subchapter C of the
Pennsylvania Code (specifically removing 25 Pa. Code sections 126.301,
126.302, and 126.303), based upon a demonstration that the repeal of
the RVP requirements rule (coupled with other ozone precursor emission
reduction measures) would not interfere with the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area's attainment of any NAAQS, per the requirements for
noninterference set forth in section 110(l) of the CAA. Pennsylvania's
SIP revision contains a Pennsylvania-specific analysis that the
emissions impact from repeal of the 7.8 psi gasoline volatility
requirement in Pittsburgh (to be replaced by the federal 9.0 psi
summertime gasoline

requirement) would be offset by substitution of commensurate benefits
from other emission reduction measures enacted by Pennsylvania, but not
previously credited in any SIP towards attainment or maintenance of any
NAAQS. This analysis is performed through analysis of emission
inventory sectors and sources affected by both repeal of gasoline RVP
limits and of the substitute measures enacted by Pennsylvania.
    The May 2, 2018 SIP revision references the Commonwealth's
regulatory amendment to Chapter 126, Subchapter C, as published in the
April 7, 2018 Pennsylvania Bulletin (48 Pa. B. 1932, effective upon
publication). This amendment serves to repeal the PADEP requirement for
7.8 psi RVP summer gasoline. The Commonwealth's rule amends 25 Pa. Code
Section 126.301 (relating to gasoline volatility requirements) to
remove the RVP requirement for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area RVP
upon the effective date of EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's May 2, 2018
SIP revision. As a result, both state and federal repeal of the
requirements for summertime RVP in the area will coincide with the
effective date of EPA's final action to approve the Commonwealth's
related SIP submittals.

III. What is the historic reason for adoption of gasoline volatility
control and the status of air quality in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area?

    The gasoline volatility limit was originally adopted by
Pennsylvania as part of a suite of measures to address ground level
ozone pollution in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, which has
historically been designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. Since
passage of the CAA in 1990, portions of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area have also been designated nonattainment for the daily and annual
averaging period fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
Since the low-RVP gasoline program affects primarily volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, and to
some degree directly emitted PM2.5 emissions, our review of
the removal of this rule focuses on the NAAQS for which these emissions
contribute, either directly or as precursor emissions.

A. The Status of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area With Respect to the
Ozone NAAQS

    On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated and classified
the Pittsburgh counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,
Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties as nonattainment for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 1979. RVP control was one of a
suite of measures adopted by Pennsylvania to attain and maintain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    On April 9, 2001, Pennsylvania submitted a request to redesignate
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area to attainment of the 1979 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, along with a maintenance plan to demonstrate that the area
would continue to attain for a 10-year period--a plan which relied, in
part, on emissions reductions attributable to the summertime gasoline
volatility control program. Subsequently, EPA determined that the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area had attained the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS
by its extended attainment date and approved the Commonwealth's 1-hour
redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision on November 19,
2001 (66 FR 53094).
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA issued a revised NAAQS for
ozone, strengthening the primary and secondary standards to 0.080 parts
per million (ppm) and changing the averaging time from 1-hour to 8-
hours. EPA initially designated the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as
nonattainment for the 1997 NAAQS, under the general part D, subpart 1
provisions of the CAA on July 15, 2004. However, in response to
litigation, EPA later classified several areas, including Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, as moderate under the CAA part D, subpart 2 provisions
in May of 2012.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2012, EPA finalized revisions to the 2004 Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that specified
requirements to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS. (77 FR 28424, May 14,
2012). The revisions were EPA's response to a December 22, 2006
decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), directing EPA to classify areas under
Part D of the CAA. As a result, EPA reclassified the former subpart
1 nonattainment areas, like the Pittsburgh Beaver Valley Area, under
subpart 2. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS was eventually revoked on
April 6, 2015, coincident with promulgation of the later 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 4, 2013, EPA determined that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date (based on air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 period)
and warranted a clean data determination. This latter determination
suspended certain CAA planning requirements for the Area, including
requirements for an attainment demonstration, associated reasonable
further progress plan, contingency measures, reasonably available
control measure (RACM) analysis, and other CAA part D planning
requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas, for as long as the
area continued to monitor attainment of the NAAQS.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA strengthened the 8-hour NAAQS
from 0.080 to 0.075 ppm in 2008. On March 6, 2015 (77 FR 30088), EPA
designated and classified the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as marginal
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Also on March 6, 2015
(80 FR 12264), EPA published its ozone implementation rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS in which established the date of July 20, 2016 as a
deadline for attainment of the 2008 NAAQS. On December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87819), EPA determined that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area had
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by that July 20, 2016 deadline.\2\ The
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area continues to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for the most recent 2015-2017 three-year monitoring period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On February 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an
opinion on the EPA's regulations implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
known as the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. South Coast Air
Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018).
The D.C. Circuit Court found certain provisions from the 2008 Ozone
SIP Requirements rule unreasonable including EPA's provision for a
``redesignation substitute.'' The D.C. Circuit Court vacated these
provisions and found redesignations must comply with all required
elements in CAA section 107(d)(3) and thus found the ``redesignation
substitute'' which did not require all items in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) violated the CAA and was thus unreasonable. The D.C.
Circuit. Court also vacated other provisions relating to anti-
backsliding in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule as the Court
found them unreasonable. Id. The D.C. Circuit Court found other
parts of the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule unrelated to anti-
backsliding and this action reasonable and denied the petition for
appeal on those. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2015 (80 FR 65291), EPA promulgated a revised ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. On November 6, 2017 (82 FR 54232), EPA issued final
2015 ozone NAAQS designations for most U.S. counties, designating all
seven Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area counties as ``attainment/
unclassifiable.''
    Pennsylvania's May 2, 2018 SIP revision includes EPA's updated
photochemical grid modeling results for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (See
Appendix H), based on updated electric generating unit data for
2017.\3\ This forecast data predicts that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area will continue to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and maintain
attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA Projected 2023 Ozone Design Values for the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area.
    Source: Notice of Availability--Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. Data Spreadsheet
is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/2015_o3_naaqs_preliminary_transport_assessment_design_values_contributions.xlsx.

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

B. The Status of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area With Respect to the
Fine Particulate Matter NAAQS

    On October 17, 2006, EPA published a revised 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (71 FR 61144). On November 3, 2009, EPA
designated the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688) under CAA part D, subpart 1.
On June 2, 2014, EPA reclassified the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area as
moderate nonattainment under CAA part D, subpart 4 (79 FR 31566),
including all of Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties
and portions of Allegheny, Armstrong, Greene, and Lawrence Counties. On
May 2, 2014, EPA determined that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was
in attainment of the 2006 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
based on 2010-2012 ambient monitoring data (79 FR 25014). On October 2,
2015 (80 FR 59624), EPA approved a request from Pennsylvania to
redesignate the Pittsburgh Area to attainment of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On January 15, 2015, EPA published a revised annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (79 FR 3086). On April 7, 2015, EPA designated
Allegheny County as moderate nonattainment of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (80 FR 18535).\4\ Allegheny County continues to
be nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This action corrects an initial final designations action
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which was signed by EPA on
December 18, 2014 and published January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206). This
correction included more recently available data for use in
designating certain areas of the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's submittal?

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 to rescind the requirements for a gasoline
volatility control program is whether this requested action complies
with section 110 of the CAA, specifically section 110(l).\5\ Section
110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. EPA evaluates each section 110(l)
noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the
circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets CAA section 110(l)
as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have
been promulgated, but for which EPA has not yet made designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA section 193, with respect to removal of requirements in
place prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, is not relevant
because Pennsylvania's RVP control requirements in the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area were not included in the SIP prior to enactment
of the 1990 CAA amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of an attainment demonstration to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under
section 110(l), EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to
substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change
to a SIP-approved program, if net actual emissions in the air do not
increase. ``Equivalent'' emission reductions mean reductions which are
equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control
measure approved in the SIP. To show that compensating emission
reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate justification must be
provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions must represent real,
new emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time frame to
the change of the existing SIP control measure, in order to preserve
the status quo level of emissions in the air. In addition to being
contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions reductions must also be
permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus to be approved into
the SIP.
    In its May 2, 2018 SIP revision, PADEP includes a section 110(l)
demonstration that uses equivalent emission reductions to offset
``losses'' from emission reductions resulting from the removal of the
SIP approved 7.8 psi RVP summertime gasoline requirement in the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area of Pennsylvania. Specifically, PADEP
demonstrates the emission reductions associated with the 7.8 psi RVP
fuel requirement will be substituted with equivalent or greater
emissions reductions from: (1) Reductions from an adopted, implemented
Pennsylvania regulation relating to the use and application of
adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents at 25 Pa. Code Section
129.77 and (2) the permanent shutdown of a facility in the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area. These substitute emissions are quantifiable,
permanent, surplus, enforceable, and contemporaneous (i.e. occurring at
approximately the same period of this demonstration and/or the
anticipated cessation of the low RVP fuel program). With removal of the
state 7.8 psi summertime RVP requirement, the federal 9.0 psi RVP limit
remains as the applicable requirement.
    To determine the emissions impact of removing the 7.8 psi RVP
program requirements in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area, PADEP
considered first the pollutants that impact any NAAQS that are
controlled through lowering of gasoline RVP: VOCs, NOX, and
direct PM2.5. PADEP's analysis focuses on VOC and
NOX emissions because low RVP requirements were adopted by
the Commonwealth to address the ozone NAAQS and because VOCs and
NOX emissions are the primary precursors for ground-level
ozone formation. Also, NOX, VOC, and direct PM2.5
emissions also contribute to formation of PM2.5. PADEP
limited its analysis to affected portions of the total emissions
inventory for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area such as the highway
vehicle emissions sector, nonroad vehicle emissions sector, and
gasoline storage and distribution emissions sources within the
stationary point source sector. EPA finds the Commonwealth's analysis
of the affected universe of emissions sources reasonable, as the 7.8
psi RVP gasoline requirement impacts only emission sources that store,
distribute, or combust gasoline. PADEP studied the impacts of low RVP
program removal on the emissions inventory at several points in time
representing a period just prior to removal of the low RVP program
(i.e., 2014), the year of RVP program cessation (i.e., 2018), and a
point five years after RVP program removal (i.e., 2023).
    Table 1 summarizes PADEP's estimates of the expected change in
highway vehicle emissions from replacement of the Commonwealth's 7.8
psi summertime low RVP program with the federal 9.0 psi RVP limit. To
generate these estimates, PADEP used the latest version of EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES), version MOVES2014a, to
characterize motor vehicle emissions. EPA notes that increasing
gasoline RVP in and of itself no longer results in an increase in
emissions of VOCs in the highway vehicle sector, as increases in VOCs
from evaporative loss and permeation through porous materials are
offset by improved exhaust emissions reductions from improvements in
new motor vehicles (e.g., improved engine control, air/fuel management,
timing management, etc.). Thus, as newer vehicles replace older ones in
the fleet, the VOC benefits from low RVP gasoline for the highway
vehicle sector of the

area's total emission inventory are reduced.

                         Table 1--Highway Emissions Comparison Between PADEP's 7.8 psi Low-RVP Program and the Federal RVP Program for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
                                                                         [In tons per day (tpd) and tons per year (tpy)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          2014                                           2018                                           2023
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Scenario                              VOC               NOX          PM2.5           VOC               NOX          PM2.5           VOC               NOX          PM2.5
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       tpd      tpy      tpd      tpy       tpy       tpd      tpy      tpd      tpy       tpy       tpd      tpy      tpd      tpy       tpy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania 7.8 psi RVP Program...................     38.7   14,134     77.1   28,142       902      25.1    9,082     49.4   17,403       614      18.2    6,650     30.4   10,834       430
Federal 9.0 psi RVP Program........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .........     25.0    9,040     49.7   17,446       612      18.0    6,604     30.5   10,847       428
Reduction or Increase in Emissions (-) or (+)......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .........    -0.18    -41.4     +0.3    +43.5      -2.0     -0.24    -46.5    +0.09     13.1      -2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP modelled nonroad emissions using the MOVES NONROAD model,
version 2014a, coupled with the 2014 NEI version 1 emission inventory,
to compile a base year scenario. PADEP assumed this portion of the
inventory would see an increase of three percent of total VOC emissions
from removal of the Commonwealth's 7.8 psi RVP gasoline program. Table
2 summarizes the changes in nonroad vehicle and equipment emissions in
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area from repeal of the state low-RVP
gasoline program.

   Table 2--Nonroad Mobile Emissions Comparison Between PADEP's 7.8 psi Low-RVP Program Versus the Federal RVP
                                  Program for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
                                                [In tpy and tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2014                    2018                            2023
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC                     VOC                             VOC
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        tpy             tpd             tpy             tpd             tpy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania 7.8 psi RVP Program           7,221           37.15           5,684           35.10           5,370
Federal 9.0 psi RVP Program.....  ..............           38.15           5,837           36.11           5,525
Reduction or Increase in          ..............            1.00             153            1.01             155
 Emissions (-) or (+)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes in gasoline RVP produce emissions from not only vehicles
and equipment that store and combust the fuel, but also from
evaporation and permeation from movement, storage, and transportation
of the fuel as part of the gasoline distribution system. These sources
include gasoline refineries and terminals, pipelines, gasoline tanker
trucks, storage tanks, service station tanks, and portable gas cans.
These are a combination of large, point sources of emissions and
smaller area sources. PADEP estimates emissions from these sources by
different means, ranging from use of emission factors (from EPA's AP-42
compendium of emission factors) coupled with activity information (or
surrogates for activity like population) or gasoline sales numbers.
Some larger sources (e.g., refineries and bulk gasoline terminals) are
sufficiently large to be estimated or measured more directly as
discreet sources in the Area's periodic point source emission
inventory. Table 3 contains a summary of PADEP's estimated emissions
from these point and area sources resulting from a change from the
Pennsylvania low-RVP gasoline rule to the federal rule. PADEP assumed
this portion of the inventory would see an increase of three percent of
total VOC emissions from removal of the Commonwealth's 7.8 psi RVP
gasoline program.

Table 3--Gasoline Distribution System Point and Area Sources Increase in
 VOC Emissions From Removal of Pennsylvania's 7.8 psi RVP Requirement in
                    the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area
                            [In tpy and tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Point/area source category               2014 NEI VOC (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Terminals.........................  131.3.
Bulk Plants................................  74.9.
Tank Truck Transit.........................  10.4.
Service Station Unloading..................  0.1.
                                            ----------------------------
    Total 2014 NEI Point Source RVP-Related  216.7.
     Emissions.
3% of 2014 Point Emissions, Attributable to  7 tpy
 7.8 RVP repeal.                             (0.02 tpd).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 summarizes combined highway mobile, nonroad, and point and
area source emissions impacts from the removal of the Commonwealth's
7.8 psi low-RVP program for the 2018 and 2023 scenarios.

            Table 4--Summary of Combined Emission Impacts From Removal of the 7.8 psi Program in the
                                 Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area in 2018 and 2023
                                                [In tpy and tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                VOC                             NOX                    PM2.5
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        tpy             tpd             tpy             tpd             tpy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway.........................           -41.4           -0.18            43.5             0.3            -2.0
Nonroad.........................             153               1               0               0               0
Point/Area......................               7           -0.02               0               0               0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Change in 2018                    +119           +0.84           +43.5            +0.3            -2.0
     Emissions..................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway.........................           -46.5           -0.24            13.1            0.09            -2.2
Nonroad.........................             155            1.01               0               0               0
Point/Area......................               7            0.02               0               0               0
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Change in 2023                    +116           +0.79           +13.1           +0.09            -2.2
     Emissions..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the information provided, EPA finds that
PADEP used reasonable methods and the appropriate tools (e.g.,
emissions estimation models, emissions factors, and methodologies) in
estimating the effect on emissions from removing the 7.8 psi RVP
summertime gasoline program. PADEP determined that in 2018 the
emissions increase resulting from removal of the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement (and replacement with the federal 9.0 RVP gasoline program)
would be 0.84 summertime tpd of VOC and 0.3 summertime tpd of
NOX in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. PADEP's
demonstration shows that direct emissions of PM2.5 decrease
by 2.0 tpy from removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement (and replacement
with the federal 9.0 RVP gasoline program). By 2023, the emissions
impact of removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would slightly
decrease from 2018, to 0.79 tpd of VOCs and 0.09 tpd of NOX,
with direct PM2.5 emissions decreasing slightly more than
2018 estimates.

B. Pennsylvania's Substitution of Alternative Emissions Reduction
Measures for the 7.8 psi Low-RVP Gasoline Program

    PADEP has estimated lost and compensating emission reductions for
the year of removal of the Commonwealth's low-RVP gasoline program
(after considering the benefits from replacement with the federal 9.0
RVP gasoline program). PADEP has also estimated emissions impacts in
the year 2023 to examine the future impacts of removal of the 7.8 psi
state summertime RVP requirement. To compensate for the emissions
impact of repeal of this requirement in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area, PADEP has analyzed the emission benefits associated with two
substitute measures previously implemented but not ``claimed'' in any
prior SIP attainment plan (under CAA section 172) for the Commonwealth.
These measures are: (1) Overcontrol of VOC emissions from
Pennsylvania's adhesives rule (25 Pa. Code Sec.  129.77) and (2)
unclaimed creditable emissions reductions associated with the permanent
closure in 2015 of a glass manufacturing facility in Allegheny County,
Guardian Industries Jefferson Hills facility.
1. Pennsylvania's Adhesives, Sealants, Primers, and Solvents Rule
    Pennsylvania adopted emissions limits for adhesives and sealants
consistent with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule
covering 37 categories of products, on December 24, 2010 (40 Pa. B.
7340). On June 25, 2015 (80 FR 36482), EPA approved the adhesives rule
(25 Pa. Code Section 129.77) into the Pennsylvania SIP. Although this
measure was implemented prior to the Commonwealth's repeal of the 7.8
psi low-RVP gasoline program, the emissions reductions from the
adhesives rule have not previously been ``credited'' in any attainment,
reasonable further progress, redesignation, or maintenance plan SIP for
any NAAQS. PADEP has quantified the reductions from the OTC adhesives
model rule using studies performed by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB), upon which the OTC model rule was derived. As an area
source measure, PADEP relied upon population based, per capita emission
reduction estimates for the 7-county Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area.
PADEP extrapolated its per capita emission factor estimate prepared
when it adopted the adhesives rule (based on 2009 area population) by
population data for 2014, 2018, and 2023. For purposes of comparison to
the low-RVP rule, PADEP seasonally adjusted its original estimate for
the adhesives rule (based on a 3-month June-August summer season) to
reflect the longer low-RVP gasoline summertime season (i.e., 5-month
May-September control season). Table 5 summarizes the daily and annual
VOC emissions benefit provided by the adhesives rule.

               Table 5--Summary of Pennsylvania's Adhesives Rule VOC Emission Reduction Estimates
                                            for 2014, 2018, and 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2014            2018            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area Population (persons)....      2, 358,096       2,346,571       2,338,002
PADEP Adhesives Rule VOC Annual Reduction Emission Factor (tons      4.96 x 10-4     4.96 x 10-4     4.96 x 10-4
 per person per year)...........................................
PADEP Adhesives Rule VOC Daily Reduction Emission Factor (tons       1.36 x 10-6     1.36 x 10-6     1.36 x 10-6
 per person per day)............................................
VOC Reduction from PADEP Adhesives Rule (in tpy)................           1,169           1,163           1,159
VOC Reduction from PADEP Adhesives Rule (in tpd)................            3.21            3.20            3.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Shutdown of Guardian Industries Jefferson Hills Facility
    To further aid in offsetting emission reductions lost from the
removal of the summertime 7.8 psi low-RVP gasoline requirement (after
replacement with the federal 9.0 RVP gasoline program), PADEP is
relying upon emission reductions from the permanent closure of a
Guardian Industries Corporation glass manufacturing facility located in
Jefferson Hills, Allegheny County (Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>). This
facility ceased operations in August 2015, and Guardian Industries did
not request that potentially creditable emission reductions be
preserved in the inventory within the one year deadline for doing so
under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E (relating to emission
reduction credit generation under Pennsylvania's new source review
(NSR) program). Having missed the legal deadline for doing so, the
associated emission reductions from the facility shutdown can no longer
be used by any facility for complying with the NSR program.
Pennsylvania asserts the reductions have not been used and cannot be
used in the future by Pennsylvania to meet any other obligation,
including attainment demonstration, facility emission limitation,
reasonable further progress, or maintenance plan requirements for the
area. The facility has been permanently closed and the emission source
removed. The plan approvals and operating permits for the facility are
no longer valid. Any new source at this facility would be subject to
NSR permitting provisions (including securing emission offsets as
required by CAA and Pennsylvania SIP) and would not be able to use any
emission reductions from this closure for permitting purposes.
    To quantify emission reductions from the Guardian Industries
Jefferson Hills facility shutdown, PADEP applied requirements from
Pennsylvania's creditable emissions decrease provisions for
applicability determination under the NSR program (25 Pa. Code Section
127.203a), used for calculation of lookback periods and baseline credit
determinations for emission reduction credit generation. Table 6
summarizes PADEP's estimate of creditable emission reductions from the
Guardian Industry Jefferson Hills facility for use in partially
offsetting the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP gasoline program.

 Table 6--Summary of Emission Reductions From the Permanent Shutdown of
              Guardian Industries Jefferson Hills Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent emission offsets for 24-                                 Offsets
  month annual average  (August       Pollutant     Offsets  (in      (in
         2013-July 2015)                                tpy)         tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
NOX..............................             625             1.8
VOC..............................            13.8            0.04
PM2.5............................            26.5             N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comparison of Emissions Impacts From Removal of the Commonwealth's
7.8 psi RVP Gasoline Program and the Uncredited Emission Reductions
From Substitute Measures

    Pennsylvania is relying upon NOX, VOC, and
PM2.5 emission reductions from its adoption of the OTC model
adhesives rule and from the shutdown of Guardian Industries Jefferson
Hills glass manufacturing facility in Allegheny County to offset the
emissions impact of removing the Commonwealth's summertime gasoline
volatility control rule and to support that its argument that removal
of 7.8 psi RVP requirement from the SIP will not interfere with
attainment of any NAAQS. Pennsylvania has elected to adjust upward by
25 percent its estimates for the emission impact of the removal of the
7.8 psi RVP gasoline program (as shown in Table 4), to account for
uncertainty in its calculation of the estimates for the emissions
benefits from that program. Table 7 summarizes the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley Area emissions increases from repeal of the low-RVP gasoline
program compared to the emissions benefits resulting from the
alternative emission reduction measures.

  Table 7--Summary of Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Impacts From Removal of the 7.8 psi Gasoline Volatility Program
                            Compared to Emissions Benefits From Alternative Measures
                                               [In 2018 and 2023]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         VOC                       NOX                  PM2.5
                                             ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  tpy          tpd          tpy          tpd          tpy      tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
2018:
    Change in Emissions from RVP Rule Repeal          119         0.84         43.5          0.3         -2.0
     6......................................
    Emission Adjustment to RVP Change                  30         0.21           11         0.08         -2.0
     Estimate (25% increase)................
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Emissions Requiring Offset....          149         1.05         54.5         0.38  ...........
    Adhesives Rule Reductions for Offset....        1,163          3.2            0            0            0
    Facility Shutdown Reductions for Offset.         13.8         0.04          625          1.8         26.5
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Available Offset Emissions....        1,177         3.24          625          1.8         28.5
    Surplus Reductions After Offset (Total          1,029         2.19        570.5          1.0         28.5
     Emissions Requiring Offset--Total
     Available Offsets).....................
2023:
    Change in Emissions from RVP Rule Repeal          116         0.79         13.1         0.09         -2.0
     7......................................
    Emission Adjustment to RVP Change                  29         0.20          3.3         0.02  ...........
     Estimate (25% increase)................
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Emissions Requiring Offset....          144         0.99         16.4         0.11         -2.0
    Adhesives Rule Reductions for Offset....        1,159         3.19            0            0            0

    Facility Shutdown Reductions for Offset.         13.8         0.04          625          1.8         26.5
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Available Offset Emissions....        1,173         3.23          625          1.8         28.5
    Surplus Reductions After Offset (Total          1,029         2.24        608.6         1.69         28.5
     Emissions Requiring Offset--Total
     Available Offsets).....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in Table 7, Pennsylvania has a surplus of VOC,
NOX, and PM2.5 emission reductions from the
alternative emission reduction measures after offsetting the emissions
reductions lost from repeal of the Commonwealth's low-RVP gasoline
program, in both 2018 (the year of repeal of the low-RVP gasoline
program) and in the 2023 future case. Although not needed to offset the
low-RVP gasoline rule, PADEP is electing to retire all emissions
reductions from the facility shutdown and will not use them for any
future NSR program purposes. These surplus emission reductions, not
previously claimed for any SIP-approved plan, will help to ensure that
removal of the low-RVP gasoline program will not interfere with any
NAAQS for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This increase (or decrease) in emissions is the net emission
change when comparing the Commonwealth's 7.8 psi requirement for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area to the federal 9.0 psi RVP program
requirement that will remain upon removal of the Commonwealth's
program.
    \7\ This increase (or decrease) in emissions is the net emission
change when comparing the Commonwealth's 7.8 psi requirement for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area to the federal 9.0 psi RVP program
requirement that will remain upon removal of the Commonwealth's
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the removal of the 7.8 psi low RVP fuel program
requirements in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area does not interfere
with Pennsylvania's ability to demonstrate compliance with any of the
ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS, which could potentially have been
impacted by the NAAQS pollutant precursors that are the subject of the
SIP revision. EPA's analyses of the Commonwealth's SIP revision for CAA
110(l) impact is supported by its use of alternate emission reduction
measures that ensure permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus
emissions reductions are achieved within the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
Area which far exceed the slight increase in NOX and VOC
pollutants from the removal of low RVP fuel especially as Pennsylvania
is still subject to the federal RVP fuel requirement of 9.0 psi. Based
on Pennsylvania's CAA 110(l) analysis showing surplus emission
reductions (see Table 7), EPA has no reason to believe that the removal
of the low RVP fuel requirements in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area
will negatively impact the area's ability to attain or maintain any
NAAQS including specifically ozone and PM2.5 or interfere
with reasonable further progress. In addition, EPA believes that
removing the 7.8 psi low RVP program requirements in the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley Area will not interfere with any other CAA requirement as
the Area will remain subject to the federal low RVP fuel requirements.

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, 2008 (71 FR
78192), EPA published the list of boutique fuels. EPA maintains the
current list of boutique fuels on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels. The final list of boutique fuels was
based on a fuel type approach. CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III)
requires that EPA remove a fuel from the published list if it is either
identical to a federal fuel or is removed from the SIP in which it is
approved. Under the adopted fuel type approach, EPA interpreted this
requirement to mean that a fuel would have to be removed from all SIPs
in which it was approved in order for it to be removed from the list.
(71 FR 78195).
    The 7.8 psi RVP fuel program (as required by Pa. Code Chapter 126,
Subchapter C), as approved into Pennsylvania's SIP, is a fuel type that
is included in EPA's boutique fuel list (71 FR 78198-99; https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels). The specific counties in
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area where summer low RVP gasoline is
required are identified on EPA's Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure web page
(https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-reid-vapor-pressure).
Subsequent to the final effective date of EPA's approval of
Pennsylvania's May 2, 2018 SIP revision to remove Pennsylvania's
Chapter 126, Subchapter C RVP requirement from the SIP, EPA will update
the State Fuels and Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure web pages with the
effective date of the SIP removal. However, the entry for Pennsylvania
will be not be completely deleted from the list of boutique fuels, as
Allegheny County remains subject to a separate, SIP-approved 7.8 psi
RVP gasoline requirement of ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI,
pending future action by ACHD to repeal that rule and submit a formal
SIP revision requesting its repeal from the Pennsylvania SIP. This
deletion of Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and
Westmoreland Counties from the list will not result in an opening on
the boutique fuels list because the 7.8 psi RVP fuel type remains for
one Pennsylvania County, and in other state SIPs.

VI. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Pennsylvania's May 2, 2018 SIP revision to remove
the low RVP fuel requirements at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 126, Subchapter C
from the Pennsylvania SIP. With this action, EPA is also approving the
Commonwealth's supporting CAA 110(l) demonstration in its May 2, 2018
submission that removal of the low RVP gasoline program does not
interfere with the Commonwealth's ability to attain or maintain any
NAAQS in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. Our approval of the May 2,
2018 SIP submittal is in accordance with CAA requirements in section
110, including section 110(l) specifically.
    EPA's approval of the May 2, 2018 Pennsylvania SIP revision does
not remove the separate SIP requirement applicable requiring use of 7.8
psi RVP gasoline during summertime months in Allegheny County, under
requirements set forth in Article XXI, Rules and

Regulations of the ACHD, which were approved by EPA as part of the
Commonwealth's SIP on April 17, 2001 (66 FR 19724). PADEP will submit a
SIP revision, at a later date, on behalf of ACHD to remove or otherwise
amend the separate Allegheny County low RVP gasoline program rule.
Neither ACHD's rule nor the related approved Pennsylvania SIP for
Article XXI are the subject of this action or the Pennsylvania May 2,
2018 low RVP gasoline SIP revision.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be effective on August 14, 2018 without further notice
unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 16, 2018. If EPA receives
adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time.

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 that 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 August 14, 2018. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action to remove from the Pennsylvania SIP
requirements for low RVP fuel for the Pittsburgh Area 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 6, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting 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

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by
removing the title and entries for ``Subchapter C--Gasoline Volatility
Requirements'' under Title 25, Chapter 126 Standard for Motor Fuels.

[FR Doc. 2018-12703 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68698-68700]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21944]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98603; File No. SR-ICC-2023-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the ICC Risk Parameter Setting and Review Policy Framework

September 28, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ notice is hereby given that on September
27, 2023, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II and III below, which Items have been primarily prepared by ICC. ICC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of
the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ such that the proposed rule
change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    ICC proposes a rule change to update the ICC Risk Parameter Setting
and Review Policy Framework (``RPSRP''). These revisions do not require
any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICC proposes to revise its RPSRP, which describes the process of
setting and reviewing the risk management model core parameters and the
performance of sensitivity analysis related to certain parameter
settings. The parameters set and calibrated pursuant to the RPSRP are
used in ICC's risk methodology in certain calculations including,
without limitation, initial margin and guaranty fund requirements, as
described in the ICC Risk Management Model Description document and the
ICC Risk Management Framework. ICC believes that such revisions will
facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions for which it is responsible. ICC proposes to make such
changes effective following Commission approval of the proposed rule
change. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
    ICC proposes to revise the RPSRP to add clarifying language and
more detail as to how a particular parameter is calculated in response
to a recent independent validator recommendation. Such proposed
revisions do not represent a change in the calculation of any parameter
set under the RPSRP. Specifically, ICC proposes to revise RPSRP Section
1.7.1. ``Univariate Level Parameters,'' which contains a description of
ICC's process of setting and reviewing the Univariate Level Parameters,
which are the standardized distributions that describe the random
fluctuations of the credit spread log-returns which are calibrated
daily. The Univariate Level Parameters are a category of the
``Integrated Spread Response Parameters'' model component.\5\ ICC
proposes to provide more details to the Univariate Level Parameters
with respect to the estimation of the stress period mean absolute
deviation (``MAD''). The proposed revision consists of providing
details on the determination of the stress period MAD, which is the
period that corresponds to the peak sample MAD estimate based on 250
observations over the most actively traded tenor historical dataset,
during which the majority of the Risk Factors \6\ belonging to a
``Market (Sub-portfolio) Group'' \7\ exhibited their highest stress MAD
levels. The revisions are intended to provide enhanced details of the
stress period MAD calculation and how such stress periods are selected
across Risk Factors, but such revisions do not represent a change in
the calculation of the Univariate Level Parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Integrated Spread Response Parameters capture credit
spread and recovery rate fluctuations and is computed by creating
profit/loss distributions from a set of jointly simulated
hypothetical credit spread and recovery rate scenarios, such as
Monte Carlo Value at Risk. The Integrated Spread Response Parameters
are categorized into Univariate, Multivariate and Anti-
Procyclicality Level Parameters.
    \6\ With respect to credit default swap contracts, each
underlying index, sub-index or single name reference entity is
deemed a separate ``Risk Factor.''
    \7\ A Market (Sub-Portfolio) Group consists of Risk Factors that
share similar market and risk profile characteristics such as
geographical locations, hours of trading activity and stress
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, ICC proposes the addition of Table 2 to Section 1.7.1. of the
RPSRP to provide an illustration of Market (Sub-portfolio) Group
compositions across several Master Document Transaction Types \8\
(``MDTTs''). The purpose of Table 2 is to provide further details on
the composition of the Market (Sub-portfolio) Groups by providing
illustrative mapping of various Market (Sub-portfolio) Groups to the
applicable MDTTs. Also, ICC has made conforming changes to Exhibit 5
[sic], to account for the addition of Table 2. Finally, ICC proposes to
update the RPSRP revision history to reflect the proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Master Document Transaction Types refers to the
``Transaction Types'' identified by the International Swaps and
Derivatives Association, Inc. (IDSA) in the publication of their
Credit Derivatives Physical Settlement Matrix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \9\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it, including the applicable standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\10\ In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \11\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, and to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC; the safeguarding
of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICC or
for which it is responsible; and the protection of investors and the
public interest. The proposed revisions to the RPSRP are limited to
providing additional detail on the calculation of the stress period MAD
which is used in the Univariate Level Parameters. ICC believes that the
proposed additional details to the

calculation of the stress period MAD enhance ICC policies, practices
and procedures with respect to risk management. As such, the proposed
rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions; to contribute to the safeguarding of
securities and funds associated with security-based swap transactions
in ICC's custody or control, or for which ICC is responsible; and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest within the
meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) \13\ requires each covered clearing agency
to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure,
monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those
arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including
by maintaining additional financial resources at the minimum to enable
it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include,
but are not limited to, the default of the two participant families
that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for
the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
ICC believes that the proposed changes provide additional clarity and
more detail on ICC's current practices as to how a particular parameter
is calculated in the RPSRP, which strengthens ICC's process for
reviewing and setting the model core parameters and, in turn, serves to
promote the soundness of ICC's risk management model and its ability to
manage risks and maintain appropriate financial resources. Such changes
enhance the readability and transparency of the RPSRP, which would
strengthen the documentation and ensure that it remains up-to-date,
clear, and transparent. As such, the proposed amendments would
strengthen ICC's ability to maintain its financial resources and
withstand the pressures of defaults, consistent with the requirements
of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B) \15\ requires each covered clearing
agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure,
monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those
arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including
by testing the sufficiency of its total financial resources available
to meet the minimum financial resource requirements, including by
conducting a comprehensive analysis on at least a monthly basis of
underlying parameters and assumptions. Under the proposed changes, the
RPSRP continues to provide a clear framework for ICC to set and review
the risk management model core parameters and their underlying
assumptions in the risk management model. The proposed changes provide
additional clarity with respect to the Univariate Level Parameters
associated with the integrated spread response model component. As
such, ICC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) \17\ requires each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market. As described above, the proposed clarifications would
promote clarity and transparency in the documentation. In ICC's view,
the proposed changes thus enhance and strengthen ICC's process for
reviewing and setting the model core parameters, which in turn serves
to promote the soundness of ICC's risk management model and system,
which will continue to consider and produce margin levels commensurate
with the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product,
portfolio, and market, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(i).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule change
to update the ICC RPSRP will apply uniformly across all market
participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change
imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of the Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-ICC-2023-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2023-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE Clear Credit's website
at https://www.ice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions;
you should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2023-011 and should
be submitted on or before October 25, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21944 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM
DATE:		February 12, 2015
TO:	 	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket id: OAR-2013-0602
FROM: 		Region 5, EPA
SUBJECT:	February 9, 2015, Conference Call with Illinois EPA to Clarify Questions on Converting from a Rate- to a Mass-based Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY
On February 9, 2015, EPA and Illinois held a conference call to clarify questions Illinois raised on converting from a rate- to a mass-based plan.
PARTICIPANTS
OAP:  		Ryan Sims
Region 5:  	Alexis Cain, Erin Newman
Illinois EPA:	Jim Ross, Rory Davis, Andy Russo