

[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 4133-4136]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-42]                         


[[Page 4133]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532-200724; FRL-8520-8]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted by the State of Alabama on June 16, 2006. The 
proposed revisions modify Alabama's Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) 
regulations in the SIP to address changes to the federal New Source 
Review (NSR) permitting regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on 
December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 
2003 (collectively, these two final actions are called the ``2002 NSR 
Reform Rules''). The proposed revisions include provisions for baseline 
emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for 
calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability 
limits (PAL), and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The June 
16, 2006, submittal also contained provisions to address the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule, on which EPA has already taken action. As requested by 
Alabama on December 3, 2007, at this time, EPA is not taking action on 
a proposed revision found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)1, which 
establishes a significance threshold for all NSR regulated pollutants 
for which there is not a listed significance threshold.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0532, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: danois.gracy@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532,'' Air Planning Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The 
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-0532. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Alabama 
State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Stacy Harder, 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) 562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail 
at harder.stacy@epa.gov. For information regarding New Source Review, 
contact Ms. Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits Section, at the same address 
above. The telephone number is (404) 562-9119. Ms. Danois can also be 
reached via electronic mail at danois.gracy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to 
``EPA,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our,'' are intended to mean the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is 
arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Why is EPA proposing this action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's NSR rule revisions?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is EPA Proposing?

    On June 16, 2006, the State of Alabama, through the Alabama 
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted revisions to 
the SIP. Specifically, the proposed SIP revisions include changes to 
ADEM Administrative Code (AAC) Division 3 Code (Air Division), Chapter 
14, entitled ``Air Permits.'' ADEM submitted these revisions in 
response to EPA's December 31, 2002, revisions to the federal NSR 
program. EPA is now proposing to approve these SIP revisions with the 
exception of the requirements found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)1, the 
portion of the definition of ``significant'' that establishes a 
significance threshold of 100 tons for all NSR regulated pollutants for 
which there is not a listed significant amount.

[[Page 4134]]

On December 3, 2007, Alabama requested that this portion of the 
definition not be approved into the SIP. Additionally, the June 16, 
2006, submittal also addressed the Clean Air Interstate Rule which EPA 
has already taken action on separately.

II. Why is EPA Proposing This Action?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule 
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52, 
regarding the Clean Air Act's (CAA or Act) PSD and NNSR programs. On 
November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action 
on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), final 
rule changes. In that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the 
definition of ``replacement unit,'' and clarified an issue regarding 
PAL. The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions are 
collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' The purpose 
of this action is to propose to approve the SIP submittal from the 
State of Alabama, which addresses EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This action is not addressing any issues related to the 
Alabama NSR program that were not part of the June 16, 2006, 
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts 
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I 
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in 
areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)--
``attainment'' areas--as well as in areas for which there is 
insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the 
NAAQS--``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 
U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are 
not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment'' areas. Collectively, 
the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the ``New Source Review'' 
or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are 
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S.
    The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting 
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air 
pollution regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include 
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control 
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42 
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public 
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets 
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for 
approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control 
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to 
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and 
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that 
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air; 
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national 
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls 
are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development 
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure 
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full 
public consideration of the consequences of the decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR 
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provided a new method for 
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopted an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major 
modification has occurred; (3) allowed major stationary sources to 
comply with PAL to avoid having a significant emissions increase that 
triggers the requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provided a new 
applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean 
units; and (5) excluded pollution control projects (PCPs) from the 
definition of ``physical change or change in the method of operation.'' 
On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on its 
reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68 FR 63021), which added 
a definition for ``replacement unit'' and clarified an issue regarding 
PALs. For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see, 67 
FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 
3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged 
numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of 
EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC 
Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR 
Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In 
summary, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules 
pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a 
portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) 
and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the 
other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    On March 8, 2007, EPA responded to the Court's remand regarding the 
recordkeeping provisions by proposing two alternative options to 
clarify what constitutes ``reasonable possibility'' and when the 
``reasonable possibility'' recordkeeping requirements apply (72 FR 
10445). The ``reasonable possibility'' standard identifies for sources 
and reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major 
stationary source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major 
NSR must keep records. On December 14, 2007, EPA issued a final 
rulemaking establishing that ``reasonable possibility'' applies where 
source emissions equal or exceed 50% of the CAA NSR significance levels 
for any pollutant. This rule will be effective 30 days after its 
publication in the Federal Register. For further information, see, 
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/ReasPos_final.pdf.

    On June 13, 2007, EPA took final action to revise the 2002 NSR 
reform rules to exclude the portions that were vacated by the D.C. 
Circuit Court (72 FR 32526). This proposed action is consistent with 
the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court because Alabama's June 2006 SIP 
submittal, now being proposed for approval, does not include any 
portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated as part of the 
June 2005 decision.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Since April 13, 1999, the AAC has included a provision 
entitled, ``environmental beneficial projects,'' which was approved 
into the SIP on November 3, 1999, long before the 2002 NSR reform 
rules. This provision operates in much the same manner as the 
vacated PCP provision. Consistent with EPA's June 13, 2007, direct 
final action regarding the vacatur of the PCP provision, Alabama 
should remove this provision from the SIP at the earliest 
opportunity because a federal appeals court has found that a similar 
federal provision is contrary to the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and 
submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the 
minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than 
January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i), 
state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions 
within three years after new amendments are published in the Federal 
Register.) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, 
and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent 
regulations.
    On June 16, 2006, the State of Alabama submitted a SIP revision for 
the purpose of revising the State's NSR

[[Page 4135]]

permitting provisions. These changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's 
2002 NSR Reform Rules. As discussed in further detail below, EPA 
believes the revisions contained in the Alabama submittal are 
approvable for inclusion into the Alabama SIP.

III. What is EPA's Analysis of Alabama's NSR Rule Revisions?

    Alabama currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and 
modified stationary sources. EPA is now proposing to approve revisions 
to Alabama's existing PSD program in the SIP. These revisions became 
State-effective on July 11, 2006, and were submitted to EPA on June 16, 
2006, for incorporation into the Alabama SIP. Copies of the revised 
rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be 
obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ``Docket'' section above. 
A discussion of the specific changes to the Alabama rules, proposed for 
inclusion in the SIP, follows.
    ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.04 contains the preconstruction review program 
that provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of 
ambient air quality as required under Part C of title I of the CAA. The 
program applies to major stationary sources or modifications 
constructing in areas that are designated as attainment or 
unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. Alabama's PSD program was 
originally approved into the SIP by EPA on November 10, 1981, and has 
been revised several times since then. The current revisions to Rule 
335-3-14-.04, which EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP, were 
provided to update the existing provisions to be consistent with the 
current federal PSD rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. State 
agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR 
Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. In developing 
regulations consistent with the 2002 NSR reform rules, ADEM has made 
the following changes in its rules that are different but equivalent to 
the federal regulations:

    1. Applicability provisions--Actual-to-Potential Test for 
Projects that Only Involve Existing Emissions Units (335-3-
14-.04(1)(h))--As part of the 2002 NSR reform rules, EPA changed NSR 
applicability determinations to rely on a new definition of 
``baseline actual emissions'' that supports the ``actual-to-
projected actual'' methodology. In addition to adopting this new 
methodology for determining NSR applicability, ADEM has retained an 
optional ``actual to potential'' test for projects that only involve 
existing units. This approach utilizes the definition for ``actual 
emissions'' to determine past actual emissions. To allow facilities 
to continue to use the actual-to-potential test, some of the State 
definitions are slightly different from the federal rule. ADEM's 
definition of ``Net Emissions Increase'' in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(c) 
does not include the condition that ``actual emissions'' not be used 
in determining creditable emissions increases and decreases. 
Consistent with this approach, the definition of ``actual 
emissions'' in ADEM's Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(u) does not include an 
exclusion for determining significant increases or decreases. 
Because the ``actual to potential test'' approach is optional for 
existing units and at least as stringent as the federal rules, this 
difference is approvable.
    2. Definition of ``Allowable Emissions'' and ``Enforceable''--
ADEM's definitions in Rule 335-3-14-.04-(2)(p) and (q) contain 
provisions indicating that appropriate limitations from 40 CFR part 
63 also can be considered in determining enforceable limitations. 
These changes do not have a substantive effect on the terms, but 
rather, serve to clarify these terms. As a result, the change is at 
least as stringent as the federal rules, and is approvable.
    3. Definition of ``Significant''--In the definition of 
``significant'' found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w), ADEM excluded HF 
from being considered a fluoride. This change was prompted by the 
language included in the preamble for the NSR Reform regulations (67 
FR 80240) which states that HF should not be considered as part of 
the fluorides. Therefore, this change is approvable.
    4. Definition of Baseline Actual Emissions--ADEM's definition in 
Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(uu)3, uses different trigger dates for new and 
existing units when establishing the period for establishing the 
baseline actual emissions for the unit. While this is different than 
the federal rule, ADEM's approach offers the requisite specificity 
and is at least as stringent as the federal rule.
    5. Definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant--ADEM has included 
language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(ww)4 to exclude compounds listed 
under section 112(r)(3) of the CAA from the definition of regulated 
NSR pollutant unless otherwise listed as an NSR pollutant in the 
federal NSR rules. Such compounds are excluded from the federal NSR 
rules pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.166(b)(49)(iv). ADEM's rule is 
therefore consistent with federal rules.
    6. Reasonable Possibility Provisions--ADEM made the following 
changes to the reasonable possibility provisions in Rule 335-3-
14-.04(17):
    a. ADEM included language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(d) to require 
additional recordkeeping requirements for those modifications 
``where there is not a reasonable possibility that a project is part 
of a major modification and that is not excluded from the definition 
of physical change or change in the method of operation.''
    b. ADEM added language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(e) to require 
that all sources meet the recordkeeping requirements of the electric 
utilities. In Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(e)(2), ADEM proposed additional 
reporting requirements for sources with a project for which there is 
a reasonable possibility that the project could exceed the 
significance thresholds. As discussed earlier, on March 8, 2007 (72 
FR 10445), EPA proposed changes to the reasonable possibility 
provisions in the 2002 NSR reform rules, and on December 14, 2007, 
EPA issued a final action responding to the D.C. Circuit's remand. 
ADEM's changes identified above are more stringent than the federal 
rule and are therefore approvable.
    7. PAL Provisions--ADEM made the following changes to the 
Actuals PAL provisions in Rule 335-3-14-.04(23):
    a. (23)(a)2--ADEM omitted the provision which allows facilities 
utilizing PAL to remove previously set synthetic minor PSD 
limitations. According to Alabama's submittal, it is ADEM's intent 
that previously set PSD synthetic minor limits remain intact, 
similar to how NSPS, SIP and BACT limits remain applicable when 
requesting and obtaining a PAL in a permit.
    b. (23)(f)--ADEM changed the method of setting the PAL. The 
federal rules state that any unit constructed after the 24-month 
period chosen for setting the PAL shall have its allowable emissions 
added to the PAL. ADEM has changed the provision to only allow the 
inclusion of actual emissions during any 24-month period of 
operation for sources which have been in operation for greater than 
24 months. According to Alabama's SIP submittal, it is ADEM's intent 
that the PAL be based upon true actual emissions. Allowing for the 
inclusion of allowable emissions for all sources built after the 
chosen 24-month period would not be consistent with this approach.
    c. (23)(i)5--ADEM has added a provision which states that 
synthetic minor limits which existed prior to a PAL shall be 
retained by the source after the expiration of the PAL. According to 
Alabama's SIP submittal, it is ADEM's intention that previously set 
PSD synthetic minor limits remain intact, in the same fashion that 
NSPS, SIP and BACT limits remain effective.
    d. (23)(n)1--ADEM has removed the requirement to submit a semi-
annual report within 30 days of the end of the reporting period. 
Since the facility's title V permit would require these reports to 
be submitted, its inclusion in the PSD regulations is not necessary.
    Although the changes to the PAL provisions identified above are 
different than the federal rule, ADEM's approach is as stringent as 
the federal rules and is approvable. Additional information 
regarding these changes, including ADEM's explanation, is available 
in the Docket for this proposed action.

    As part of EPA's review of the June 2006 Alabama SIP submittal, EPA 
performed a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions, including 
the provisions summarized above which differ from the federal rule. EPA 
has determined that the rules included in the June 2006 submittal are 
consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption 
and submittal of implementation plans for NSR set forth at 40 CFR 
51.165 and 51.166.

[[Page 4136]]

    Alabama's June 2006 SIP submittal did not include any revisions to 
its NNSR rules. The State of Alabama currently has two nonattainment 
areas for PM2.5 and no nonattainment areas for ozone. At the 
time of the submittal by Alabama, EPA had not promulgated NSR 
implementations rules for PM2.5. EPA proposed the NSR 
implementation rules for PM2.5 on November 1, 2005. Once 
final, Alabama will be required to revise its SIP to update its NNSR 
rules.

IV. What Action is EPA Taking?

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve the 
changes made to Alabama's Rule 335-3-14-.04, as submitted by ADEM on 
June 16, 2006, as revisions to the Alabama SIP.

V. 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 approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements 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 approve pre-
existing requirements under state law 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 approve state rules implementing a Federal standard, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. 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.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 10, 2008.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E8-1181 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
