SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The first significant amendments to the 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 Act. 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 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 Act 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. In addition, 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 and EPA is, therefore, proposing to remove the provision from the approved SIP under the authority of section 110(k)(6) of the Act. 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.”

Proposed Action

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. Consequently, in order to correct this error, EPA is proposing to remove Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)1 from the approved Georgia SIP pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act and to codify this deletion by revising the appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart L, § 52.570 (Identification of Plan).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposed action merely proposes to remove an erroneously approved State rule from the SIP and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to remove an erroneously approved State rule from the SIP 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 proposed 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 proposes to remove an erroneously approved State rule from the SIP, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed 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. This proposed 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.).

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