Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 44519 

an extended 16 to 23-year period. The 

estimated rate is based on the default 

and recovery rates for general purpose 

municipal debt and industrial 

development bonds. The cumulative 

default rates on industrial development 

bonds (14.62 percent) were higher than 

the default rates on general purpose 

municipal debt (0.25 percent) during the 

period from which the data were taken. 

(The recovery rates for industrial 

development bonds and general purpose 

debt were 74.76 and 90.27 percent, 

respectively.) These two subsectors of 

municipal debt were chosen because 

their purposes and loan terms most 

closely resemble those of Section 108 

guaranteed loans. 

In this regard, Section 108 guaranteed 

loans can be broken down into two 

categories: (1) Loans that finance public 

infrastructure and activities to support 

subsidized housing (other than 

financing new construction) and (2) 

other development projects (e.g., retail, 

commercial, industrial). The 2.365 

percent fee was derived by weighting 

the default and recovery data for general 

purpose municipal debt and the data for 

industrial development bonds according 

to the expected composition of the 

Section 108 portfolio by corresponding 

project type. Based on the dollar amount 

of Section 108 loan guarantee 

commitments awarded during the 

period from FY 2012 through FY 2016, 

HUD expects that 30 percent of the 

Section 108 portfolio will be similar to 

general purpose municipal debt and 70 

percent of the portfolio will be similar 

to industrial development bonds. In 

setting the fee at 2.365 percent of the 

principal amount of the guaranteed 

loan, HUD expects that the amount 

generated will fully offset the cost to the 

Federal government associated with 

making guarantee commitments 

awarded in FY 2018. Note that the FY 

2018 fee represents a 0.225 percent 

decrease from the FY 2017 fee of 2.59 

percent. This is due primarily to 

updated loan repayment patterns and 

discount rates used in calculating the 

present value of cash flows. These are 

variables that ordinarily are modified in 

the credit subsidy calculation. 

This document establishes a rate that 

does not constitute a development 

decision that affects the physical 

condition of specific project areas or 

building sites. Accordingly, under 24 

CFR 50.19(c)(6), this document is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

Dated: September 12, 2017. 

Neal Rackleff, 

Assistant Secretary for Community Planning 

and Development. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20474 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0226; FRL–9968–17– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; GA: Emission 

Reduction Credits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve changes to the Georgia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

revise the Emission Reduction Credits 

(ERC) regulation. EPA is approving 

portions of the SIP revision submitted 

by the State of Georgia, through the 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources’ Environmental Protection 

Division (GA EPD) on September 15, 

2008. The revision expands the 

eligibility for sources in Barrow County 

that can participate in the ERC Program, 

adds a provision for reevaluation of the 

Certificates of ERC, changes the 

administrative fees, and eliminates an 

exemption for certain types of ERCs. 

This action is being taken pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

November 24, 2017 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by October 25, 2017. If EPA 

receives such comments, it will publish 

a timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule in the Federal Register and inform 

the public that the rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0226 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: 

Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman can be reached via telephone 

at (404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail 

at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On September 15, 2008, GA EPD 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA for 

approval that involves changes to 

Georgia’s emissions reduction credits 

rule and the administrative fees found 

in Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.03(13). Rule 

391–3–1–.03(13) provides for the 

creation, banking, transfer, and use of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) ERCs in 

Federally designated ozone 

nonattainment areas in Georgia and 

administrative fees associated with the 

ERC Program. 

GA EPD oversees the ERC Program, 

which was created in 1999 and 

approved into Georgia’s SIP on July 10, 

2001 (66 FR 35906). The ERC Program 

facilitates construction permitting for 

major emission sources that are subject 

to Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) permitting in Georgia ozone 

nonattainment areas. Emissions point 

sources within the 25-county area 

surrounding Atlanta that require Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

and offset permitting are also eligible for 

the ERC Program. 

The ERC Program allows eligible 

sources that voluntarily reduce 

emissions in the affected counties to 

certify and ‘‘bank’’ these reductions as 

ERCs for future use by themselves or 

others. The banked ERCs hold their 

value for ten years, at which point they 

begin devaluing ten percent per year 

until they have reached 50 percent of 

their original value. The ERC Program is 

intended to help the Atlanta area 

achieve compliance with federal 

standards for ground-level ozone. The 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
44520 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Other portions of the September 15, 2008, 

submission were previously approved, and 

therefore, are not before EPA for consideration in 

this action. See 77 FR 59554 (September 28, 2012) 

and 79 FR 36218 (June 26, 2014). 

2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

ERC does not allow for any increase in 

emissions of NOX or VOC in the area to 

which it is applicable. In this action, 

EPA is approving the portion of 

Georgia’s submission that makes 

changes to the applicability, discounting 

and revocation, and administrative fees 

sections of Rule 391–3–1–.03(13)— 

‘‘Emission Reduction Credits.’’ 

II. Analysis of State’s Submittals 

The September 15, 2008, SIP revision 

involves changes to Georgia’s Rule 391– 

3–1–.03—‘‘Permits’’ paragraph (13) 

‘‘Emissions Reduction Credits,’’ which 

provides for the creation, banking, 

transfer, and use of NOX and VOC ERCs 

in Federally designated ozone 

nonattainment areas in Georgia, as well 

as administrative fees associated with 

the ERC Program. Georgia’s September 

15, 2008, changes to 391–3–1–.03(13) 

include: 

—Under applicability paragraph (a), 

Georgia modifies eligibility to 

participate in the ERC Program for 

stationary sources in Barrow County 

by removing Barrow County from the 

list of counties with sources eligible 

to create and bank NOX and VOC 

ERCs only for electric generating units 

that have the potential to emit NOX

and VOC emissions in amounts 

greater than 100 tons per year (tpy), 

and adding Barrow County to the list 

of counties with sources eligible to 

create and bank NOX and VOC ERCs 

for any stationary source that has the 

potential to emit NOX and VOC 

emissions in amounts greater than 100 

tpy. This change expands the universe 

of stationary sources in Barrow 

County that may voluntarily reduce 

NOX and VOC emissions and then 

credit those reductions at an equal or 

reduced rate against future emissions 

of those pollutants—thus 

incentivizing overall emissions 

reductions. Accordingly, EPA is 

approving this change as SIP 

strengthening. 

—Under discounting and revocation of 

ERCs paragraph (d), Georgia removes 

a provision that previously allowed 

ERCs created through the shutdown of 

individual process equipment to 

retain their value indefinitely. Like 

ERCs created through other methods, 

these ERCs will now retain their 

original value for ten years, at which 

point they will begin devaluing ten 

percent per year until they have 

reached 50 percent of their original 

value. EPA has concluded that the 

removal of this provision will 

strengthen Georgia’s SIP because the 

change will decrease the value of 

these ERCs when they are used to 

offset emissions occurring more than 

ten years in the future, thus reducing 

overall emissions in areas where the 

Program is implemented. 

Accordingly, EPA is approving the 

revision to the Georgia SIP. 

—Under discounting and revocation of 

ERCs paragraph (d), Georgia adds a 

new provision that allows owners to 

re-evaluate certificates of ERCs to 

determine if credits specified in the 

certificate have been discounted or 

revoked in accordance with the 

requirements of Rule 391–3–1– 

.03(13)(d)1. EPA is approving this 

provision as consistent with section 

110(a) of the CAA. 

—Under administrative fees paragraph 

(h), Georgia revises the administrative 

fees for the ERCs program. EPA is 

approving this provision as consistent 

with section 110(a) of the CAA. 

EPA has concluded that these changes 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable progress, nor any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA 

is therefore approving these changes to 

the Georgia SIP.1

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of Georgia Rule 391–3–1– 

.03—‘‘Permits,’’ effective September 11, 

2008. EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble for more 

information). Therefore, this material 

has been approved by EPA for inclusion 

in the SIP, has been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.2

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the aforementioned 

changes to the SIP because they are 

consistent with the CFR and the CAA. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comments be filed. This 

rule will be effective November 24, 2017 

without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comments by 

October 25, 2017. 

If EPA receives such comments, then 

EPA will publish a document 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All adverse comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Parties 

interested in commenting should do so 

at this time. If no such comments are 

received, the public is advised that this 

rule will be effective on November 24, 

2017 and no further action will be taken 

on the proposed rule. Please note that if 

we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

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, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 44521 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 24, 2017. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 13, 2017. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 2. In § 52.570, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry 

‘‘391–3–1–.03’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Emission Standards 

*******

391–3–1–.03 .................... Permits ............................. 9/11/2008 9/25/2017, [insert Federal Register citation] .............

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–20336 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES