Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: Approval of Revisions to the State Implementation Plan, 13551-13556 [06-2479]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13551-13556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2479]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-GA-0005-200601; FRL-8045-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: 
Approval of Revisions to the State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 
State of Georgia to remove a provision relating to a Georgia general 
``nuisance'' rule. EPA has determined that this provision relating to 
Georgia Rule 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1, was erroneously incorporated into the 
SIP. EPA is removing this rule from the approved Georgia SIP because 
the Georgia rule is not related to the attainment and maintenance of 
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This final rule 
addresses comments made on the proposed rulemaking EPA previously 
published for this action.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective April 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-GA-0005. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 
listed in the index, some information is not 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 https://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 
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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. The telephone number is (404) 
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at 
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for the Action?
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action

[[Page 13552]]

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to remove Georgia Rule 391-3-
1.02(2)(a)1, a general ``nuisance'' provision, from the Georgia SIP. 
EPA has determined that this rule was erroneously incorporated into the 
SIP. EPA is removing this rule from the approved Georgia SIP, because 
the rule is not related to the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

II. What Is the Background for the Action?

    The first significant amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
occurred in 1970 and 1977. Following these amendments, a large number 
of SIPs were submitted to EPA to fulfill new Federal requirements. In 
many cases, states and districts submitted their entire programs, 
including many elements not required pursuant to the CAA. Due to 
resource constraints during this timeframe, EPA's review of these 
submittals focused primarily on the required technical, legal, and 
enforcement elements of the submittals. At the time, EPA did not 
perform a detailed review of the numerous provisions submitted to 
determine if each provision was related to the attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS. However, provisions approved by EPA as part 
of states' SIPs should generally be related to attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS, consistent with the authority in section 110 
of the CAA under which these plans are approved by EPA.
    During the process of responding to a recent citizen petition of a 
title V operating permit in Georgia, EPA determined that a provision of 
the State's rules, approved as part of the SIP on January 3, 1980 (45 
FR 780), is not related to the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. 
This State rule, ``Georgia Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-
1.02(2)(a)1,'' is a general nuisance provision. Georgia has never used 
this rule as part of a Federal air quality standard attainment or 
maintenance plan. Georgia has also not relied on or attributed any 
emission reductions from this rule to any such plans (October 31, 2005, 
e-mail from Ron Methier, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, to 
Dick Schutt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.) For these reasons, 
EPA's 1980 approval of this provision into the Georgia SIP was in 
error. EPA is therefore removing the provision from the approved SIP 
under the authority of section 110(k)(6) of the CAA. Section 110(k)(6) 
provides: ``Whenever the Administrator determines that the 
Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any 
plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, 
redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in error, the 
Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or 
promulgation, revise such action as appropriate without requiring any 
further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis 
thereof shall be provided to the State and public.''
    On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71446), EPA proposed to remove the 
provision from the approved SIP under the authority of section 
110(k)(6) of the CAA. EPA subsequently received both supporting and 
adverse comments. At the request of several commenters, EPA reopened 
and extended the comment period through January 23, 2006 (71 FR 2177, 
January 13, 2006). In this action, EPA is addressing the adverse 
comments received and taking final action as described in Section I and 
Section IV.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from three commenters who were in favor of 
the proposed change, five commenters who asked general questions, and 
two commenters who opposed the proposed change to the Georgia SIP. A 
summary of the adverse comments received on the proposed rule, 
published November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71446) and EPA's response to these 
comments is presented below.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the purpose of the rule change 
proposed in the November 29, 2005 Federal Register notice (70 FR 71446) 
is to thwart citizen efforts to end hazardous air releases that they 
assert are a threat to their children, health, and economy.
    Response: The purpose of SIPs, approved pursuant to section 110 of 
the CAA, is to implement a program to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 
The Georgia nuisance rule is not directed at either attainment or 
maintenance of any NAAQS. Therefore, through this action EPA is 
removing it from the federally approved Georgia SIP. The effect of this 
action is to remove the Georgia Rule for Air Quality Control, 391-3-
1.02(2)(a)1, as a federally enforceable element of the state program to 
attain and maintain the NAAQs. However, EPA's action does not affect 
the enforceability of the rule as a matter of state law. Nothing in 
today's action affects citizens' ability to use state law provisions to 
enforce the rule in state court.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that ``EPA did not provide any 
supporting documentation in the Federal Register to support their 
contention that the Georgia Rule for Air Quality Control, 391-3-
1.02(2)(a)1 is reiterated in Georgia Code Title 41-Nuisance Rule, or 
that the same protections from the release of hazardous air pollutants 
listed in CAA Title 1, section 112 can be obtained under the Georgia 
Nuisance Rule.''
    Response: The commenter seems to show some confusion over the two 
different provisions of the CAA (section 110 and section 112). The 
commenter also seems to misunderstand the focus of SIPs and section 110 
of the CAA. Section 110 focuses on attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS, while section 112 focuses on hazardous air pollutants. A SIP is 
a mechanism provided under the Act to ensure states attain and maintain 
national ambient air quality standards. Other provisions of the Act, 
such as section 112 provide for the direct Federal regulation of 
hazardous air pollutants. Whether the Georgia rule provides the same or 
similar protections against hazardous air pollutants as provided under 
the Federal program provided under section 112 of the Act is not 
relevant for EPA's determination that the rule should not be included 
as part of a plan to address the NAAQS.
    Comment: Several commenters assert the CAA requires state SIPs to 
contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures as 
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements and 
that the intent of the CAA was to provide states flexibility in 
creating their SIPs, as long as the state's rules and regulations were 
at least as stringent as the CAA. Furthermore, the commenters assert 
the proposed rule seeks to overturn the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 
Control, 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1, which could be interpreted to be more 
protective of human health than provisions in the CAA.
    Response: Section 116 of the CAA states that, ``Nothing in this Act 
shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision 
thereof to adopt or enforce (1) any standard or limitation respecting 
emissions of air pollutants or (2) any requirement respecting control 
or abatement of air pollution; except that if an emission standard or 
limitation is in effect under an applicable implementation plan or 
under section 111 or 112, such State or political subdivision may not 
adopt or enforce any emission standard or limitation which is less 
stringent than the standard or limitation under such plan or section.'' 
Section 116 of the CAA thus explains that unless pre-empted under one 
of several

[[Page 13553]]

enumerated provisions of the Act, the state may adopt regulations more 
stringent than those required under the Act. It does not, however, as 
the commenter suggests, require that any ``more stringent'' state 
regulations be included as part of the federally enforceable SIP. EPA 
policy is that nuisance provisions unrelated to attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS should not be included as part of the SIP. 
(see 64 FR 7790, 66 FR 53657 and 69 FR 54006.)
    Comment: Several commenters asserted that ``EPA is overstepping its 
authority when proposing a rule change without a vote from the 
governing body, the Georgia Board of Natural Resources, which would 
also include the public participation provisions in CAA section 110.''
    Response: Although the commenters are correct in their assertion 
that public participation is a prerequisite to SIP revision submissions 
under the CAA section 110(a)(2), this stipulation applies to 
implementation plans submitted by a State under the CAA. The proposed 
correction invokes CAA section 110(k)(6), which states, ``Whenever the 
Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving, 
disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part 
thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification, or 
reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner 
as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as 
appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. 
Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State 
and public.'' Since the approval of the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 
Control 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1 into the State of Georgia's SIP was in error, 
EPA is well within its authority to remove this component from the 
Georgia SIP without first requiring a SIP submission from the State. On 
November 29, 2005, notice of the proposed removal of the rule from the 
state SIP, including a 30-day comment period, was published in the 
Federal Register. On January 13, 2006, the comment period was extended 
through January 23, 2006.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the proposed rule, published on 
November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71446), is not supported by documentation of 
EPA's determination that the Georgia Rule for Air Quality Control, 391-
3-1.02(2)(a)1, was erroneously incorporated into the State of Georgia's 
SIP.
    Response: The proposed rule published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 
71446), states, ``since the State's ``nuisance'' provision is not 
directed at the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, EPA has found 
that its prior approval of this particular rule (into the SIP) was in 
error.'' This statement was supported by an examination of the SIP and 
an email exchange with the State, which confirmed that the provision at 
issue had not been relied on for purposes of attainment or maintenance 
of any NAAQS. EPA's exclusion from the SIP of a nuisance provision 
unrelated to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS is consistent with 
previous Agency practice. EPA removed nuisance provisions from the SIPs 
of the State of Michigan, 64 FR 7790, Commonwealth of Kentucky 
(Jefferson County portion), 66 FR 53657, and the State of Nevada, 69 FR 
54006. Additionally, EPA has issued final rules declining to approve 
nuisance provisions into SIPs. (see 45 FR 73696, 46 FR 11843, 46 FR 
26303 and 63 FR 51833.)
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the ``rule change proposed in 
EPA-R04-OAR-2005-GA-0005-0001 is intended to circumvent agency 
responsibility to implement strategies to address disproportionately 
high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its 
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income population in Brunswick, Georgia,'' Executive Order 12898--
Environmental Justice and Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.
    Response: The CAA aims to ``protect and enhance the quality of the 
Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare 
and the productive capacity of its population * * * and to encourage 
and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution 
prevention control programs.'' 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1). Section 110 of the 
CAA requires states to adopt a plan which provides for implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient air quality 
standards, including carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 
particulate matter and sulfur oxides. The purpose of this rulemaking 
action is to remove Georgia Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1 
from the Georgia SIP, because it does not support the attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS. This rulemaking action does not invalidate 
the Georgia law or affect its applicability to Georgia sources. 
Facilities located in Georgia are still subject to the state nuisance 
provision. EPA supports programs and activities that promote 
enforcement of health and environmental statutes in areas with minority 
populations and low-income populations and the protection of children. 
The purpose of the SIP is to address attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS in all areas of the country. Other programs under the CAA address 
hazardous air pollutants (see CAA section 112). The State of Georgia 
has adopted Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards that 
reflect the federal standards, and these standards are enforceable 
through other mechanisms that do not include the Georgia SIP, which is 
affected by this rulemaking.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the ``rule change proposed in 
EPA-R04-OAR-2005-GA-0005-0001, is intended to circumvent Executive 
Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review by not allowing for a 
comment period of at least 60 days.'' Several commenters requested that 
the comment period be extended. One commenter requested an extension of 
60 days from the date the EPA ``formally notified its legal counsel of 
the proposed rule,'' which it asserts was on December 15, 2005.
    Response: SIPs are rulemakings under the Administrative Procedure 
Act, which does not specify a period for public comment. However, a 30-
day period is consistent with most SIP actions proposed by EPA. Under 
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management 
and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' We note that in 
response to comments received, EPA extended the comment period for the 
proposed rule change through January 23, 2006. See 71 FR 2177. It 
should be noted that EPA is not required to notify any entity of its 
rulemaking actions; notification of all parties is accomplished through 
publications in the Federal Register.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that it followed the public 
participation requirements set forth for the title V permitting process 
and that through this action to remove 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)1 from the 
Georgia SIP, EPA is frustrating that process. A commenter further 
asserts that the purpose of the rule change proposed in EPA-OAR-2005-
GA-0005-0001 is to thwart citizen efforts to end hazardous air releases 
that it claims are a ``threat to our children, our health, and our 
economy.''
    Response: Although title V permits are required to contain 
conditions that

[[Page 13554]]

are necessary to assure compliance with all the applicable requirements 
of the CAA, including the requirements of the applicable SIP, the title 
V permit may also contain state-only enforceable requirements. Once the 
final rule takes effect, Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)1 will become a 
state-only enforceable rule that will continue to be applicable to 
facilities in Georgia. For the reasons provided above, however, EPA 
believes this action to remove the nuisance provision from the SIP is 
appropriate.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that ``proposed rule R04-OAR-2005-
GA-0005-0001 is not supported by documentation of EPA's determination 
that the rule, Georgia Rule for Air Quality Control, 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1, 
was erroneously incorporated into the Georgia SIP.'' Furthermore, the 
commenter alleges that ``without supporting documentation, the EPA's 
action in adopting this rule is arbitrary and capricious, and violates 
every aspect of the Administrative Procedures Act.''
    Response: In support of its decision to remove Georgia Air Quality 
Control Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)1 from the Georgia SIP, EPA determined 
that this is a general nuisance provision that is not related to the 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Georgia has never used this 
rule as part of a federal air quality standard attainment or 
maintenance plan. In addition, Georgia has not relied on or attributed 
any emission reductions from this rule to any such plans. 70 FR 71447 
(November 29, 2005). In support of these conclusions, EPA relied on an 
email from Georgia that indicated it had checked its records and made 
these findings. As explained above, EPA's action to exclude from the 
SIP a nuisance provision unrelated to attainment or maintenance of any 
NAAQS is consistent with prior Agency practice.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the Georgia Environmental 
Protection Division (EPD) has a history of allowing unregulated and 
unpermitted hazardous air releases from certain facilities. 
Furthermore, the commenter alleges that some permit applications had 
remained un-acted upon by the Georgia EPD since 1986, and that without 
valid permits, emission control equipment operations are not 
enforceable by either the Georgia EPD or the EPA.
    Response: Our action to exclude the nuisance provision from the 
Georgia SIP does not affect the enforceability of the rule as a matter 
of state law. The issue of whether Georgia adequately enforces or 
permits hazardous air pollutants has no bearing on whether the nuisance 
provision should be part of a plan to attain and maintain standards for 
NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter questions the legal basis of the proposed 
action and whether there is a compelling reason to change the rule.
    Response: In the Federal Register Notice proposing to remove the 
Georgia nuisance rule, 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1, from the Georgia SIP, 70 FR 
71446, EPA cited the basis for its action. First, the Agency explained 
that the purpose of the SIP is to provide for how the state will attain 
and maintain the NAAQS. EPA then explained that because the nuisance 
rule is unrelated to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, ``EPA's 
1980 approval of this provision into the Georgia SIP was in error and 
EPA is, therefore, proposing to remove the provision from the approved 
SIP under the authority of section 110(k)(6) of the CAA. Section 
110(k)(6) provides: `Whenever the Administrator determines that the 
Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any 
plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, 
redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in error, the 
Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or 
promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any 
further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis 
thereof shall be provided to the State and public.' '' 70 FR 71447 
(Nov. 29, 2005).
    Comment: The commenter alleges that a ``reasonable person could 
easily find that the EPA blatantly misrepresented the purpose of the 
proposed rule change. At a minimum, the EPA is misusing their powers to 
propose rule changes in the Federal Register, and the case might 
actually be that the information presented in the Federal Register is 
fraudulent.''
    Response: EPA vigorously disagrees with the commenter's allegation 
that the Agency misrepresented, misused, or engaged in any other 
fraudulent practice in proposing this rule change. As provided above, 
EPA has an established history of removing and excluding state nuisance 
rules, which are unrelated to attaining or maintaining the NAAQS, from 
the SIP.
    Comment: The commenter asked how the citizen's petition of a Title 
V operating permit in Georgia led EPA to find an erroneously approved 
rule.
    Response: The citizen's petition of the Title V operating permit 
for the Hercules Corporation, in the State of Georgia, specifically 
cites the Georgia Rule for Air Quality Control, 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1 as a 
rule of which the Hercules Corporation is in violation. Hence, through 
this petition, it was brought to EPA's attention that this particular 
rule was incorporated into the Georgia SIP. Because EPA has concluded 
that this rule is unrelated to attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS 
and thus was erroneously approved into the SIP, EPA is using section 
110(k)(6), error correction, to remove the rule from the approved SIP.
    Comment: A commenter asked whether EPA had done any research to 
determine how many erroneous laws were approved by the EPA in their 
rush to approve SIPs.
    Response: EPA has many rulemaking and other activities that are 
required under the CAA or that are otherwise a priority under the Act, 
and thus has not had the time or resources to perform an extensive 
review of the SIPs to determine if any rules are erroneously 
incorporated. However where, through other means errors in the SIPs 
come to light, it is appropriate for EPA to correct the errors.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the CAA requires states to hold 
public hearings when revising a SIP and that EPA should hold a public 
hearing on the removal of the ``nuisance'' rule from the SIP. The 
commenter also asserts that this is ``particularly troublesome given 
that the SIP contained the nuisance rule for over 25 years and the 
proposed elimination was prompted only after a lawsuit was filed 
regarding the nuisance rule.''
    Response: As outlined above, section 110(k)(6) does not require a 
public hearing when making a correction to a SIP. Section 110(k)(6) of 
the CAA states that ``whenever'' the Administrator determines that the 
Administrator's action approving any plan ``was in error,'' the 
Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, revise such 
action as appropriate. By this action EPA is removing the provision 
from the Georgia SIP in the same manner as EPA approves SIPs.

IV. Final Action

    Since Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)1 is not directed at the 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, EPA has found that its prior 
approval of this particular rule (into the SIP) was in error. 
Consequently, in order to correct this error, EPA is removing Georgia 
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)1 from the approved Georgia SIP pursuant to 
section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, and codifying this deletion by revising 
the appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart L, section 
52.570 (Identification of Plan).

[[Page 13555]]

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely corrects an error and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule corrects an error and 
does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely corrects an error, and 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it is not economically significant.
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action 
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider 
the use of any VCS. This rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 
rule 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 May 15, 2006. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule 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, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 6, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting 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. Section 52.570 is amended in the table to paragraph (c) by revising 
the entry for ``391-3-1-.02(2)(a) General Provisions'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 13556]]



                                                            EPA-Approved Georgia Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     State
          State citation                  Title/subject         effective date           EPA approval date                       Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(2)(a)................  General Provisions.........        01/09/91  3/16/06 [Insert first page of        Except for paragraph 391-3-1-
                                                                                 publication].                        .02(2)(a)1.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2479 Filed 3-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P