27936 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Appeals, the United States Court of 

Federal Claims, and the United States 

Supreme Court. For purposes of this 

section, state courts are not courts of 

competent jurisdiction. 

* * * * * 

(5) Employment status. * * * 

* * * * * 

Ruth Stevenson, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12858 Filed 6–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2018–0212; FRL–9978– 

97—Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Revisions to the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Greenhouse 

Gas Permitting Authority 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. This revision affects 

provisions applicable to greenhouse 

gases (GHGs) in the EPA’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

program. Connecticut requested the 

revision in response to the June 23, 

2014, U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 

Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. 

EPA and the April 10, 2015, Amended 

Judgment by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for 

Responsible Regulation v. EPA. The 

intended effect of this action is to clarify 

that the State’s PSD rules do not require 

a source to obtain a permit solely 

because the source emits or has the 

potential to emit (PTE) GHGs: Above the 

PSD applicability thresholds for new 

major sources; or for which there is a 

significant emissions increase from a 

modification. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2018–0212 at 

www.regulations.gov, or via email to. 

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, 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 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at 

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. The EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. 

(617) 918–1657, email dahl.donald@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. EPA’s Review 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On February 28, 2018, the 

Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) 

submitted a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

treatment of GHGs in the context of the 

PSD permit program under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). The revision consists of 

removing the requirement that sources 

would have to obtain a PSD permit 

solely due to its GHG emissions, 

commonly known as ‘‘Step 2’’ sources. 

On January 2, 2011, GHG emissions 

were, for the first time, covered by the 

PSD and title V operating permit 

programs. See 75 FR 17004, (April 2, 

2010). To establish a process for phasing 

in the permitting requirements for 

stationary sources of GHGs under the 

CAA PSD and title V programs, on June 

3, 2010, the EPA published a final rule 

entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (hereinafter referred 

to as the GHG Tailoring Rule). See 75 FR 

31514. In Step 1 of the GHG Tailoring 

Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, 

the EPA limited application of PSD and 

title V requirements to sources of GHG 

emissions only if they were subject to 

PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ due to their 

emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs. These sources are referred to as 

‘‘anyway sources.’’ In Step 2 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, which applied as of July 

1, 2011, the PSD and title V permitting 

program requirements applied to some 

sources that were classified as major 

sources based solely on their GHG 

emissions or potential to emit GHGs. 

Step 2 also applied PSD permitting 

requirements to modifications of 

otherwise major sources that would 

increase only GHG emissions above the 

level in the EPA regulations. EPA 

generally described the sources covered 

by PSD during Step 2 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule as ‘‘Step 2 sources’’ or 

‘‘GHG-only sources.’’ 

The United States Supreme Court 

invalidated the EPA’s regulation of Step 

2 sources in Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S Ct. 2427 

(2014). In accordance with that 

decision, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated the federal regulations 

that implemented Step 2 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. See Coalition for 

Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606 

Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

Subsequently, the EPA removed the 

vacated elements from its rules. See 80 

FR 50199 (August 19, 2015). The EPA 

therefore has the authority to approve a 

state’s request to remove Step 2 sources 

from the SIP. 

II. EPA’s Review 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

the EPA shall not approve a revision to 

the SIP if the revision would interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment (of the NAAQS) 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27937 

and reasonable further progress (as 

defined in CAA section 7501) or any 

other requirement of the CAA. The EPA 

has reviewed the SIP revision and is 

proposing to find the revision is 

consistent with Section 110(l) of the 

CAA. 

The EPA’s analysis and rationale for 

proposing to approve Connecticut’s SIP 

revision request can be found in the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

associated with this action. In addition 

to the finding under Section 110(l), the 

EPA reviewed the SIP revision to ensure 

it is consistent with the EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166, which 

contain the requirements for a state’s 

PSD permit program regulations. The 

EPA’s May 15, 2018 TSD (which is 

included in the docket for this action) 

includes the state requirements revised 

or removed, a list of the relevant federal 

provisions relating to the State’s 

revisions, and a description of how each 

state provision complies with the 

federal requirements. 

During the EPA’s review, the EPA 

noted that there was a typographical 

error in the certified copy of the 

regulatory changes Connecticut sent to 

the EPA. The difference between the 

certified copy and the state-adopted 

regulations was due to a clerical error. 

Connecticut subsequently submitted a 

revised and correct certified copy of the 

regulatory changes on May 7, 2018. 

III. Proposed Action 

Based on our analysis, the EPA is 

proposing to approve the Connecticut 

SIP revision, which was submitted on 

February 28, 2018, for the removal of 

the requirement that sources must 

obtain a PSD permit based solely on a 

source’s GHG emissions. The EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to this proposed rule by 

following the instructions listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

IV. 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 revised RSCA 

Section 22a–174–3a(a)(1) entitled 

‘‘Applicability,’’ RSCA Section 22a– 

174–3a(j)(1) for when control 

technology applies, and RSCA Sections 

22a–174–3a(k)(1) and (2) regarding 

applicability of GHGs for new major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications. All three state 

regulations were effective February 8, 

2018. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office. 

V. 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 approves 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 expected to be an Executive 

Order 13771 regulatory action because 

this action is not significant 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, 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, 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 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 12, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12896 Filed 6–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0277; FRL–9979– 

43—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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania on May 2, 2018. The 

purpose of this SIP revision is to remove 

from the Pennsylvania SIP, the 

Commonwealth’s existing requirements 

limiting summertime gasoline volatility 

to 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) in seven counties 

in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. In 

the Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS