83 FR 4886 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 23 (February 2, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 23 (February 2, 2018)
| Page Range | 4886-4890 | |
| FR Document | 2018-02061 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 4886-4890] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-02061] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0315; FRL-9973-46-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the following four actions regarding the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP): Approve the portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP to a full approval; remove EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Georgia which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP; and approve the visibility prong of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 ), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 ), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 ), and 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04- OAR-2016-0315 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005.\1\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX ). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was ``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, including Georgia, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their regional haze plans. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\2\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of Columbia), including Georgia, that contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2 , annual NOX , and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze [[Page 4887]] plan on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), and in the same action, promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies in Georgia's regional haze plan. EPA finalized a limited approval of Georgia's regional haze SIP on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38501), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR. In the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision-- qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\3\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012). \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012). EPA has approved SIPs from Alabama, Minnesota, and Wisconsin relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama; 77 FR 34801, 34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota; and 77 FR 46952, 46959 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017. On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative to the application of source-specific BART. EPA has determined that changes to CSAPR's geographic scope resulting from the actions EPA has taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's budget remand do not affect the continued validity of participation in CSAPR as a BART alternative, because the changes in geographic scope would not have adversely affected the results of the air quality modeling analysis upon which the EPA based the 2012 determination. EPA's September 29, 2017, determination was based, in part, on EPA's final action approving a SIP revision from Alabama (81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016)) adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets and on SIP revisions submitted by Georgia and South Carolina to also adopt Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets.\5\ Since that time, EPA has approved the SIP revisions from Georgia and South Carolina. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) and 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017), respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ EPA proposed to approve the Georgia and South Carolina SIP revisions adopting CSAPR budgets on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866), and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37389), respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP submittal seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval of its regional haze plan submitted on February 11, 2010, and supplemented on November 19, 2010, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.\6\ Specifically, Georgia requests that EPA amend the State's regional haze plan by replacing its reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy SO2 and NOX BART requirements and first implementation period SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR,\7\ and to support the RPGs for the Class I areas in Georgia for the first implementation period. EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the SIP submittal and amend the SIP accordingly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ On October 13, 2017, (82 FR 47930), EPA approved the portions of the July 26, 2017, SIP submission incorporating into Georgia's SIP the State's regulations requiring Georgia EGUs to participate in CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading programs and thus replacing the corresponding FIP requirements. In the October 13, 2017, action, EPA did not take any action regarding Georgia's request in this July 26, 2017, SIP submission to revise the State's regional haze plan nor regarding the prong 4 element of the 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2 , 2010 1-hour SO2 , and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. \7\ In its regional haze plan, Georgia concluded and EPA found acceptable the State's determination that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for SO2 for affected Georgia EGUs for the first implementation period, with the exception of five EGUs at three facilities owned by Georgia Power. See 77 FR 11464 (February 27, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Infrastructure SIPs By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ For additional information regarding EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions, see, e.g., 81 FR 57544 (August 23, 2016) (proposal to approve portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section [[Page 4888]] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Through this action, EPA is proposing to convert the conditional approvals of the prong 4 portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2 , 2010 1-hour SO2 , and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to full approvals, as discussed in section III of this notice.\9\ All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following subsections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ On September 26, 2016, EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2 , 2010 1-hour SO2 , and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 81 FR 65899. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3- year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on October 22, 2013, as supplemented on July 25, 2014. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The other portions of Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submission submitted on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 25355 (April 28, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 25, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of this submission.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ The other portions of Georgia's March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 63106 (September 14, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 14, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Most of the other portions of Georgia's December 14, 2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 83156 (November 21, 2016). EPA is evaluating the remaining portions of Georgia's December 14, 2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission and will consider action on those portions in a separate action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. Georgia submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on May 14, 2012. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ The other portions of Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP submission were addressed in a separate action. See 80 FR 61109 (October 9, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. What are the prong 4 requirements? CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\14\ The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states. III. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed prong 4 and regional haze? Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; October 22, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission as supplemented [[Page 4889]] on July 25, 2014; and December 14, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission rely on the State having a fully approved regional haze plan to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA has not fully approved Georgia's regional haze plan, as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR. On May 26, 2016, Georgia submitted a commitment letter to EPA to submit a SIP revision that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets that are at least as stringent as the budgets codified for Georgia, and revises its regional haze plan to replace reliance on CAIR with CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. In its letter, Georgia committed to providing this SIP revision within one year of EPA's final conditional approval of the prong 4 portions of the infrastructure SIP revisions. On September 26, 2016 (81 FR 65899), EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portion of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2 , 2010 1-hour SO2 , and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on this commitment letter from the State. In accordance with the State's May 26, 2016, commitment letter, Georgia submitted a SIP revision on July 26, 2017, to adopt provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs and to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. As noted above, EPA approved the portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP revision adopting CSAPR. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017). EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the State's July 26, 2017, SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert EPA's previous action on Georgia's regional haze plan from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval of this portion of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze plan. Specifically, EPA's approval of the regional haze portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOX BART requirements and first implementation period SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the requirement that a LTS include measures as necessary to achieve the State-adopted RPGs. Thus, EPA is also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for Georgia which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze plan, EPA is therefore also proposing to convert the conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; October 22, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission as supplemented on July 25, 2014; and December 14, 2015, 2012, annual PM2.5 submissions. IV. Proposed Action As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the regional haze portion of Georgia's July 26, 2017, SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Georgia's February 11, 2010, regional haze plan as supplemented on November 19, 2010, to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for Georgia which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Georgia's regional haze SIP; and (4) convert EPA's September 26, 2016, conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of Georgia's May 14, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; March 25, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; the State's October 22, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission as supplemented on July 25, 2014; and the State's December 14, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. 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 Act and applicable federal regulations. See 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, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:Are not significant regulatory actions 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); Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Are 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.); Do 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); Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Are 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 Do 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). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 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. [[Page 4890]] Dated: January 22, 2018. Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2018-02061 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![4886 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: January 25, 2018. considered the official comment and program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104
Sarang V. Damle, should include discussion of all points (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA
General Counsel and Associate Register of you wish to make. EPA will generally amended its regulations to provide that
Copyrights. not consider comments or comment states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
[FR Doc. 2018–02086 Filed 2–1–18; 8:45 am] contents located outside of the primary trade programs pursuant to an EPA-
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or approved CAIR SIP or states that remain
other file sharing system). For subject to a CAIR FIP need not require
additional submission methods, the full affected BART-eligible electric
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EPA public comment policy, generating units (EGUs) to install,
AGENCY information about CBI or multimedia operate, and maintain BART for
submissions, and general guidance on emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
40 CFR Part 52 making effective comments, please visit (NOX). As a result of EPA’s
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ determination that CAIR was ‘‘better-
[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0315; FRL–9973–46– than-BART,’’ a number of states in the
Region 4] commenting-epa-dockets.
CAIR region, including Georgia, relied
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as
Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory an alternative to BART for EGU
Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for
Management Section, Air, Pesticides emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing
the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 2008 Ozone NAAQS and Toxics Management Division, U.S. their regional haze plans. These states
Environmental Protection Agency, also relied on CAIR as an element of a
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving
Agency. Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can their reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
ACTION: Proposed rule. be reached by telephone at (404) 562– for their regional haze programs.
9031 or via electronic mail at However, in 2008, the United States
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection notarianni.michele@epa.gov. Court of Appeals for the District of
Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
following four actions regarding the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
Georgia State Implementation Plan I. Background to preserve the environmental benefits
(SIP): Approve the portion of Georgia’s provided by CAIR. North Carolina v.
July 26, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to A. Regional Haze Plans and Their EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
change reliance from the Clean Air Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208),
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to Cross-State Air acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain
regional haze requirements; convert Act (CAA or Act) requires states to and issued FIPs to implement the rule
EPA’s limited approval/limited submit regional haze plans that contain in CSAPR-subject states.2
disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze such measures as may be necessary to Implementation of CSAPR was
SIP to a full approval; remove EPA’s make reasonable progress towards the scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for natural visibility goal, including a when CSAPR would have superseded
Georgia which replaced reliance on requirement that certain categories of the CAIR program.
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to existing major stationary sources built Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling
address the deficiencies identified in between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and its
the limited disapproval of Georgia’s and operate Best Available Retrofit resulting status as a temporary measure
regional haze SIP; and approve the Technology (BART) as determined by following that ruling, EPA could not
visibility prong of Georgia’s the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule fully approve regional haze SIPs to the
infrastructure SIP submittals for the (RHR), states are directed to conduct extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy
2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), BART determinations for such ‘‘BART- the BART requirement and the
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 eligible’’ sources that may be requirement for a LTS sufficient to
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2008 8-hour anticipated to cause or contribute to any achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality visibility impairment in a Class I area. these grounds, EPA finalized a limited
Standards (NAAQS). Rather than requiring source-specific disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze
BART controls, states also have the
DATES: Comments must be received on
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to
or before March 5, 2018. reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
program or other alternative program as (and the District of Columbia), including Georgia,
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, long as the alternative provides greater that contributed to downwind nonattainment or
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– reasonable progress towards improving interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
OAR–2016–0315 at http:// visibility than BART. See 40 CFR ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with
2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their
instructions for submitting comments. statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully
Once submitted, comments cannot be 1999, and further refined the criteria for impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. assessing whether an alternative four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
EPA may publish any comment received annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
program provides for greater reasonable NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
to its public docket. Do not submit progress in two subsequent CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms
electronically any information you rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of
consider to be Confidential Business 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX
Information (CBI) or other information by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR
60612 (October 13, 2006). state budgets are implemented in two phases of
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
EPA demonstrated that CAIR would generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016
etc.) must be accompanied by a written achieve greater reasonable progress than and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in
comment. The written comment is BART in revisions to the regional haze 2017 and later years.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Feb 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM 02FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_4909/page/1.svg)
![4890 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: January 22, 2018. 0125, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, through 2009/2010) plus 2 standard
Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, complete the required fields, and enter deviations, and an ABC equal to the
Regional Administrator, Region 4. or attach your comments. mean of the most recent 10 years of
[FR Doc. 2018–02061 Filed 2–1–18; 8:45 am] • Mail: Submit all written comments landings plus 1.5 standard deviations.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
to Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional This resulted in an OFL of 7.9 million
Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, lb (3.58 million kg) and an ABC of 7.32
St. Petersburg, FL 33701. million lb (3.32 million kg). The
Instructions: Comments sent by any maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE other method, to any other address or proxy and overfishing threshold
National Oceanic and Atmospheric individual, or received after the end of (maximum fishing mortality threshold
Administration the comment period, may not be (MFMT)) were set equal to the OFL. The
considered by NMFS. All comments ACL was set equal to the ABC. The
50 CFR Part 622 received are a part of the public record ACT, which equals the optimum yield
and will generally be posted for public (OY), was set at 90 percent of the ACL.
[Docket No. 170630611–8032–01] viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying Since that time, the spiny lobster ACT
RIN 0648–BH01 has been exceeded three times, the ACL
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or has been exceeded twice, and the OFL
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of has been exceeded once. The AM
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will established in Amendment 10 requires
Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico that the Councils convene a review
and South Atlantic; Regulatory be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter panel if the spiny lobster ACT is
Amendment 4 exceeded, and the National Standard 1
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries to remain anonymous). guidelines state that if the ACL is
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Electronic copies of Regulatory exceeded more than once in a 4-year
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Amendment 4, which includes an period, then the system of ACLs and
Commerce. environmental assessment and a AMs should be re-evaluated and
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for regulatory flexibility analysis, and a modified, as necessary, to improve its
comments. regulatory impact review, may be performance and effectiveness (50 CFR
obtained from the Southeast Regional 600.310(g)(7)). Therefore, The Councils
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement Office website at http:// convened a Spiny Lobster Review Panel
management measures described in sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_ (Review Panel) in February 2015, and
Regulatory Amendment 4 to the Fishery fisheries/gulf_sa/spiny_lobster/A4_ again in March 2016, to assess whether
Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in lobster_acl/a4_lobster_acl_index.html. action was needed to prevent the ACL
the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: from being exceeded. The Review Panel
(FMP), as prepared and submitted by Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727–824– recommended that the catch levels for
the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 5305, or email: nikhil.mehta@noaa.gov. spiny lobster be based on the mean of
Fishery Management Councils landings during the fishing years 1991/
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The spiny
(Councils). If implemented, this 1992 through 2015/2016, which is a
lobster fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
proposed rule would increase the longer time period than the 10-year
(Gulf) and the South Atlantic is
annual catch limit (ACL) for spiny period that was used to determine the
managed under the FMP. The FMP was
lobster based on updated landings current catch levels (fishing years 2000/
prepared by the Councils and
information and revised scientific 2001 through 2009/2010). This is
implemented through regulations at 50
recommendations. This proposed rule because the landings were historically
CFR part 622 under the authority of the
would also prohibit the use of traps for low during the 2000/2001 through 2009/
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
recreational harvest of spiny lobster in 2010 time period used for the
Conservation and Management Act
the South Atlantic exclusive economic calculation of the current catch levels.
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C 1801
zone (EEZ) off Georgia, South Carolina, The Review Panel determined that using
et seq.).
and North Carolina. The purposes of the longer time period to calculate catch
this proposed rule and Regulatory Background levels would better capture the
Amendment 4 are to ensure catch levels In 2012, NMFS implemented dynamics of the fishery. Both SSCs
for spiny lobster are based on the best Amendment 10 to the FMP, which agreed with the Review Panel and
scientific information available, to included an overfishing limit (OFL), recommended using the longer time
prevent overfishing, and to minimize acceptable biological catch (ABC), ACL, series of landings under Tier 3a of the
potential negative effects of traps on annual catch target (ACT), control rule for setting the OFL and
habitat and protected species accountability measure (AM), and status ABC. Using the longer time series of
interactions in the South Atlantic EEZ. determination criteria for spiny lobster landings results in a revised OFL of
DATES: Written comments must be (76 FR 75488; December 2, 2011). The 10.46 million lb (4.74 million kg) and a
received on or before March 4, 2018. OFL and ABC were specified using Tier revised ABC of 9.60 million lb (4.35
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 3a of the Gulf Council’s ABC Control million kg). Although the revised OFL
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
on the proposed rule identified by Rule (control rule), as recommended by and ABC are higher than the current
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2017–0125’’ by any of the Scientific and Statistical Committees OFL and ABC, using the longer time
the following methods: (SSCs) of the South Atlantic and Gulf of series is a more precautionary approach
• Electronic submissions: Submit Mexico Fishery Management Councils for calculating OFL and ABC than using
electronic comments via the Federal e- (Councils). Applying the control rule, the most recent 10 years of landings
Rulemaking Portal. Go to the SSCs recommended an OFL equal to (2006/2007 through 2015/2016) because
www.regulations.gov/ the mean of the most recent 10 years of these landings have been historically
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- landings (fishing years 2000/2001 high. The longer time series
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Feb 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM 02FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_4909/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-03 14:27:34
Document Modified: 2018-02-03 14:27:34
| 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 | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018. | |
| Contact | Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 4886 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Sulfur Oxides |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR