[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29601]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13491]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial
Space Transportation Reusable Launch Vehicle and Reentry Licensing
Regulation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on March 28, 2018. The information is used to determine if
applicants satisfy requirements for obtaining a launch license to
protect the public from risks associated with reentry operations from a
site not operated by or situated on a Federal launch range.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0643.
    Title: Commercial Space Transportation Reusable Launch Vehicle and
Reentry Licensing Regulation.
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on March 28, 2018 (83 FR 13338). The data is necessary
for a U.S. citizen to apply for and obtain a reusable launch vehicle
(RLV) mission license or a reentry license for activities by commercial
or non-federal entities (that are not done by or for the U.S.
Government) as defined and required by 49 U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Chapter
701, formerly known as the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as
amended. The information is needed in order to demonstrate to the FAA
Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) that the proposed
activity meets applicable public safety, national security, and foreign
policy interests of the United States.
    Respondents: Approximately 5 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 3,900 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 19,500 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110
[FR Doc. 2018-13491 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 11158]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05662]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Proposed New Restricted Category Aircraft--Special Purpose
Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of and requests comment
on the proposed addition of several new restricted category special
purpose operations pursuant to Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. These include Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief, and
An expansion of Patrolling to include patrolling of railroads,
waterways and harbors.
    Comments Invited: Interested persons are invited to comment on the
proposed new special purpose operations for restricted category by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, in favor or opposed.
Please forward you comments to Federal Aviation Administration,
Aircraft Certification Service, Policy & Innovation Division,
Certification Procedures Section (AIR-6C1), 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW,
Washington, DC 20024. ATTN: Mr. Graham Long. Comments must be received
on or before April 24, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Aviation Administration,
Aircraft Certification Service, Policy & Innovation Division,
Certification Procedures Section (AIR-6C1) at 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW,
Washington, DC 20024.
    ATTN: Mr. Graham Long. You may contact Mr. Long at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is considering several new
restricted category aircraft--special purpose operations pursuant to 14
CFR 21.25(b)(7). Approval of these new special purpose operations would
improve the usability of restricted category aircraft and support the
public welfare. The proposed new special purpose operations are: (1)
Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief, and (2) an expansion of
Patrolling to include patrolling of Railroads, Waterways and Harbors.
These operations are intended to be performed within the scope of
``aerial work operations.'' Note, pursuant to Sec.  91.313, the
operating limitations and the noise requirements pursuant to 14 CFR
part 36, will apply to these special purpose operations in restricted
category, unless otherwise waived.
    1. Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief: Recent natural
disasters in the United States (notably Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and
multiple hurricanes in 2017) have prompted the FAA to consider allowing
restricted category aircraft to operate under these types of
circumstances to make available additional aviation resources to
provide humanitarian assistance and/or disaster relief. The proposed
mission involves bringing in needed materials and supplies (i.e., cargo
only--no passengers) to the affected area, or moving materials and
supplies within the area. This approval is intended to be performed
within the scope of ``aerial work operations'' and would be available
to both rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft. In addition, this
operation would potentially include aerial delivery/airdropping of
supplies. FAA is considering limiting this approval to periods when a
government agency has made a declaration of a state of emergency, or
similar declaration.
    2. Patrolling Railroads, Waterways and Harbors: Restricted category
aircraft, both rotary wing and fixed wing, are currently able to be
used for patrolling pipelines, power lines, and canals. We are
considering expanding Patrolling to include patrolling railroads,
waterways and harbors to enable the use of restricted category aircraft
in these missions. FAA further wants to clarify that patrolling
operations are to be for inspection, security, and safety purposes, and
are intended to be performed within the scope of ``aerial work
operations.''

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, AIR-601, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-05662 Filed 3-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4886-4890]
[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<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at [email protected].

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

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

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

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.

    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