27738 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed rule, 

addressing West Virginia’s regional haze 

requirements and visibility protection 

for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS and the withdrawal of the West 

Virginia regional haze regional FIP, 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. In addition, pursuant to CAA 

section 307(d)(1)(B), EPA proposes to 

determine that this action is subject to 

the provisions of section 307(d). Section 

307(d) establishes procedural 

requirements specific to certain 

rulemaking actions under the CAA. 

Furthermore, section 307(d)(1)(V) of the 

CAA provides that the provisions of 

section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other 

actions as the Administrator may 

determine.’’ EPA proposes that the 

provisions of 307(d) apply to EPA’s 

action on the West Virginia SIP revision. 

The withdrawal of the provisions of the 

West Virginia regional haze regional FIP 

is subject to the requirements of CAA 

section 307(d), as it constitutes a 

revision to a FIP under section 110(c) of 

the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: May 30, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12812 Filed 6–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0282; FRL–9979– 

34—Region 9] 

Approval of Air Plan Revisions; 

Approvals and Promulgations: 

California; Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District; Stationary Source 

Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns the District’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting program for new and 

modified sources of air pollution. We 

are proposing action on a local rule 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

July 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0282 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Laura Yannayon, at yannayon.laura@

epa.gov. For comments submitted at 

Regulations.gov, follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

removed or edited from Regulations.gov. 

For either manner of submission, the 

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. The 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 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

amended by the PCAPCD and submitted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), which is the governor’s 

designee for California SIP submittals. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Rule No. Rule title Adopted or 

amended Submitted 

518 ......................... Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program .......................................... 10/13/16 1/24/17 

On April 17, 2017, the EPA 

determined that CARB’s January 24, 

2017, SIP submittal package conformed 

to the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27739 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

The current SIP-approved version of 

Rule 518—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program was 

approved by EPA on December 10, 

2012. 77 FR 73316. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA 

requires states to submit regulations that 

include a preconstruction permit 

program for certain new or modified 

stationary sources of pollutants, 

including a permit program as required 

by part C of title I of the CAA. This part, 

and the EPA’s implementing regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.166, provide requirements 

for the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program, which 

applies to new and modified major 

sources of regulated New Source Review 

pollutants located in areas that are 

designated attainment or unclassifiable 

for those pollutants. 

Rule 518 implements the federal PSD 

permit program for Placer County. The 

submitted rule has been revised to 

update and clarify the rule. See our 

technical support document (TSD), 

which can be found in the docket for 

this rule, for additional information 

about the rule and rule revisions. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

The submitted rule must meet the 

CAA’s general requirements for SIPs 

and SIP revisions in CAA sections 

110(a)(2) and 110(l) as well as the 

applicable requirements for a PSD 

permit program contained in part C of 

title I of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166. 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act 

requires that SIP rules be enforceable. 

Section 110(l) provides that the EPA 

may not approve a SIP revision if it 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. In 

addition, section 110(a)(2) and section 

110(l) of the Act require that each SIP 

or revision to a SIP submitted by a state 

must be adopted after reasonable notice 

and public hearing. 

Part C of title I of the Act contains the 

general permit requirements for new 

major sources and major modifications 

proposing to construct in attainment 

areas. Additionally, 40 CFR 51.166 sets 

forth the EPA’s regulatory requirements 

for SIP approval of a PSD permit 

program. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

The EPA has reviewed the submitted 

rule in accordance with the rule 

evaluation criteria described above. 

With respect to the procedural 

requirements at CAA sections 110(a)(2) 

and 110(l), we are proposing to approve 

the submitted rule because we have 

determined, based on our review of the 

public process documentation included 

in the January 24, 2017 submittal, that 

the PCAPCD has provided sufficient 

evidence of public notice and 

opportunity for comment and public 

hearing prior to adoption and submittal 

of this rule. 

With respect to the rest of the 

evaluation criteria, we are proposing to 

approve the submitted rule because we 

have determined that the rule satisfies 

the substantive statutory and regulatory 

requirements for a PSD permit program 

as set forth in the applicable provisions 

of part C of title I of the Act and in 40 

CFR 51.166. This determination is based 

on our review of Rule 518 and clarifying 

information provided by the District in 

a letter dated May 22, 2018 (available in 

the docket for this action). Our TSD for 

this action contains a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation. 

C. The EPA’s Proposed Action and 

Public Comment 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rule because it 

fulfills all relevant requirements. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until July 16, 2018. If 

we take final action to approve the 

submitted rule, our final action will 

incorporate this rule into the Placer 

County portion of the California SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the PCAPCD rule described in Table 1 

of this preamble. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
27740 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, New source 

review, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: June 4, 2018. 

Michael Stoker, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12711 Filed 6–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0172; FRL–9979–33– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT91 

Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility 

Standard for Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

request from Louisiana for EPA to relax 

the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

standard applicable to gasoline 

introduced into commerce from June 1 

to September 15 of each year for the 

Louisiana parishes of East Baton Rouge, 

West Baton Rouge, Livingston, 

Ascension, and Iberville (the Baton 

Rouge area). Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to amend the regulations to 

allow the RVP standard for the Baton 

Rouge area to change from 7.8 pounds 

per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for 

gasoline. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that this change to the 

federal RVP regulation is consistent 

with the applicable provisions of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 16, 2018 

unless a public hearing is requested by 

June 29, 2018. If EPA receives such a 

request, we will publish information 

related to the timing and location of the 

hearing and a new deadline for public 

comment. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0172, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. 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 disclosure of which 

is restricted by statute. If you need to 

include CBI as part of your comment, 

please visit https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for 

instructions. 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. 

For additional submission methods, 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dave Sosnowski, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, 48105; telephone number: 

(734) 214–4823; fax number: (734) 214– 

4052; email address: sosnowski.dave@

epa.gov. You may also contact Rudolph 

Kapichak at the same address; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4574; fax number: 

(734) 214–4052; email address: 

kapichak.rudolph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The contents of this preamble are 

listed in the following outline: 

I. General Information 

II. Public Participation 

III. Background and Proposal 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

V. Legal Authority 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

proposed rule are fuel producers and 

distributors involved in the supplying of 

gasoline to the Baton Rouge area. 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

NAICS1

codes 

Petroleum Refineries ................ 324110 

Gasoline Marketers and Distributors ................................. 424710 

424720 

Gasoline Retail Stations ........... 447110 

Gasoline Transporters .............. 484220 

484230 

1 North American Industry Classification 

System. 

The above table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. The table lists 

the types of entities of which EPA is 

aware that potentially could be affected 

by this proposed rule. Other types of 

entities not listed on the table could also 

be affected. To determine whether your 

organization could be affected by this 

proposed rule, you should carefully 

examine the regulations in 40 CFR 

80.27. If you have questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, call the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 

301(a) of the CAA, as amended; 42 

U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a). 

II. Public Participation 

EPA will not hold a public hearing on 

this matter unless a request is received 

by the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble by June 29, 2018. If EPA 

receives such a request, we will publish 

information related to the timing and 

location of the hearing and a new 

deadline for public comment. 

III. Background and Proposal 

A. Summary of the Proposal 

EPA is proposing to approve a request 

from Louisiana to change the 

summertime federal RVP standard for 

the parishes of East Baton Rouge, West 

Baton Rouge, Livingston, Ascension, 

and Iberville (henceforth ‘‘the Baton 

Rouge area’’) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by 

amending EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

80.27(a)(2). On April 10, 2017, the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ or State) requested a 

relaxation of the federal RVP 

requirements. Before EPA could act on 

LDEQ’s request, the State needed to 

revise its approved section 175A 

maintenance plan and demonstrate that 

relaxing the federal RVP requirement 

from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold 

from June 1 to September 15 of each 

year in the Baton Rouge area would not 

interfere with maintenance of any 

NAAQS, including the 2008 and 2015 

ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable 

CAA requirement, under CAA section 

110(l). This demonstration was 

performed and a revised maintenance 

plan was submitted to EPA for approval 

on January 31, 2018. On April 13, 2018, 

EPA proposed approval of Louisiana’s 

maintenance revision and noninterference demonstration for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (83 FR 16017); EPA 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS