Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [Petition IV-2002-1; FRL-7982-7] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of final order denying petition to object to a state operating permit in response to remand. 

# SUMMARY:

On September 15, 2005, the Administrator issued an Order Responding to Remand denying a petition to object to a state operating permit issued to Oglethorpe Power Company (Oglethorpe)—Wansley Combined Cycle Energy Facility (Block 8) located in Roopville, Heard County, Georgia, pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. On February 4, 2002, Sierra Club had filed a petition seeking EPA's objection to the title V operating permit for Block 8 issued by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD). The Administrator denied the petition in an Order dated November 15, 2002. Pursuant to Section 502(b) of the Act, Sierra Club appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the Court), arguing that Oglethorpe was not entitled to a permit for Block 8 (in accordance with Georgia's Statewide Compliance Rule) because it owns part of another major stationary source that has been cited for non-compliance with the Act. On May 5, 2004, the Court granted Sierra Club's petition for review, vacated the November 12, 2002, Order, and remanded to EPA for further explanation of the manner in which the Georgia rule should be applied in cases of partial ownership. After considering the issues raised by the Court, the Order Responding to Remand reaches the same conclusion as EPA's original Order, but provides a more detailed explanation.

**ADDRESSES:**                     Copies of the Order Responding to Remand, the petition, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The remanded final order is also available electronically at the following address:                     *http://www.epa.gov/​region7/​programs/​artd/​air/​title5/​petitiondb/​petitions/​      ( print page 59338)    opcwansley_​decision2002(remanded).pdf*.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9115 or                         *hofmeister.art@epa.gov*.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest originally submitted a petition on behalf of the Sierra Club (Petitioner) to the Administrator on February 4, 2002, requesting that EPA object to a state title V operating permit issued by the EPD to Oglethorpe. Other inconsistencies (with the Act) alleged by the Petitioner were: (1) That the permit failed to require a case-by-case maximum achievable control technology determination for the emissions of hazardous air pollutants; (2) that the permit failed to include adequate monitoring of carbon monoxide; (3) that the permit impermissibly limited the enforceability of a federal stack height provision; and (4) that the permit failed to include short-term best available control technology limits. EPA's responses to the above issues in the November 12, 2002, Order were upheld by the Court; therefore, sections IV.B. through IV.E. of the November 12, 2002, Order are incorporated by reference into the Order Responding to Remand. 

Dated: October 5, 2005. 

J. I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 05-20416 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P