Rule2026-20636
Air Plan Approval; GA; Removal of Nonattainment Area New Source Review
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 8, 2026
Effective
November 9, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on June 27, 2024. The revision removes permitting requirements related to nonattainment, including nonattainment new source review (NNSR), from Georgia's SIP as obsolete, removes certain provisions related to the use of emission reduction credits (ERCs), and makes other changes based upon the lack of any areas designated as nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Georgia. The EPA is approving these changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64274-64281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20636]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0626; FRL-12934-02-R4]
Air Plan Approval; GA; Removal of Nonattainment Area New Source
Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Georgia through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(EPD) on June 27, 2024. The revision removes permitting requirements
related to nonattainment, including nonattainment new source review
(NNSR), from Georgia's SIP as obsolete, removes certain provisions
related to the use of emission reduction credits (ERCs), and makes
other changes based upon the lack of any areas designated as
nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in
Georgia. The EPA is approving these changes pursuant to the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This rule is effective November 9, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2024-0626. All documents in the
docket are listed on the <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> website. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nelsha Athauda, Multi-Air Pollutant
Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9360. Ms. Athauda can also be reached via electronic mail at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7514011d140011145b1b1019061d14351005145b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccadb8a4adb9a8ade2a2a9a0bfa4ad8ca9bcade2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA uses multiple abbreviations and
terms in this final rule. While this list may not be exhaustive, for
ease of reading and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the
following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DC District of Columbia
EGU Electrical Generating Units
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division
ERCs Emission Reduction Credits
FR Federal Register
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NO<INF>X</INF> Nitrogen Oxides
[[Page 64275]]
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
SIP State Implementation Plan
SELC Southern Environmental Law Center
U.S.C. United States Code
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Response to Comments
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Executive Summary
In this final rule, the EPA is approving changes to the Georgia SIP
submitted by Georgia EPD on June 27, 2024.\1\ The revision amends Rule
391-3-1-.02(1), General Requirement, to incorporate a non-substantive
formatting change; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn), NOX Emissions from Large
Stationary Gas Turbines, to update applicability by removing outdated
provisions that no longer apply to any sources in the State, to clarify
applicability by removing cross-references to rules removed from the
Georgia SIP, and to make other clarifying changes; Rule 391-3-1-.03(6),
Exemptions, at subsection (j), Construction Permit Exemption for
Pollution Control Projects, to remove a cross-reference to NNSR
requirements at Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c); Rule 391-3-1-.03(8), Permit
Requirements, to remove permitting requirements related to
nonattainment and to make other, minor changes; and Rule 391-3-
1-.03(13), Emission Reduction Credits, to remove wording that allows
for or refers to use of ERCs and to make other minor updates.\2\ The
EPA is finalizing approval of these revisions as they will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA
requirement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The June 27, 2024, submittal also contains changes to Rules
391-3-1-.02(6)(a), Specific Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
for Particular Sources, and 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)(7), Coating and/or
Gluing Operations. On July 9, 2025, EPD provided the EPA with a
clarification letter confirming that Georgia does not intend to
submit the language ``or enforceable as a practical matter limiting
the source to below Part 70 or Part 63 major source thresholds'' in
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)7.(i) as part of the June 27, 2024,
SIP revision. This letter is included in the docket for this
rulemaking; however, the EPA will address the changes to these two
rules in a separate rulemaking.
\2\ Georgia also transmitted changes to Rule 391-3-1-.03(1) in
the June 27, 2024, submittal. The language EPD removed from its
State-effective version of Rule 391-3-1-.03(1) is not approved into
the SIP. Thus, as discussed in the September 2, 2025, NPRM, the EPA
is not acting on any change to this provision.
\3\ See CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on
September 2, 2025,\4\ the EPA proposed to approve the above-described
changes to the SIP. The details of Georgia's submission, as well as the
EPA's rationale for approving the changes, are described in more detail
in the September 2, 2025, NPRM. Comments on the NPRM were due on or
before September 23, 2025. The EPA received one anonymous comment in
support of this action and one set of adverse comments from the
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). These comments are available
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 90 FR 42343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Response to Comments
In response to the NPRM, the EPA received an adverse comment from
SELC dated September 23, 2025. Summaries of SELC's significant
comments, along with the EPA's responses to these comments, are
provided below.
Comment 1: SELC states that Atlanta was in compliance with the 2015
ozone NAAQS when EPD submitted its SIP revision. However, because the
2024 design values for both the Fulton and Henry County air quality
monitors exceeded the 2015 ozone NAAQS after submission of the SIP
revision, SELC argues that the NNSR provisions are just as important
and applicable now as they were before the Atlanta's redesignation in
2022. SELC therefore contends that approving the SIP revision to remove
the NNSR provisions is ill-advised and unlawful.
Response 1: Effective November 16, 2022, the EPA redesignated the
Atlanta 2015 8-hour ozone area (hereinafter referred to as the
``Atlanta Area'' or ``Area'') from nonattainment to attainment.\5\ As a
result of this redesignation, there are no longer any areas within
Georgia that are designated as nonattainment for any NAAQS. In the
EPA's action redesignating the Atlanta Area to attainment, the EPA also
approved Georgia's maintenance plan for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 87 FR 62733 (October 17, 2022). The Atlanta Area
consists of the following counties: Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb,
Fulton, Gwinnett, and Henry. The 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is set at
0.070 ppm based on an annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average concentration averaged over three years.
\6\ A copy of the Final Submittal for Georgia's Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Ozone Nonattainment
Area for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (February 25, 2022) (2022
Maintenance Plan) is included in the docket for this action. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with SELC's assertion that Georgia is required to
continue to implement NNSR in the Atlanta Area as a result of the
exceedances. Instead, the CAA requires Georgia to implement contingency
measures pursuant to its maintenance plan approved by the EPA at the
time that the EPA redesignated the Area to attainment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Congress also gave the EPA the option, but not a mandate, to
redesignate such areas back to nonattainment in CAA section
107(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by CAA section 175A(d), the maintenance plan contains
contingency measures necessary to assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the Area.\8\ Georgia's maintenance plan includes a
two-tiered triggering mechanism to determine when a contingency measure
is needed and a process to develop and implement appropriate control
measures within specified timeframes. A Tier 1 trigger applies where a
violation of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard has not occurred, but where
the State finds monitored ozone concentrations indicating that a
violation may be imminent. A Tier II trigger applies when any quality
assured ozone design value is equal to or greater than 0.071 ppm at a
monitor in the Atlanta Area (i.e., a violation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS)
or the periodic emission inventory updates reveal excessive or
unanticipated growth greater than 10 percent in NO<INF>X</INF> or VOC
emissions. Once a Tier II trigger is activated, EPD will conduct a
comprehensive analysis based on quality-assured ambient data and,
within 24 months of the trigger, will implement at least one
contingency measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Section 3.2 of the 2022 Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two major NSR permitting programs under the CAA--the NNSR
program and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
The CAA requires SIPs to contain NNSR permitting regulations only for
areas officially designated or redesignated as nonattainment.\9\ Only
the PSD program
[[Page 64276]]
is required in areas designated or redesignated as attainment or
unclassifiable.\10\ Because there are no nonattainment areas in
Georgia, the State is no longer required to include NNSR regulations in
its SIP. Furthermore, it is not necessary for Georgia to include NNSR
as a contingency measure in its maintenance plan because NNSR is not a
``measure'' under CAA section 175A(d).<SUP>11 12</SUP> See Response 3,
below, for further discussion of CAA section 175A(d). For these reasons
and those discussed in the responses below, removing NNSR from the
Georgia SIP is neither ill-advised nor unlawful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See CAA section 172(c)(5) (each state with a nonattainment
area must have a SIP that ``shall require permits for the
construction and operation of new or modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area, in accordance with
section 7503 [(CAA section 173] of this title''); CAA section 173
(setting forth NNSR requirements); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(i) (``Each
plan shall adopt a preconstruction review program to satisfy the
requirements of sections 172(c)(5) and 173 of the Act for any area
designated nonattainment for any national ambient air quality
standard under subpart C of 40 CFR part 81.''); and 40 CFR 51.1314
(``For each nonattainment area [for the 2015 ozone NAAQS], the state
shall submit a nonattainment NSR plan or plan revision for a
specific ozone NAAQS no later than 36 months after the effective
date of the area's designation of nonattainment or redesignation to
nonattainment for that ozone NAAQS.'').
\10\ See CAA section 161 (each SIP ``shall contain emission
limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as
determined under regulations promulgated under this part, to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in each region (or portion
thereof) designated pursuant to section 7407 [(CAA section 107)] as
attainment or unclassifiable''); CAA section 165 (setting forth PSD
requirements); 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(i) (requiring SIPs to include PSD
requirements for the construction of new major stationary sources or
any project at an existing major stationary source in areas
designated as attainment or unclassifiable under sections
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act).
\11\ CAA section 175A(d) states ``Each plan revision submitted
under this section shall contain such contingency provisions as the
Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the area as an attainment area. Such provisions
shall include a requirement that the State will implement all
measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned
which were contained in the State implementation plan for the area
before redesignation of the area as an attainment area. The failure
of any area redesignated as an attainment area to maintain the
national ambient air quality standard concerned shall not result in
a requirement that the State revise its State implementation plan
unless the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion,
requires the State to submit a revised State implementation plan.''
\12\ See Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 535 (6th Cir. 2004);
memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation titled ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment''
(October 14, 1994) (Nichols Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: SELC asserts that a well-supported non-interference
finding under CAA section 110(l) must be provided prior to removing
Georgia's NNSR rules from its SIP because the Atlanta Area has already
fallen out of attainment with the 2015 ozone NAAQS. According to SELC,
the EPA and EPD concluded that this SIP revision will not increase air
pollution without an air quality analysis or any other kind of
analytical support and instead merely asserted that Georgia's PSD
program provides an adequate backstop and that other rules (e.g.,
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements)
established while NNSR was in place will not be modified or removed.
SELC asserts that neither the PSD program nor RACT requirements are an
adequate substitute for NNSR due to the Atlanta Area's recent
exceedances of the 2015 ozone NAAQS and that it is now improper and
arbitrary for the EPA to approve the SIP revision without analytical
support showing that NNSR can be removed without further impeding
attainment of this standard.
Regarding PSD as a substitute for NNSR, SELC states that NNSR
provides substantial environmental benefits beyond PSD by, among other
things, requiring offsets and significantly more effective pollution
controls. SELC argues that the air pollution reductions from NNSR are
needed given the recent violations of the 2015 ozone standard in the
Atlanta Area.
Regarding RACT, SELC states that the Area's maintenance plan
suggests that RACT may be inadequate to prevent increased emissions in
the absence of NNSR, and therefore, it would be improper to remove NNSR
without validating the sufficiency of RACT to prevent increased
emissions.
Response 2: The EPA disagrees with this comment. As discussed in
Response 1, Congress determined that NNSR permitting is only required
in areas designated or redesignated as nonattainment. CAA section 175A
contingency measures are the statutory mechanism to ``promptly correct
any violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of
the area as an attainment area,'' and NNSR is not a required
contingency measure. PSD is the statutorily mandated major NSR
permitting program in areas designated or redesignated as attainment or
unclassifiable. As required by CAA section 165(a)(3) and 40 CFR
51.166(k), Georgia's SIP-approved PSD regulations at Rule 391-3-
1-.02(7) prevent the construction or modification of major NSR sources
whose emissions would, among other things, cause or contribute to air
pollution in violation of the NAAQS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(8) (adopting 40 CFR 52.21(k) by
reference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Georgia's SIP-approved NSR permitting rules prevent the
State from issuing any NSR permit--including permits for non-PSD minor
sources--without first making an affirmative finding that, among other
things, the proposed construction or modification will not cause or
contribute to a failure to attain or maintain any ambient air quality
standard.'' \14\ Because these rules prevent interference with the
NAAQS, collectively cover the same universe of major sources as NNSR,
and apply in areas redesignated to attainment, they allow for the
removal of NNSR in those redesignated areas under CAA section
110(l).\15\ Section 110(l) only prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP
revision that would interfere with the NAAQS and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable CAA requirement. It does not prohibit
the EPA from removing a SIP-approved provision that achieves greater
reductions than a replacement provision (or provisions) so long as the
change would not interfere with CAA requirements. By their express
terms, SIP-approved Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) and 391-3-1-.03(8)(a) prevent
the construction or modification of sources that would interfere with
the NAAQS, and therefore, no air quality analysis is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(a).
\15\ NNSR is a prospective permitting program. Therefore, after
removal of NNSR from Georgia's SIP, the conditions issued pursuant
to these permits, along with any associated emissions offsets, will
remain in effect. See NPRM at 42345; 84 FR 47213, 47215 (September
9, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding SELC's comments on RACT, the statement that the EPA made
a ``claim regarding the sufficiency of RACT requirements'' is
inaccurate. The NPRM does not mention RACT, and the EPA is not relying
on RACT to satisfy CAA section 110(l). As discussed above, the EPA can
remove NNSR from Georgia's SIP under section 110(l) because SIP-
approved Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) and 391-3-1-.03(8)(a) prevent
construction or modification that would interfere with the NAAQS. It is
therefore unnecessary to evaluate the ``sufficiency of RACT'' before
removing NNSR from Georgia's SIP. Regardless, Georgia's RACT provisions
remain in the SIP, as they are not being requested to be removed by the
State in the June 27, 2024, SIP revision, and will therefore continue
to achieve emissions reductions in the Atlanta Area due to the partial
overlap between the counties in the Atlanta Area and those in the 1997
and 2008 Atlanta ozone maintenance areas.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Atlanta 1-hour ozone NAAQS area consisted of the
following counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb,
Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and
Rockdale. The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance area consists of
the following counties: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton,
Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett,
Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton. The
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS Atlanta Area consists of the following
counties: Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and
Henry. All current maintenance counties for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS have applicable RACT requirements that are not being removed
from the SIP in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia was not required to include RACT in its SIP for the Atlanta
Area
[[Page 64277]]
because it was a marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\17\ The EPA previously approved Georgia's RACT submission
required by CAA section 182(a)(2)(A) in response to the CAA Amendments
of 1990.\18\ Additionally, the EPA approved specific RACT measures for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to satisfy the moderate area requirements
at CAA section 182(b)(2).\19\ The contingency plan portion of Georgia's
maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area includes the commitment that if
emissions from the Area are contributing to a Tier II trigger condition
(i.e., the quality assured ozone design value is equal to or greater
than 0.071 ppm at a monitor in the Atlanta Area or the periodic
emission inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth
greater than 10 percent in NO<INF>X</INF> or VOC emissions), EPD will
evaluate, among other things, existing SIP measures ``such as RACT'' to
see if they are ``adequate or up-to-date'' and additional measures such
as the adoption of new and revised RACT rules based on Groups II, III,
and IV Control Techniques Guidelines that may be deemed appropriate and
effective. From the context of the Tier II discussion, it is clear that
Georgia is referring to new measures or revisions to existing measures
such as the SIP-approved RACT requirements that may be ``adequate'' or
``appropriate and effective'' to remedy a Tier II NAAQS exceedance or
unanticipated inventory growth. Given that the RACT provisions were
developed in the past for earlier ozone NAAQS, it is possible that
Georgia might determine that these control measures could be updated to
remedy a Tier II exceedance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Any specific
measures being considered by Georgia in response to a Tier II
exceedance and submitted as a SIP revision would be addressed in a
separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Under the CAA, marginal ozone nonattainment areas are
generally not required to implement RACT. RACT requirements formally
apply for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or
higher. See 40 CFR 51.1312(a)(1).
\18\ See 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005).
\19\ See 77 FR 59554 (September 28, 2012) and 78 FR 16783 (March
19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: SELC asserts that the EPA's action to remove NNSR is
unlawful because CAA section 175A requires Georgia's NNSR provisions to
be included in Georgia's maintenance plan as a contingency measure.
SELC further argues that NNSR is incorporated by reference into the
maintenance plan, citing a statement in the maintenance plan that says,
``Under Section 175A(d), the minimum requirement for contingency
measures is the implementation of all measures that were contained in
the SIP before the redesignation.''
SELC states that the Atlanta region has fallen out of attainment
with the 2015 ozone NAAQS, triggering the precise NNSR provisions that
the EPA proposes to remove. SELC cites to Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary and to caselaw regarding plain language and word context to
argue that the term ``measure'' in section 175A(d) includes NNSR.
According to SELC, Georgia's NNSR provisions serve `` `as a means to'
achieving the fundamental goal of controlling ozone pollution so that
Atlanta can attain compliance with the 2015 ozone NAAQS,'' and NNSR
provisions ``unambiguously constitute a `measure[ ] with respect to the
control of the air pollutant concerned.' ''
SELC's comment discusses Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th Cir.
2004), a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit (Sixth Circuit) involving a redesignation of the Cleveland,
Ohio area (Cleveland Area) from nonattainment to attainment of the 1987
coarse particulate matter NAAQS. SELC notes that Greenbaum is not
controlling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and
argues that that the logic underlying Greenbaum is inapplicable for
several reasons. SELC points out that Ohio's SIP--unlike Georgia's
SIP--did not contain NNSR at the time of redesignation, and that the
Atlanta Area is currently violating the NAAQS whereas the Cleveland
Area was not. According to SELC, the Greenbaum Court decided Ohio was
governed by PSD, not NNSR, because the Cleveland Area was attaining the
NAAQS at the time of the decision. Because the Atlanta Area is
currently violating the NAAQS, SELC contends that PSD cannot function
properly and ensure that new or modified sources will not cause or
contribute to a NAAQS violation. SELC further claims that PSD lacks a
framework for issuing a construction permit to a source that would
contribute to a NAAQS violation, but that NNSR is specifically designed
to accommodate new construction in a nonattainment area by enabling a
new source to purchase offsetting emission reductions from other
sources.
SELC also argues that South Coast v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006), a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (D.C. Circuit), ``casts doubt on the correctness'' of
Greenbaum because the D.C. Circuit concluded that the term ``control''
under section 172(e) includes NNSR. According to SELC, this case is
relevant because section 175A(d) also uses the term ``control,'' and
sections 172(e) and 175A(d) ``both address the need to retain SIP
requirements that serve to constrain pollution levels where an area is
not attaining the NAAQS.''
Finally, SELC asserts that Greenbaum ``stands on uncertain legal
footing as the decision was premised on deference to the EPA's
interpretation of the statute under the Chevron[\20\] standard.'' SELC
states that courts must now decide for themselves the best reading of
the statute rather than deferring to agency interpretations because the
U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 603
U.S. 369 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 3: The EPA disagrees that CAA section 175A requires NNSR
provisions to be included in maintenance plans as contingency measures
and that NNSR is included as a contingency measure in Georgia's 2015 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan. As discussed below, NNSR is not a
``measure'' under CAA section 175A, and therefore, repeating the
statutory text of CAA section 175A(d) regarding ``measures'' could not
incorporate NNSR by reference as a contingency measure.
SELC argues that NNSR is a ``measure'' under CAA section 175A(d)
given the plain meaning of that term and the legal principle that words
derive meaning from the context in which they are used. Although SELC
invokes this legal principle, it fails to follow it. SELC turns
directly from section 175A(d) to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,
ignoring the context of the statute and relying on the dictionary
definition to argue that the meaning of the term ``measure'' in section
175A(d) is plain. However, the fact that a word has a dictionary
definition is hardly conclusive. It is how the word is employed in the
context of the statute that determines its meaning.\21\ Once examined
in the context of CAA section 110 as discussed below, SELC's
interpretation of the term ``measure'' fails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000) (``In determining whether Congress
has specifically addressed the question at issue, a reviewing court
should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory
provision in isolation. The meaning--or ambiguity--of certain words
or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.'');
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995) (``The meaning of
statutory language, plain or not, depends on context.'') (quoting
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The context in which the term ``measure'' is used in section
175A(d) does not lead to the conclusion that
[[Page 64278]]
NNSR is such a measure. This section requires implementation of ``all
measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned''
that were in the nonattainment SIP. Therefore, it is clear that
Congress considered some aspects of the nonattainment SIP to be
measures to be included as contingency measures in the maintenance
plan, and some not. Had Congress intended an area to reimplement the
nonattainment SIP as a whole upon any violation, it would have said so
by simply requiring an area that violates the NAAQS after redesignation
to reimplement the nonattainment SIP. But Congress did not do so;
instead, it requires as contingency measures a subset of the
nonattainment SIP provisions--those ``measures'' with respect to the
control of the air pollutant concerned. Section 175A(d) provides no
indication which provisions of a SIP are appropriately considered
measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant, so one must
turn elsewhere in the statute for guidance. The most logical, and
therefore best, place to find context is section 110, which lists the
required SIP provisions.
Among the required components of a SIP, section 110 specifically
refers to ``control measures.'' \22\ Subparagraph (A) requires SIPs to
include ``enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
requirements of the Act.'' Id. Later in the list, subparagraph (C)
requires the SIP to also include ``a program to provide for the
enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source . . . , including a permit program as required in parts C and D
of this subchapter.'' \23\ If NNSR was among the control measures in
subparagraph (A), the separate reference in subparagraph (C) to Part D
(NNSR), in addition to the control measures in subparagraph (A) would
be unnecessary. Thus, section 110 does not consider the Part D (NNSR)
or Part C (PSD) permit programs to be among the control measures set
forth in subparagraph A. Thus, the best reading of the statute is that
``measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned''
in section 175A(d) and the ``control measures'' in section 110(a)(2)(A)
are one and the same, and do not include NNSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
\23\ Id. at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nature of the NNSR program itself further supports the
interpretation that it is not intended to be a contingency measure in
section 175A(d). Unlike the contingency measures listed in the Atlanta
Area's maintenance plan, which require immediate emission reductions on
existing sources and therefore have an immediate effect on air quality
in response to a violation of the NAAQS, implementing NNSR has no
immediate effect on emissions. Any violation of the NAAQS that occurs
after redesignation is the result of emissions by existing sources, and
as discussed in Response 2, NNSR is a prospective permit program.
Therefore, implementation of NNSR has no effect on those emissions.
Unlike the potential contingency measures for the Atlanta Area, which
require prompt reductions from existing sources, NNSR cannot promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS.
The EPA agrees that the purpose of NNSR provisions is to serve ``as
a means to'' achieving the fundamental goal of controlling ozone
pollution so that a nonattainment area can attain compliance, while
allowing for new or expanded projects in the area. However, once a
nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment, an NNSR program is no
longer required in the area, even as a contingency measure. Instead,
once an area is redesignated to attainment, PSD applies.
The Sixth Circuit upheld the EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 175A(d) in Greenbaum. SELC attempts to distinguish Greenbaum on
multiple grounds, none of which are compelling. The fact that Georgia
resides in the Eleventh Circuit does not make the Sixth Circuit's logic
any less valid or persuasive. SELC points out that no other court has
adopted Greenbaum's holding that NNSR is not a ``measure'' under
section 175A(d), but this argument is misleading because there are no
other published cases addressing this legal question. Notably, SELC
cannot point to any opinion holding that NNSR is a ``measure'' under
section 175A(d). SELC claims that the logic in Greenbaum is
inapplicable because the Ohio SIP did not contain NNSR at the time of
redesignation and the Atlanta Area is currently violating the NAAQS.
However, whether a SIP contains NNSR at the time of redesignation and
whether an area is violating the NAAQS after redesignation are not
relevant to the question of whether NNSR is a ``measure'' within the
meaning of section 175A(d).
Although Ohio did not have NNSR in its SIP at the time of
redesignation, the Greenbaum Court acted ``as if [NNSR] had been''
included in the SIP ``for the purposes of addressing [the] claims
regarding Sec. 175A.'' \24\ Thus, the outcome in Greenbaum did not
turn on whether NNSR was in the SIP, and this distinction between the
Ohio and Georgia SIPs is immaterial. Instead, the EPA's interpretation
of the term ``measure'' under section 175A(d)--and the Greenbaum
decision upholding that interpretation--are based on a legal evaluation
of that term in the context of the CAA as described above. It is also
illogical to argue that an area's post-redesignation violations have
any impact on the meaning of ``measures'' under section 175A(d). The
``measures'' required by CAA section 175A(d) are the air pollution
control measures ``which were contained in the [SIP] before
redesignation of the area as an attainment area.'' \25\ Thus, the
``measures'' required by CAA section 175A(d) are fixed at the time of
redesignation--they are those air pollution control measures that were
in the SIP at the time of the redesignation. A post-redesignation
violation of the NAAQS has no impact on what is or is not a
``measure.'' Contrary to SELC's suggestion, the fact that ``Atlanta is
currently violating the NAAQS'' has no impact on Greenbaum's conclusion
that NNSR is not a ``measure'' within the meaning of section 175A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 370 F.3d at 535.
\25\ CAA section 175A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA agrees with the SELC-cited statement from Greenbaum that it
would make little sense for NNSR to have been included in the post-
attainment SIP because permitting in attainment areas is governed by
the PSD program, but the Agency disagrees with SELC's assertion that
PSD cannot function properly and ensure that new or modified sources
will not cause or contribute to NAAQS violations in areas failing to
meet the NAAQS. It makes little sense to have NNSR in the post-
attainment SIP because, as the Greenbaum Court points out, the CAA
unambiguously requires NNSR only in nonattainment areas and PSD only in
attainment areas: ``According to 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(5), 7503, SIPs
governing nonattainment areas must include [N]NSR programs. Under 42
U.S.C. 7471, by contrast, SIPs governing attainment areas must include
PSD programs.'' \26\ The application depends on the official
designation status of an area, not whether air quality is above a
NAAQS, and a State cannot simultaneously apply PSD and NNSR programs
for new major sources and major modifications in a redesignated area.
PSD--not NNSR--is required in
[[Page 64279]]
the Atlanta Area because the EPA redesignated it to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 370 F.3d at 536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the proper function of the PSD program, again, Congress
mandated that PSD apply in attainment and unclassifiable areas
regardless of whether air quality in those areas is exceeding a NAAQS
and designed contingency measures in approved maintenance plans as the
mechanism to address violations of the NAAQS in areas redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment. As discussed in Response 2, Georgia's SIP-
approved PSD regulations at Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) prevent the
construction or modification of major NSR sources whose emissions
would, among other things, cause or contribute to air pollution in
violation of the NAAQS, as required by CAA section 165(a)(3)(B) and 40
CFR 51.166(k).<SUP>27 28</SUP> SELC is wrong in arguing that that
permitting ``cannot function properly'' in an attainment area that is
``failing to meet the NAAQS.'' If an area ``is not continuing to meet
the standard after redesignation to attainment,'' additional
provisions--namely 40 CFR 51.165(b) and/or 40 CFR part 51, appendix S--
would apply to a major source that would cause or contribute to a
violation of any NAAQS.<SUP>29 30</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The PSD program requires public participation, and the
public can seek judicial review of issued permits at the state
level.
\28\ See Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)(8) (adopting 40 CFR 52.21(k) by
reference).
\29\ See Nichols Memorandum.
\30\ 40 CFR 51.165(b) and 40 CFR part 51, appendix S provide
compensating protections when the construction or modification of
major sources would cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS,
including in attainment or unclassifiable areas that are violating
the NAAQS, and therefore, further support removal of NNSR from
Georgia's SIP under CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELC further attempts to support its claim by citing the D.C.
Circuit's South Coast decision, claiming that the court's decision in
South Coast regarding what qualifies as a ``control'' under CAA section
172(e) calls into question Greenbaum's validity. However, South Coast
involves a different legal question concerning different parts of the
CAA involving different terms. The South Coast decision addresses this
exact point, stating ``Greenbaum involved a different ultimate
question, namely, whether [N]NSR is required for attainment areas, and
required that court to determine the meaning of a different term,
`measures.' Because the term `measures' was used in the provision
providing for redesignation to attainment, the Sixth Circuit found it
appropriate to refer to other instances of `measures' elsewhere in the
Act and concluded that [N]NSR was not a `measure.' This has no bearing
on whether [N]NSR is a `control.' '' \31\ SELC's attempt to use a
decision regarding the meaning of ``control'' under section 172(e) to
inform the meaning of the term ``measure'' under section 175A(d) is
directly contrary to the South Coast Court's opinion. As discussed
above, section 110 is the best place to find context for the term
``measure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ South Coast, 472 F.3d at 902 (emphasis in original,
citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final observation for Greenbaum, SELC claims that the
decision is on ``uncertain legal footing'' as it was ``premised on
deference'' under Chevron which was overruled by Loper Bright. As an
initial matter, Greenbaum did not apply Chevron deference to reach its
conclusion that SIPs governing nonattainment areas must include NNSR
and SIPs governing attainment areas must include PSD because the court
found the text of the statute unambiguous.\32\ It is true that, in
interpreting the term ``measure'' under section 175A(d), the Sixth
Circuit deferred to the EPA pursuant to Chevron.\33\ But Loper Bright
does not make Greenbaum any less persuasive and does not change the
EPA's analysis because the Agency's interpretation is the best reading
of the statute for the reasons described earlier in this Response 3.
The EPA's interpretation of ``measure'' is based on the structure and
text of the CAA and the context in which the term is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Greenbaum, 370 F.3d at 536.
\33\ Greenbaum, 370 F.3d at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, ``discarding Chevron deference does not mean ignoring
agency interpretations.'' \34\ While Loper Bright requires ``courts to
do their ordinary job of interpreting statutes,'' it also directs
courts to give ``due respect for the views of the Executive Branch.''
\35\ ``The weight of such a judgment in a particular case will depend
upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its
reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and
all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to
control.'' \36\ As discussed above, the EPA has consistently
interpreted the term ``measure'' under CAA section 175A(d) to exclude
NNSR, and that interpretation is supported by a thorough, valid reading
of the statutory provisions. Thus, even under Loper Bright, the EPA's
longstanding, consistent interpretation still has the ``power to
persuade, if lacking power to control.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Texas v. United States EPA, 137 F.4th 353, 365 (5th
Cir. 2025) (Texas 2025).
\35\ 603 U.S. at 403.
\36\ See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S. Ct.
161, 164 (1944).
\37\ 603 U.S. at 402 (quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: SELC states that the air quality violations in the
Atlanta Area have activated the Tier II trigger in the contingency plan
portion of the Area's maintenance plan and that EPD is therefore
required to conduct additional analysis and implement one or more
contingency measures necessary to re-attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. SELC
states that the NNSR provisions are intended to address the precise
situation Atlanta is facing, so it is a ``particularly strange and ill-
advised time'' to propose removing these provisions. SELC also states
that removing these provisions will complicate and undermine the
identification of additional contingency measures currently underway
pursuant to the Tier II trigger. SELC asserts that if the NNSR
provisions are removed, these new contingency measures will need to
address both the air pollution causing the Atlanta Area's current
failure to attain and new pollution that would result from permitted
new sources under the less stringent PSD program.
Response 4: The EPA disagrees that NNSR provisions are intended to
address the situation in the Atlanta Area and that removal of NNSR will
complicate and undermine the identification of contingency measures
currently underway. As discussed in the responses above, Congress
determined that NNSR permitting is only required in areas designated or
redesignated as nonattainment. CAA section 175A contingency measures
are the statutory mechanism to ``promptly correct any violation of the
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an
attainment area,'' and NNSR is not a required contingency measure. If
Congress had intended NNSR to address a situation such as the one in
the Atlanta Area, it would not have made the application of NNSR
dependent on designation status or it would have mandated NNSR as a
contingency measure.
It is also unclear how the removal of NNSR would complicate and
undermine the identification of contingency measures currently
underway. First, Georgia's SIP-approved Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) and 391-3-
1-.03(8)(a) prevent construction or modification that would interfere
with the NAAQS. Second, contingency measures are designed to promptly
remedy the NAAQS violation that triggered the application of those
measures, and major NSR permitting is
[[Page 64280]]
a lengthy process that impacts the prospective construction and
modification of only the largest stationary sources. Any emissions from
new major NSR sources or modifications moving forward will therefore be
predicted well in advance of construction and can be accounted for in
the development of contingency measures. Third, permit conditions
issued pursuant to NNSR permits in the Area, along with any associated
emissions offsets, will remain in effect.
Comment 5: SELC argues that maintaining NNSR is necessary due to
proposed new major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the Atlanta
Area and that it is imperative that these new sources be held to the
more rigorous NNSR permitting standards given that the Atlanta Area is
out of compliance with the 2015 ozone standard. SELC identifies two
proposed new combined cycle natural gas electrical generating units
(gas EGUs) at Georgia Power Company's Plant Bowen and two proposed new
gas EGUs at Georgia Power Company's Plant Wansley. Plant Bowen is in
the Atlanta Area and Plant Wansley is located outside the Area in
Carroll County. SELC states that reviewing these and other permit
applications under PSD rather than NNSR will dramatically impede the
Area's ability to re-attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS and comply with that
standard going forward.
Response 5: The EPA disagrees with this comment. As discussed in
the responses above, Congress determined that NNSR permitting is only
required in areas designated or redesignated as nonattainment. CAA
section 175A contingency measures are the statutory mechanism to
``promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the area as an attainment area,'' NNSR is not a
required contingency measure, and SIP-approved Georgia Rules 391-3-
1-.02(7) and 391-3-1-.03(8)(a) prevent the construction or modification
of sources that would interfere with the NAAQS. Any concerns regarding
specific proposed new major stationary sources or major modifications
to existing major sources in the Atlanta Area are outside the scope of
this SIP revision. All proposed PSD permits are subject to a public
comment period pursuant to SIP-approved Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(b)14
(incorporating 40 CFR 52.21(q) by reference), and any comments raised
during that period must be submitted to EPD as the permitting
authority.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble, the
EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(1), General Requirement, which is being revised to change
`nonattainment' to `non-attainment' for consistency; \38\ Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(nnn), NOX Emissions from Large Stationary Gas Turbines, which
is being revised to address a cross-reference impacted by other changes
approved in this final rule; Rule 391-3-1-.03(6)(j), Construction
Permit Exemption for Pollution Control Projects, which is being revised
to address a cross-reference impacted by other changes approved in this
final rule; \39\ Rule 391-3-1-.03(8), Permit Requirements, which is
being revised to remove NNSR requirements; and Rule 391-3-1-.03(13),
Emission Reduction Credits, which is being revised to remove wording
that allows or refers to the use of emission reduction credits; all of
which have a State-effective date of June 19, 2023, into the Georgia
SIP. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and 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, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion
in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference
by the 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 the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference
in the next update to the SIP compilation.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The table entry for Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(1), at 40 CFR
52.570(c) is revised in this action to correct a typographical error
in the Rule's title, by changing it from ``General Requirements'' to
``General Requirement.''
\39\ Subparagraphs 391-3-1-.03(6)(a) through (i)--except for
391-3-1-.03(6)(b)16, which is not approved into the SIP--remain in
the SIP with a state effective date of July 29, 2020. See 87 FR
19643 (April 5, 2022).
\40\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
The EPA is approving the aforementioned Georgia SIP revision
consisting of changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(1), General Requirement; Rule
391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn), NOX Emissions from Large Stationary Gas Turbines;
Rule 391-3-1-.03(6), Exemptions, at subsection (j), Construction Permit
Exemption for Pollution Control Projects; Rule 391-3-1-.03(8), Permit
Requirements; and Rule 391-3-1-.03(13), Emission Reduction Credits.
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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\41\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6,
2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
<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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<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.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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 and will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
[[Page 64281]]
governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. 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 December 7, 2026. 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.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 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.
Dated: September 25, 2026.
Kevin McOmber,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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), amend table 1 by revising the entries for ``391-
3-1-.02(1)'', ``391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn)'', ``391-3-1-.03(6)'', ``391-3-
1-.03(8)'', and ``391-3-1-.03(13)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--EPA-Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
State citation Title/subject date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(1).................. General Requirement 6/19/2023 10/8/2026, 91 FR
[Insert Federal
Register page
where the document
begins].
* * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn)............. NOX Emissions from 6/19/2023 10/8/2026, 91 FR
Large Stationary [Insert Federal
Gas Turbines. Register page
where the document
begins].
* * * * * * *
391-3-1-.03(6).................. Exemptions......... 7/29/2020 4/5/2022, 87 FR Except for
19643. subparagraph 391-
3-1-.03(6)(j)
which was
approved into the
SIP on 10/8/2026
with a state
effective date of
6/19/2023, and
Rule 391-3-1-
.03(6)(b)16,
which is not
approved into the
SIP.
* * * * * * *
391-3-1-.03(8).................. Permit Requirements 6/19/2023 10/8/2026, 91 FR
[Insert Federal
Register page
where the document
begins].
* * * * * * *
391-3-1-.03(13)................. Emission Reduction 6/19/2023 10/8/2026, 91 FR
Credits. [Insert Federal
Register page
where the document
begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-20636 Filed 10-7-26; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on October 8, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.