[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71018-71023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29246]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0649-201059; FRL-9229-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source 
Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve portions of the 
revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 
the State of Georgia in three submittals dated October 31, 2006, March 
5, 2007, and August 22, 2007. The revisions modify Georgia's Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review 
(NNSR) permitting rules in the SIP to address changes to the federal 
New Source Review (NSR) regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on 
December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 
2003 (collectively, these two final actions are referred to as the 
``2002 NSR Reform Rules''). EPA proposed to approve these revisions on 
September 4, 2008; one comment letter was received. EPA's response to 
comments is included in this notice.

DATES: This rule will be effective December 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0649. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed 
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section, 
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Telephone number: (404) 562-9117; e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#47212835332e29692c222b2b3e0722372669202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f39302d2b363171343a3333261f3a2f3e71383029">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references

[[Page 71019]]

to ``EPA,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our,'' are intended to mean the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is 
arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for EPA's action?
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is now taking action, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), to approve portions of SIP submittals made 
by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection 
Division (EPD), on October 31, 2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22, 
2007. These SIP submittals consist of changes to the Georgia Rules for 
Air Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-1. Specifically, the October 31, 
2006, revisions included changes to Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) ``Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality'' and 391-3-1-.03(8)(c) 
``Permit Requirements'' related to NNSR. The March 5, 2007, submittal 
included changes to Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration of Air Quality,'' and 391-3-1-.03(13)(c) ``Emission 
Reduction Credits.'' Finally, the August 22, 2007, submittal included 
changes to Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration of Air Quality,'' and 391-3-1-.03(8) ``Permit 
Requirements.''
    EPA approved most of the non-NSR Reform portions of the submittals 
(rules 391-3-1-.01(llll), 391-3-1-.02(2)(jjj), 391-3-1-.02(6)(a)4, 391-
3-1-.02(12), and 391-3-1-.03(6)(b)) in a previous action (74 FR 62249, 
November 27, 2009). EPA has not yet acted on rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ooo). 
In addition, EPA is not acting on revisions to rules 391-3-1-.02(8)b, 
and 391-3-1-.03(9), because these rules are not part of the federally-
approved SIP. EPA disapproved a portion of the March 5, 2007, 
submittal, subparagraph 391-3-1-.03(13)(c), related to ``Emissions 
Reduction Credits,'' in a previous action (73 FR 79653, December 30, 
2008).

II. What is the background for EPA's action?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule 
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52, 
regarding the CAA's PSD and NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 
63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration 
of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. The December 31, 2002, 
and the November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as 
the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' For additional information on the 2002 
NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002). For information 
on the subsequent revisions to these rules, see http://www.epa.gov/nsr.
    On October 31, 2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22, 2007, EPD 
submitted revisions to EPA for the purpose of including the revised 
State NSR permitting rules in the SIP. Copies of Georgia's revised NSR 
rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be 
obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ADDRESSES section above.
    On September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51606), EPA proposed to approve 
portions of the above-summarized SIP submittals as they pertain to 
Georgia's NSR program, with the exception of the revision to 
subparagraph 391-3-1-.03(13)(c), related to ``Emissions Reduction 
Credits,'' which EPA proposed to disapprove.\1\ In response to requests 
for an extension of the public comment period, EPA extended the public 
comment period on that proposal through November 6, 2008 (73 FR 58084). 
One comment letter was received and it contained adverse comments. 
EPA's response to this comment letter is below in section III, Response 
to Comments. EPA's analysis of the State's NSR reform SIP submittals is 
contained in the September 4, 2008, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPR). The NPR, the comment letter, and additional information 
regarding this action may be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in 
the ADDRESSES section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA took final action to disapprove the revision to 
subparagraph 391-3-1-.03(13)(c), related to ``Emissions Reduction 
Credits,'' in a previous action (73 FR 79653, December 30, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment letter from the National Resource Defense 
Council (NRDC) on the September 4, 2008, NPR; this letter included 
adverse comments. NRDC primarily commented on the requirements of the 
federal NSR rules, not Georgia's application of the federal 
requirements in its own rules. Notably, NRDC participated in litigation 
challenging EPA's 2002 promulgation of the NSR Reform Rules, where 
similar arguments were made by NRDC and dismissed by the DC Circuit 
Court. New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). NRDC's comments, 
including exhibits, do not raise any specific concerns with Georgia's 
rules, but rather, reiterate arguments made by NRDC to the DC Circuit 
regarding Sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NRDC notes that, ``[t]he 2002 rule provisions considered by 
the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA were EPA regulations, not state 
ones. The court thus had no occasion to decide whether EPA could 
approve any state's versions of any of the 2002 rule provisions 
consistently with section 110(l) of the Act.'' NRDC Comments at 3. 
The Georgia rules at issue here track the federally approved rules, 
as upheld by the DC Circuit (which NRDC admits--NRDC Comments at 4) 
and NRDC supported all its comments with information related to the 
challenge of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. NRDC provided no Georgia-
specific support for its comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NRDC's comments provide citations to five portions of the 
Georgia rules, the comments make no attempt to specifically explain or 
demonstrate how those identified provisions are inconsistent with 
either Section 110(l) or Section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore, NRDC 
provides no evidence supporting its allegations that approval of the 
specific provisions would result in a violation of the CAA or otherwise 
be ``arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not 
in accordance with law.'' NRDC Comments at 2.
    The NRDC comments include a list of 31 exhibits which the comment 
letter incorporates by reference into the comments. NRDC Comments at 1. 
The 31 exhibits appear to all be related to the DC Circuit Court case 
New York v. EPA, and were either submitted to that Court for review, or 
are relevant to that adjudication. To the extent that these exhibits 
were provided to the DC Circuit, those issues were previously resolved 
by the Court and/or already responded to by EPA in its responsive court 
papers. Any other documents included in the 31 exhibits that were not 
provided to the DC Circuit Court do not provide EPA with any comments 
specific to the Georgia rules at issue.
    Despite the lack of Georgia-specific discussion in NRDC's letter, 
EPA has responded to the few comments that appear related to the 
September 4, 2008, NPR to approve portions of Georgia's SIP submittals 
pertaining to EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.

Summary of Comments Regarding Section 110(l)--NRDC Comments at 1-6

    NRDC stated that finalizing the EPA rulemaking proposal at issue 
here would violate section 110(l) of the Act. As support for its 
conclusion, NRDC asserted that ``[t]he 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions 
that were not vacated by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA [citation 
omitted] allow previously-prohibited emissions-increases to occur.'' 
NRDC Comments at 3. Further, that ``Georgia nevertheless made no

[[Page 71020]]

`demonstration that the emissions that are allowed by its revised rule 
but are prohibited by the current SIP would not interfere with 
attainment or other applicable requirements.' '' As a result, NRDC 
stated that, ``it cannot be said of Georgia's plan that it `will cause 
no degradation of air quality.' '' NRDC Comments at 5. NRDC also stated 
that EPA has not made any findings that Georgia's rule will not cause 
degradation of air quality or interfere with any applicable 
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or 
any other applicable requirements of the CAA. NRDC Comments at 5.

EPA Response to Section 110(l) Comments

    EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules were upheld by the DC Circuit Court 
which reviewed them, with the exception of the pollution control 
project and clean unit provisions (and the remanded matters). The three 
significant changes in NSR Reform that were upheld by the DC Circuit 
were (1) Plantwide applicability limits (PALs), (2) the 2-in-10 
baseline, and (3) the actual-to-projected actual emission test. The 
Supplemental Environmental Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final NSR 
Improvement Rules (November 21, 2002) (Supplemental Analysis) discussed 
each of these three changes individually, and addresses some of the 
issues raised by NRDC.
    With regard to PALs, the Supplemental Analysis explained, ``[t]he 
EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net 
environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions 
caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as 
well as other benefits.'' Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further 
explained that,

    Although it is impossible to predict how many and which sources 
will take PALs, and what actual reductions those sources will 
achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, on a nationwide basis, 
PALs are certain to lead to tens of thousands of tons of reductions 
of volatile organic compounds from source categories where frequent 
operational changes are made, where these changes are time-
sensitive, and where there are opportunities for economical air 
pollution control measures. These reductions occur because of the 
incentives that the PAL creates to control existing and new units in 
order to provide room under the cap to make necessary operational 
changes over the life of the PAL.

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly 
Appendix B, provided additional details regarding EPA's analysis of 
PALs and anticipated associated emissions decreases.

    With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded that, ``[t]he 
EPA believes that the environmental impact from the change in baseline 
EPA is now finalizing will not result in any significant change in 
benefits derived from the NSR program.'' Supplemental Analysis at 13. 
This is mainly because ``the number of sources receiving different 
baselines likely represents a very small fraction of the overall NSR 
permit universe, excludes new sources and coal fired power plants, and 
because the baseline may shift in either direction, we conclude that 
any overall consequences would be negligible.'' Supplemental Analysis 
at 14. Additional information regarding the 2-in-10 baseline changes is 
available in the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix F.
    With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded, 
``we believe that the environmental impacts of the switch to the 
actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally 
beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, we believe the 
vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric 
utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase 
emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change. 
Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be 
environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.'' Supplemental 
Analysis at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis Appendix G).
    For more information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, and its 
supporting technical documents, see, http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2002 (last visited November 2, 2010).
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that ``[t]he 
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision 
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable 
requirement of this chapter.'' CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In ``Approval 
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Source Review; State of 
Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental 
Management,'' 69 FR 54006 (September 7, 2004), EPA stated that Section 
110(l) does not preclude SIP relaxations. Rather, EPA stated that 
Section 110(l) only requires that the ``relaxations not interfere with 
specified requirements of the Act including requirements for attainment 
and reasonable further progress,'' and that, therefore, a state can 
relax its SIP provisions if it is able to show that it can attain or 
maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and meet 
any applicable reasonable further progress goals or other specific 
requirements. 69 FR at 54011-12.
    Georgia's Proposed NSR reform rules track the federal NSR Reform 
Rules, with enhancements, as described in Georgia's submittal. EPA 
evaluated Georgia's rules consistent with its evaluation of the federal 
rules, and determined that Georgia's rules were equivalent to or more 
stringent than the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Overall, as summarized above, 
EPA expects that changes in air quality as a result of implementing 
Georgia's rules will be consistent with EPA's position on the federal 
NSR Reform Rules--that there will be somewhere between neutral and 
providing a modest contribution to reasonable further progress between 
the NSR Reform and pre-Reform provisions. EPA's analysis for the 
environmental impacts of the three components of the NSR Reform rules 
(discussed earlier) is informative of how Georgia's adoption of NSR 
Reform (based on the federal rules) will affect emissions. EPA has no 
reason to believe that the environmental impacts will be different from 
those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis for the NSR Reform rules, 
and thus, approval of Georgia's SIP revision would not be contrary to 
Section 110(l) of the CAA.
    NRDC cites to five general portions of Georgia's rules as 
provisions that would violate Section 110(l). These provisions are: 
Administrative Code of Georgia (ACG) 391-3-1-.02(7)(a), (7)(b)15, and 
(7)(b)(21) (from Georgia's PSD rules); and 391-3-1-.03(8)(c) and (8)(g) 
(from Georgia's NNSR rules). NRDC Comments at 2. NRDC provides no 
evidence supporting its contention that these specific provisions 
violate Section 110(l). The first provision noted by NRDC, 391-3-
1-.02(7)(a), represents general requirements regarding Georgia's PSD 
program, which do include some changes per the SIP revision at issue. 
Nonetheless, without further specificity, it is not clear why or how 
NRDC believes this provision is a violation of Section 110(l). In 
addition, NRDC has provided no Georgia-specific documentation that 
indicates that EPA's analysis and conclusions regarding the impact of 
NSR Reform, in the Supplemental Analysis, is not applicable to 
Georgia's rules, which are equivalent to or more stringent than the 
federal rules.
    In evaluating Georgia's SIP submissions, EPA compared Georgia's 
rules with the existing federal rules and determined that Georgia's 
rules were

[[Page 71021]]

equivalent to or more stringent than the NSR reform (federal) rules. 
EPA also considered Georgia's approximately thirty enhancements to the 
federal NSR Reform provisions, including specific anti-backsliding 
provisions. This comparison was discussed in the proposal to approve 
Georgia's SIP revision. Georgia's anti-backsliding provisions are 
discussed in their SIP submittal and included in EPA's docket. EPA also 
considered Georgia's numerous responses to comments, included as part 
of the submittals, wherein Georgia discussed the two-year stakeholder 
process, as well as answered questions as to why it was including anti-
backsliding provisions and discussed the NSR Reform changes in relation 
to their air quality program. Georgia determined that ``the NAAQS, PSD 
increment, RFP demonstration and visibility will be protected if these 
SIP revisions are approved and implemented.'' See Technical Support for 
SIP Submittal dated August 4, 2007. Finally, EPA also considered the 
Supplemental Analysis in reviewing Georgia's submittal and NRDC's 
comments. EPA concluded that approval of Georgia's SIP revision would 
not be contrary to Section 110(l) of the CAA. Absent more explicit 
information demonstrating that Georgia's plan for implementation of a 
specific provision of its rules would interfere with any applicable 
requirement of the CAA and thus should be disapproved under Section 
110(l), Georgia's Technical Support and the Supplemental Analysis 
support approval. As a result, there is no basis to determine that 
approval of Georgia's rules would violate Section 110(l).

Summary of Comments Regarding Section 193 of the CAA--NRDC Comments at 
7-10

    NRDC states that NSR is a ``control requirement'' and thus the 
requirements of Section 193 apply to the NSR rules at issue in the 
Georgia SIP revision. NRDC Comments at 7. NRDC further alleges that 
Georgia's revisions ``ensure that emissions will not be reduced as much 
as under the pre-existing rules. In fact, the modifications allow 
emissions to increase in Georgia's nonattainment areas.'' NRDC Comments 
at 9. Finally, NRDC states that ``because section 193 lies within part 
D,'' ``if EPA approves Georgia's revised plan, that action will 
additionally exceed the agency's authority under section 110(k)(3) and 
violate section 100(l).'' (Note, the last citation to 100(l) appears to 
be a typo and should read 110(l).) NRDC Comments at 10.

EPA Response to Section 193 Related Comments

    The response to the Section 193 issues raised by NRDC involves many 
of the same elements of the response above, to the Section 110(l) 
comments, which is also incorporated by reference here.
    Section 193 states, in relevant part, that ``[n]o control 
requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, 
settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in 
any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be 
modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification 
insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air 
pollutant.''
    Assuming for purposes of this discussion that Section 193 does 
apply to the instant action, as was discussed earlier in this notice, 
EPA has previously determined and explained in the Supplemental 
Analysis, that implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions 
still in effect (that is, those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are 
expected to have at least a neutral environmental benefit. In addition, 
Georgia's rules include several differences from the federal rule that 
are likely to result in greater environmental protection. These 
provisions include, among others: (1) Adjusting the PAL limits downward 
upon renewal if average actual emissions are less than 80 percent of 
the PAL limit; (2) anti-backsliding provisions included in the major 
source baseline date to ensure that baseline dates established prior to 
the effective date of the rule changes remain in effect; (3) additional 
requirements related to the definition of projected actual emissions 
intended to result in more accurate estimates of emissions increases; 
(4) provisions that make the ``demand growth'' exclusion optional, and 
require additional recordkeeping to ensure the rules are implemented 
properly; (5) a requirement that baseline actual emissions not be based 
on a period for which there is inadequate information; (6) a 
requirement to adjust baseline actual emissions for new applicable 
requirements; (7) provisions that require submission of an application 
prior to construction for all major and minor sources; (8) requirements 
that the ``reasonable possibility'' recordkeeping reporting 
requirements are triggered whenever a minor source permit is required. 
Therefore, even if Section 193 did apply to this action, EPA does not 
agree with commenter's assertions that the SIP submissions approved in 
this action raise a Section 193 concern.
    In addition, the core of NRDC's argument seems to revolve around 
the DC Circuit Court decision in South Coast Air Quality Management 
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) (finding that NSR 
associated with the 1-hour ozone standard included control 
requirements). At issue in South Coast was EPA's determination 
regarding the revocation of the entire 1-hour ozone program (and 
corresponding SIP elements), including all the 1-hour nonattainment NSR 
elements, and whether such elements would continue to be required as 
part of SIPs implementing the new (at that time) 8-hour ozone standard. 
The facts in the South Coast case are distinguishable from the instant 
matter where the Georgia SIP is merely being updated to include changes 
to the Federal NSR program. EPA is not removing the entirety of 
Georgia's NNSR program from the SIP as it pertains to a particular 
NAAQS. Rather, EPA is simply approving Georgia's SIP revision that 
implements rules equivalent to or more stringent than the federal 
rules; and as discussed earlier in this notice, EPA developed a 
Supplemental Analysis to support adoption of the federal rules. The 
Georgia SIP will continue to operate with the full suite of NSR related 
elements, including a comprehensive minor source program, and the 
restrictive `de-minimus rule,' which requires sources to aggregate 5-
year emissions increases and offset emissions increases greater than 25 
tons.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve portions of three revisions 
to the Georgia SIP submitted by the State of Georgia on October 31, 
2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22, 2007, which address changes to 
Georgia's PSD and NNSR programs.

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. 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. This action merely 
ensures that State law meets Federal requirements, and does not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that 
reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

[[Page 71022]]

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 January 21, 2011. 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. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 12, 2010.
Gwendolyn Keyes-Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. In Sec.  52.570(c) the table is amended by revising the entries for 
``391-3-1-.02(7)'' and ``391-3-1-.03'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
        State citation             Title/subject      effective date    EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(7)...............  Prevention of               7/25/2007  11/22/2010 [Insert    This rule contains
                                Significant                            citation of           NOX as a precursor
                                Deterioration of Air                   publication].         to ozone for PSD
                                Quality (PSD).                                               and NSR.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.03..................  Permits..............       7/25/2007  11/22/2010 [Insert    Changes specifically
                                                                       citation of           to (8)--Permit
                                                                       publication].         Requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71023]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-29246 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>