31348 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1See 80 FR 36483 (June 25, 2015). 

2See WVDEP’s June 6, 2017 submittal letter, 

included in the docket for this action. 3See 134 S.Ct. 2427. 

of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2018–7 to consider matters 

raised by the Petition of the United 

States Postal Service for the Initiation of 

a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles 

(Proposal Four), filed June 25, 2018. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

July 23, 2018. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Jennaca D. 

Upperman to serve as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this Order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14349 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0502; FRL–9980– 

32—Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Permits for Construction and 

Major Modification of Major Stationary 

Sources for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

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 West Virginia. 

This revision pertains to West Virginia’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2017–0502 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

duke.gerallyn@epa.gov. 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: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 

2017, the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP), on 

behalf of the State of West Virginia, 

submitted a revision to its PSD 

regulations found at title 45, chapter 14 

of the Code of State Rules (CSR) as a 

revision to the West Virginia SIP. 

I. Background 

WVDEP’s June 6, 2017 SIP submittal 

included a number of revisions to West 

Virginia’s PSD regulations under 

45CSR14. The revisions were largely 

non-substantive and administrative in 

nature. However, as discussed in 

subsequent sections of this notice, 

WVDEP’s SIP submittal also contained 

revisions to PSD provisions relating to 

the regulation of greenhouse gases 

(GHGs). Additionally, WVDEP’s June 6, 

2017 submittal letter references EPA’s 

conditional approval 1 of two SIP 

submittals (June 6, 2012 and July 1, 

2014), related to the regulation of fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). Specifically, 

the letter states, ‘‘. . .EPA may 

subsequently issue a final rule in which 

West Virginia’s conditional approval of 

the 2012 and 2014 SIP revisions of 

45CSR14 will become final approvals.’’ 2

EPA notes that full and final approval 

has already been granted to West 

Virginia’s 2012 and 2014 submittals, 

and that there are no outstanding issues 

related to WVDEP’s regulation of fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). See 81 FR 

53008 (August 11, 2016). 

In a June 3, 2010 final rulemaking 

action, EPA promulgated regulations 

known as ‘‘the Tailoring Rule,’’ which 

phased in permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions from stationary sources 

under the CAA PSD and title V 

permitting programs. See 75 FR 31514. 

For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which 

began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title 

V requirements applied to sources of 

GHG emissions only if the sources were 

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

to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. These sources are referred to 

as ‘‘anyway sources.’’ Step 2 of the 

Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 

2011, applied the PSD and title V 

permitting requirements under the CAA 

to sources that were classified as major, 

and, thus, required to obtain a permit, 

based solely on their potential GHG 

emissions. Step 2 also applied to 

modifications of otherwise major 

sources that required a PSD permit 

because they increased only GHGs 

above applicable levels in the EPA 

regulations. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (UARG) v. Environmental 

Protection Agency,3 issued a decision 

addressing the Tailoring Rule and the 

application of PSD permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions. The 

Supreme Court said that the EPA may 

not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for 

purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source required to 

obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said 

that the EPA could continue to require 

that PSD permits, otherwise required 

based on emissions of pollutants other 

than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). The Supreme Court decision 

effectively upheld PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway 

sources’’ and invalidated PSD 

permitting requirements for Step 2 

sources. 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued 

an amended judgment vacating the 

regulations that implemented Step 2 of 

the Tailoring Rule, but not the 

regulations that implement Step 1 of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31349 

4Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 

D.C. Cir., No. 09–1322, 06/26/20, judgment entered 

for No. 09–1322 on 04/10/2015. 

5 Id. 

Tailoring Rule.4 The amended judgment 

preserves, without the need for 

additional rulemaking by the EPA, the 

application of the BACT requirement to 

GHG emissions from sources that are 

required to obtain a PSD permit based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs (i.e., the ‘‘anyway’’ sources). The 

D.C. Circuit’s judgment vacated the 

regulations at issue in the litigation, 

including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to 

the extent they require a stationary 

source to obtain a PSD permit if 

greenhouse gases are the only pollutant 

(i) that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the applicable 

major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase from a modification.’’ 5

In response to these court decisions, 

EPA took final action on August 19, 

2015 to remove the vacated elements 

from the federal PSD program. See 80 

FR 50199. As discussed further in 

Section II of this notice, WVDEP’s June 

6, 2017 submittal included revisions 

enacted in order to make WVDEP’s PSD 

program consistent with the federal 

program. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

WVDEP’s June 6, 2017 submittal 

included revisions to the definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ at subdivision 

2.80 of 45–14–2. Specifically, 

subdivisions 2.80.e, 2.80.f, and 2.80.g 

were deleted in their entirety. These 

subdivisions were the mechanism 

through which WVDEP implemented 

the Tailoring Rule Step 2 provisions 

which were vacated and revised by EPA 

as a result of the UARG v. EPA decision 

discussed in Section I of this notice. 

WVDEP’s revised definition of ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ is consistent with the 

federal definition at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v), and 

ensures that the preconstruction 

permitting requirements of WVDEP’s 

PSD program will be applied to GHG 

sources in a manner consistent with the 

Supreme Court decision in UARG v. 

EPA. Further, EPA finds that these 

deletions are in accordance with section 

110(l) of the CAA because they will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable CAA requirement. 

In addition to the previously 

discussed revisions, WVDEP’s June 6, 

2017 submittal included a number of 

non-substantive, clarifying or 

administrative revisions. These include 

the filing date and effective date at 

subdivisions 45–14–1.3 and 45–14–1.4, 

and the removal of references to the 

deleted subdivisions discussed in 

Section II.A of this notice. WVDEP 

provided an underline/strikeout version 

of 45CSR14 so that all of the revisions 

can be tracked. A copy of this is 

included in the docket for today’s 

action. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve West 

Virginia’s June 6, 2017 SIP revision to 

its PSD regulations under 45CSR14. 

West Virginia’s June 6, 2017 SIP 

revision is consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166, CAA section 110(a)(2), and is in 

accordance with section 110(l) of the 

CAA because it will not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this rulemaking notice. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this proposed rule, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference the West Virginia rules 

regarding definitions and permitting 

requirements discussed in Section II of 

this preamble. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through http://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region III Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 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 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, 

relating to the preconstruction 

requirements of West Virginia’s PSD 

program, 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. 

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. 

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


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31350 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The term state has the same meaning as 

provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically 

includes the District of Columbia. 

2SIP revisions that are intended to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA 

are often referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the 

elements under 110(a)(2) are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. 

3All the other infrastructure SIP elements for the 

District for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were addressed 

in a separate rulemaking. See 80 FR 19538 (May 13, 

2015). 

4NOX SIP Call. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998); 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 

12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

75 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); and CSAPR Update. 

81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). 

5The four-step interstate framework has also been 

used to address requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for some previous particulate matter (PM) 

NAAQS. 

Dated: June 21, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14333 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701; FRL–9980– 

33—Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; District of 

Columbia; State Implementation Plan 

for the Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

portion of the state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the District 

of Columbia (the District) that pertains 

to the good neighbor and interstate 

transport requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

The CAA’s good neighbor provision 

requires EPA and states to address the 

interstate transport of air pollution that 

affects the ability of other states 1 to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

Specifically, the good neighbor 

provision requires each state in its SIP 

to prohibit emissions that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of a NAAQS in another 

state. The District has submitted a SIP 

revision that addresses the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the District’s SIP 

as having adequate provisions to meet 

the requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

accordance with section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2014–0701 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

spielberger.susan@epa.gov. 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: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

13, 2014, the District Department of the 

Environment (DDOE) on behalf of the 

District submitted a revision to its SIP 

to satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i), of 

the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 

levels of the primary and secondary 

ozone standards from 0.08 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). Ground level ozone is formed 

when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

react in the presence of sunlight. NOX

and VOCs are referred to as ozone 

precursors and are emitted by many 

types of pollution sources, including 

motor vehicles, power plants, industrial 

facilities, and area wide sources, such as 

consumer products and lawn and 

garden equipment. Scientific evidence 

indicates that adverse public health 

effects occur following exposure to 

ozone. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires states to submit, within three 

years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the 

applicable elements of sections 

110(a)(2).2 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

generally requires SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 

emissions activities from having certain 

adverse air quality effects on other states 

due to interstate transport of air 

pollution. There are four prongs within 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 

1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

includes prongs 3 and 4. Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also called the good 

neighbor provision, a state’s SIP must 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with respect to any such 

national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard.’’ Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives 

independent significance to the matter 

of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that 

of maintenance (prong 2). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires 

SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit emissions that will interfere 

with measures required to be included 

in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other state under part C to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility 

(prong 4). This proposed action 

addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i).3

Through the development and 

implementation of several previous 

rulemakings,4 EPA, working in 

partnership with states, established the 

four-step interstate transport framework 

to address the requirements of the good 

neighbor provision for ozone NAAQS.5

The four steps are: Step 1—Identify 

downwind receptors that are expected 

to have problems attaining or 

maintaining the NAAQS; step 2— 

determine which upwind states 

contribute enough to these identified 

downwind air quality problems to 

warrant further review and analysis; 

step 3—identify the emissions 

reductions necessary to prevent an 

identified upwind state from 

contributing significantly to those 

downwind air quality problems; and 

step 4—adopt permanent and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1