83 FR 31346 - Periodic Reporting
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 129 (July 5, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 129 (July 5, 2018)
| Page Range | 31346-31348 | |
| FR Document | 2018-14349 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 31346-31348] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-14349] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2018-7; Order No. 4685] Periodic Reporting AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Four). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: July 23, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Proposal Four III. Notice and Comment IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction On June 25, 2018, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11, requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.\1\ The Petition identifies the proposed analytical principles changes filed in this docket as Proposal Four. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Four), June 25, 2018 (Petition). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Proposal Four Background. Proposal Four would change the costing methodology for assigning expenses related to debit card transactions in the component named Retail Credit Card Fees (Component No. 126) in Cost Segment 13. Petition, Proposal Four at 1. Debit card transactions, which are purchases made using debit cards, incur fees that merchants pay to the debit card issuer.\2\ For example, when a customer purchases a product or service from the Postal Service using a debit card, the Postal Service pays the debit card issuer a fee for each transaction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ One type of fee that may be incurred when using a debit card is an interchange fee, which is the largest categorical contributor to total debit card processing fees for a transaction. Id. at 5. A merchant pays an interchange fee to the debit card issuer whenever a customer makes a purchase using a debit card. See 12 CFR 235.2(j) (defining ``interchange transaction fee'' as ``any fee established, charged, or received by a payment card network and paid by a merchant or an acquirer for the purpose of compensating an issuer for its involvement in an electronic debit transaction.''). The debit card fees referred to in the Petition and this Order are interchange fees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Docket No. RM2015-4, the Commission approved the current methodology for assigning expenses related to credit and debit card transactions.\3\ The current methodology treats these expenses as fully volume variable and assigns them to products in the same proportions as the Postal Service revenue realized from aggregate credit and debit card transactions. Petition, Proposal Four at 1. When preparing the FY 2017 Annual Compliance Report (ACR), the Postal Service explains that it recognized two flaws in the current methodology. Id. First, the current methodology uses the total of both credit and debit card fees when calculating distribution factors. Id. This assumes that transactions made with debit and credit cards are similar, which is not true for every product. Id. For example, Priority Mail generates more revenue from credit card purchases than debit cards. Id. Conversely, Money Orders cannot be purchased using credit cards. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Petition, Proposal Four at 1; see Docket No. RM2015-4, Order Approving Analytical Principle Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal Eleven), February 9, 2015 (Order No. 2350). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Postal Service asserts that when calculating a distribution key, the type of card used (debit or credit) becomes more important because total credit card fees are almost four times greater than total debit card fees. Id. Because of this incorrect assumption, the current methodology misallocates expenses related to debit and credit card fees, especially for products that are more heavily purchased by one card type. Id. The second flaw in the current methodology identified by the Postal Service is that the distribution factors do not fully align with actual expenses incurred from the usage of debit and credit cards. Id. at 2. For example, for Money Order transactions, the Postal Service charges the customer the face value of the Money Order plus a Special Services fee. Id. When calculating the Money Order share of total ``revenue'' for distribution purposes, the current methodology only considers the Special Services fee the Postal Service charges the customer. Id. The Postal Service asserts that this methodology is erroneous because the amount the Postal Service pays to the debit card provider is based on the entire transaction amount, including the face value of the money order, rather than just the Special Services fee charged. Id. To address these two flaws in the current methodology, the Postal Service made two corrections to Library Reference USPS-FY17-32, which was filed with the FY 2017 ACR.\4\ First, the Postal Service separated credit and debit card fees to develop different sets of distribution factors for these fees. Petition, Proposal Four at 2. Second, the set of distribution factors for debit cards used the aggregate face value of Money Orders purchased with debit cards in conjunction with the revenue from all other products. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Id.; see Docket No. ACR2017, Library Reference USPS-FY17-32, December 29, 2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a supplemental Chairman's Information Request (CHIR) response, the Postal Service proposed a model attempting to account for the recognized major components of debit card fees.\5\ In the FY 2017 Annual Compliance [[Page 31347]] Determination (ACD), the Commission stated that the proposed model was not an approved methodology for attributing expenses related to debit card fees.\6\ It directed the Postal Service to continue investigating issues related to debit card fee attribution and update the Commission on its progress and any potential corresponding methodological changes within 90 days after the ACD was issued. FY 2017 ACD at 64. The Postal Service asserts that Proposal Four is a result of this investigation. Petition, Proposal Four at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Id. at 2-3; see Docket No. ACR2017, Supplemental Response of the United States Postal Service to Question 1.b of Chairman's Information Request No. 2, February 23, 2018 (Response to CHIR No. 2, Question 1.b). \6\ Docket No. ACR2017, Annual Compliance Determination, March 29, 2018, at 64 (FY 2017 ACD). The Commission's rules require the Postal Service to use only accepted analytical principles in its annual periodic reports to the Commission, including the ACR. 39 CFR 3050.10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal description. Proposal Four would change the methodology for assigning expenses related to debit card transactions (Debit Card Expenses). Proposal Four would disaggregate total Debit Card Expenses into two cost pools: Transactions and Proceeds. Id. The Transactions cost pool would account for Debit Card Expenses for regulated transactions, which have limits on debit card fee amounts based on Federal Reserve regulations. Id. at 3, 5. Unregulated transactions do not have these limits. Id. at 5. To calculate the amount of Debit Card Expenses allocated to the Transactions cost pool, the Postal Service would first determine the number of regulated debit card transactions. Id. at 3. This is the total number of debit card transactions multiplied by the proportion of regulated transactions. The number of regulated transactions would then be multiplied by the approximate per-transaction cost to calculate the amount of Debit Card Expenses allocated to the Transactions cost pool.\7\ The remaining amount would be allocated to the Proceeds cost pool. Petition, Proposal Four at 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Id. at 3-4. As discussed below, the ``per-transaction'' cost appears to refer to fixed debit card fees, which are the same for each transaction regardless of the transaction amount. See Response to CHIR No. 2, Question 1.b. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For example, in FY 2017, total Debit Card Expenses were approximately $58.6 million. Id. at 3. Proposal Four would disaggregate these expenses between the Transactions cost pool and Proceeds cost pool. There were approximately 150 million debit card transactions, 65 percent of which were regulated. Id. at 3-4. The approximate per- transaction cost was 22 cents. Id. at 4. Thus, the Transactions cost pool would equal approximately $21.3 million (150 million total debit card transactions x 65 percent regulated transactions x 22 cents per- transaction cost). Id. The remaining amount of $37.3 million ($58.6 million -$21.3 million) would be allocated to the Proceeds cost pool. Id. Under Proposal Four, Debit Card Expenses in the Transactions cost pool would be assigned to products proportionally based on the number of tenders captured from the Retail Data Mart. Id. Debit Card Expenses in the Proceeds cost pool would be assigned to products in proportion to the total proceeds realized with debit cards, which is the same distribution key used under the current methodology. Id. The final Debit Card Expenses assigned to each product would be the sum total of the respective amounts from each cost pool. Id. The Postal Service states that Proposal Four reflects the proposed model presented in Docket No. ACR2017. Id. However, it explains that Proposal Four differs by distinguishing between regulated and unregulated transactions. Id. By contrast, the proposed model assumed that all of the debit card transactions were regulated. Id. Rationale. The Postal Service asserts that Proposal Four would improve the accuracy of its costing methods by more closely reflecting how debit card fees are incurred. Id. at 4-5. Debit card fees generally have two components: A fixed fee per transaction (regardless of transaction amount) and a variable fee that changes based on the transaction amount. Response to CHIR No. 2, Question 1.b. For regulated transactions, the Federal Reserve limits debit card fees to 22 cents per transaction (fixed fee) plus 0.05 percent of the transaction (variable fee).\8\ Proposal Four would account for the fixed debit card fees in the Transactions cost pool for regulated transactions. Id. The Proceeds cost pool would account for the variable debit card fees along with other fees, including fees for unregulated debit card transactions. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Petition, Proposal Four at 5. The 22 cent per-transaction cost includes one cent for fraud protection costs. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Postal Service asserts that Proposal Four would address a flaw in the current methodology. Id. at 6. The current methodology assigns all Debit Card Expenses to products in the same proportions as the Postal Service revenue realized from aggregate debit card transactions. Id. at 1. However, this methodology ignores the fixed ``per- transaction'' component of Debit Card Expenses.\9\ The current methodology would be appropriate if all products had the same average revenue per transaction. Petition, Proposal Four at 6. Because they do not, products with below average revenues per transaction are assigned less than their appropriate share of the Debit Card Expenses related to the fixed fee. Id. Conversely, products with above average revenues per transaction are assigned more than their share of these expenses. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Id. at 6. The ``per-transaction'' component appears to refer to fixed debit card fees, which are the same for each transaction regardless of the transaction amount. See Response to CHIR No. 2, Question 1.b. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For example, the average revenue per transaction for Money Orders is substantially higher than those of other products. Id. at 7. The Postal Service asserts that the current methodology overstated the Debit Card Expenses assigned to Money Orders in FY 2017. Id. at 6-7. The Postal Service points out that applying Proposal Four would have properly distinguished between the fixed per-transaction and residual components for regulated transactions, which would have resulted in a more accurate assignment of Debit Card Expenses to Money Orders. Id. at 7. The Transactions cost pool would account for the fixed per- transaction component of Debit Card Expenses. See id. at 4. The Postal Service concludes that adopting Proposal Four would improve the accuracy of its costing methods by more closely aligning with the way debit card fees are incurred. Id. Impact. The Petition includes a table illustrating the cost impacts of Proposal Four. Id. at 7-8. This table compares the Debit Card Expenses distribution as presented in the FY 2017 ACR with the distributions that would have resulted if Proposal Four had been used. Id. at 7. The Postal Service explains that the most significant change to the cost coverages filed with the FY 2017 ACR would be to Money Orders, which would have experienced an increase in cost coverage under Proposal Four from 97 percent to approximately 107 percent. On a unit cost basis, the impact on all other products ``would be either trivial or, in most instances, entirely immaterial.'' Id. at 7-8. The Postal Service provides further details in workpapers filed with the Petition.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See Petition, Excel file ``Prop.4.Debit.Card.Attachment.xlsx.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Notice and Comment The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-7 to consider matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Four no later than July 23, 2018. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Jennaca D. Upperman is designated as an officer [[Page 31348]] 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
![31346 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
interests of the general public in this Table of Contents when calculating distribution factors.
proceeding. I. Introduction Id. This assumes that transactions made
II. Proposal Four with debit and credit cards are similar,
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
III. Notice and Comment which is not true for every product. Id.
It is ordered: IV. Ordering Paragraphs For example, Priority Mail generates
1. The Commission establishes Docket more revenue from credit card
No. RM2018–8 for consideration of the I. Introduction purchases than debit cards. Id.
matters raised by the Petition of the On June 25, 2018, the Postal Service Conversely, Money Orders cannot be
United States Postal Service for the filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR purchased using credit cards. Id.
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 3050.11, requesting that the The Postal Service asserts that when
Proposed Changes in Analytical Commission initiate a rulemaking calculating a distribution key, the type
Principles (Proposal Five), filed June 26, proceeding to consider changes to of card used (debit or credit) becomes
2018. analytical principles relating to periodic more important because total credit card
2. Comments by interested persons in reports.1 The Petition identifies the fees are almost four times greater than
this proceeding are due no later than proposed analytical principles changes total debit card fees. Id. Because of this
August 22, 2018. filed in this docket as Proposal Four. incorrect assumption, the current
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the methodology misallocates expenses
II. Proposal Four
Commission appoints Katalin K. related to debit and credit card fees,
Clendenin to serve as an officer of the Background. Proposal Four would especially for products that are more
Commission (Public Representative) to change the costing methodology for heavily purchased by one card type. Id.
assigning expenses related to debit card The second flaw in the current
represent the interests of the general
transactions in the component named methodology identified by the Postal
public in this docket.
Retail Credit Card Fees (Component No. Service is that the distribution factors
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
126) in Cost Segment 13. Petition, do not fully align with actual expenses
publication of this Order in the Federal
Proposal Four at 1. Debit card incurred from the usage of debit and
Register.
transactions, which are purchases made credit cards. Id. at 2. For example, for
By the Commission. using debit cards, incur fees that Money Order transactions, the Postal
Stacy L. Ruble, merchants pay to the debit card issuer.2 Service charges the customer the face
Secretary. For example, when a customer value of the Money Order plus a Special
[FR Doc. 2018–14367 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] purchases a product or service from the Services fee. Id. When calculating the
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P Postal Service using a debit card, the Money Order share of total ‘‘revenue’’
Postal Service pays the debit card issuer for distribution purposes, the current
a fee for each transaction. methodology only considers the Special
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION In Docket No. RM2015–4, the Services fee the Postal Service charges
Commission approved the current the customer. Id. The Postal Service
39 CFR Part 3050 methodology for assigning expenses asserts that this methodology is
related to credit and debit card erroneous because the amount the
[Docket No. RM2018–7; Order No. 4685] transactions.3 The current methodology Postal Service pays to the debit card
treats these expenses as fully volume provider is based on the entire
Periodic Reporting variable and assigns them to products in transaction amount, including the face
the same proportions as the Postal value of the money order, rather than
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. Service revenue realized from aggregate just the Special Services fee charged. Id.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. credit and debit card transactions. To address these two flaws in the
Petition, Proposal Four at 1. When current methodology, the Postal Service
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a preparing the FY 2017 Annual made two corrections to Library
recent filing requesting that the Compliance Report (ACR), the Postal Reference USPS–FY17–32, which was
Commission initiate an informal Service explains that it recognized two filed with the FY 2017 ACR.4 First, the
rulemaking proceeding to consider flaws in the current methodology. Id. Postal Service separated credit and debit
changes to an analytical method for use First, the current methodology uses the card fees to develop different sets of
in periodic reporting (Proposal Four). total of both credit and debit card fees distribution factors for these fees.
This document informs the public of the
Petition, Proposal Four at 2. Second, the
filing, invites public comment, and 1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for
set of distribution factors for debit cards
takes other administrative steps. the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed
Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Four),
used the aggregate face value of Money
DATES: Comments are due: July 23, Orders purchased with debit cards in
June 25, 2018 (Petition).
2018. 2 One type of fee that may be incurred when using conjunction with the revenue from all
ADDRESSES: Submit comments a debit card is an interchange fee, which is the other products. Id.
largest categorical contributor to total debit card In a supplemental Chairman’s
electronically via the Commission’s processing fees for a transaction. Id. at 5. A
Filing Online system at http:// merchant pays an interchange fee to the debit card Information Request (CHIR) response,
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit issuer whenever a customer makes a purchase using the Postal Service proposed a model
comments electronically should contact a debit card. See 12 CFR 235.2(j) (defining attempting to account for the recognized
‘‘interchange transaction fee’’ as ‘‘any fee major components of debit card fees.5 In
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
established, charged, or received by a payment card
INFORMATION CONTACT section by network and paid by a merchant or an acquirer for the FY 2017 Annual Compliance
telephone for advice on filing the purpose of compensating an issuer for its
involvement in an electronic debit transaction.’’). 4 Id.; see Docket No. ACR2017, Library Reference
alternatives.
The debit card fees referred to in the Petition and USPS–FY17–32, December 29, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: this Order are interchange fees. 5 Id. at 2–3; see Docket No. ACR2017,
3 Petition, Proposal Four at 1; see Docket No. Supplemental Response of the United States Postal
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
RM2015–4, Order Approving Analytical Principle Service to Question 1.b of Chairman’s Information
202–789–6820. Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal Eleven), Request No. 2, February 23, 2018 (Response to CHIR
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: February 9, 2015 (Order No. 2350). No. 2, Question 1.b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Jul 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31475/page/1.svg)
![31348 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
of the Commission (Public comments. Once submitted, comments Virginia’s 2012 and 2014 submittals,
Representative) to represent the cannot be edited or removed from and that there are no outstanding issues
interests of the general public in this Regulations.gov. For either manner of related to WVDEP’s regulation of fine
proceeding. submission, EPA may publish any particulate matter (PM2.5). See 81 FR
comment received to its public docket. 53008 (August 11, 2016).
IV. Ordering Paragraphs Do not submit electronically any In a June 3, 2010 final rulemaking
It is ordered: information you consider to be action, EPA promulgated regulations
1. The Commission establishes Docket confidential business information (CBI)
No. RM2018–7 to consider matters known as ‘‘the Tailoring Rule,’’ which
or other information whose disclosure is
raised by the Petition of the United phased in permitting requirements for
restricted by statute. Multimedia
States Postal Service for the Initiation of GHG emissions from stationary sources
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
a Proceeding to Consider Proposed under the CAA PSD and title V
accompanied by a written comment.
Changes in Analytical Principles permitting programs. See 75 FR 31514.
The written comment is considered the
(Proposal Four), filed June 25, 2018. official comment and should include For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which
2. Comments by interested persons in discussion of all points you wish to began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title
this proceeding are due no later than make. EPA will generally not consider V requirements applied to sources of
July 23, 2018. comments or comment contents located GHG emissions only if the sources were
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the outside of the primary submission (i.e., subject to PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ due
Commission appoints Jennaca D. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing to their emissions of non-GHG
Upperman to serve as an officer of the system). For additional submission pollutants. These sources are referred to
Commission (Public Representative) to methods, please contact the person as ‘‘anyway sources.’’ Step 2 of the
represent the interests of the general identified in the FOR FURTHER Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1,
public in this docket. INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 2011, applied the PSD and title V
4. The Secretary shall arrange for full EPA public comment policy, permitting requirements under the CAA
publication of this Order in the Federal information about CBI or multimedia to sources that were classified as major,
Register. submissions, and general guidance on and, thus, required to obtain a permit,
making effective comments, please visit based solely on their potential GHG
By the Commission.
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ emissions. Step 2 also applied to
Stacy L. Ruble, modifications of otherwise major
commenting-epa-dockets.
Secretary. sources that required a PSD permit
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2018–14349 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] because they increased only GHGs
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
email at talley.david@epa.gov. above applicable levels in the EPA
regulations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6,
2017, the West Virginia Department of On June 23, 2014, the United States
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Environmental Protection (WVDEP), on Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory
AGENCY behalf of the State of West Virginia, Group (UARG) v. Environmental
submitted a revision to its PSD Protection Agency,3 issued a decision
40 CFR Part 52
regulations found at title 45, chapter 14 addressing the Tailoring Rule and the
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0502; FRL–9980– of the Code of State Rules (CSR) as a application of PSD permitting
32—Region 3] revision to the West Virginia SIP. requirements to GHG emissions. The
Supreme Court said that the EPA may
Approval and Promulgation of Air I. Background not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for
Quality Implementation Plans; West WVDEP’s June 6, 2017 SIP submittal purposes of determining whether a
Virginia; Permits for Construction and included a number of revisions to West source is a major source required to
Major Modification of Major Stationary Virginia’s PSD regulations under obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said
Sources for the Prevention of 45CSR14. The revisions were largely that the EPA could continue to require
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality non-substantive and administrative in that PSD permits, otherwise required
AGENCY: Environmental Protection nature. However, as discussed in based on emissions of pollutants other
Agency (EPA). subsequent sections of this notice, than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG
WVDEP’s SIP submittal also contained emissions based on the application of
ACTION: Proposed rule.
revisions to PSD provisions relating to Best Available Control Technology
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection the regulation of greenhouse gases (BACT). The Supreme Court decision
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a (GHGs). Additionally, WVDEP’s June 6, effectively upheld PSD permitting
state implementation plan (SIP) revision 2017 submittal letter references EPA’s requirements for GHG emissions under
submitted by the State of West Virginia. conditional approval 1 of two SIP Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway
This revision pertains to West Virginia’s submittals (June 6, 2012 and July 1, sources’’ and invalidated PSD
Prevention of Significant Deterioration 2014), related to the regulation of fine permitting requirements for Step 2
(PSD) program. This action is being particulate matter (PM2.5). Specifically, sources.
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). the letter states, ‘‘. . .EPA may
In accordance with the Supreme
subsequently issue a final rule in which
DATES: Written comments must be Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the
West Virginia’s conditional approval of
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
received on or before August 6, 2018. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
the 2012 and 2014 SIP revisions of
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued
45CSR14 will become final approvals.’’ 2
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– an amended judgment vacating the
EPA notes that full and final approval
OAR–2017–0502 at http:// regulations that implemented Step 2 of
has already been granted to West
www.regulations.gov, or via email to the Tailoring Rule, but not the
duke.gerallyn@epa.gov. For comments 1 See
80 FR 36483 (June 25, 2015).
regulations that implement Step 1 of the
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 2 See
WVDEP’s June 6, 2017 submittal letter,
online instructions for submitting included in the docket for this action. 3 See 134 S.Ct. 2427.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 Jul 03, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM 05JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31475/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-03 23:40:15
Document Modified: 2018-07-03 23:40:15
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Comments are due: July 23, 2018. | |
| Contact | David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 31346 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR