Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40041

the surgeon to build an implant system

to fit the patient’s anatomical and

physiological requirements. Such an

spinal implant assembly consists of a

combination of anchors (e.g., bolts,

hooks, and/or screws); interconnection

mechanisms incorporating nuts, screws,

sleeves, or bolts; longitudinal members

(e.g., plates, rods, and/or plate/rod

combinations); and/or transverse

connectors.

(2) Classification. Class III (premarket

approval).

(c) Date PMA or notice of completion

of a PDP is required. An approved PMA

or a declared completed PDP must be in

effect before placing the device in

commercial distribution. See § 888.3.

Dated: April 22, 1998,

Michael A. Friedman,

Lead Deputy Commissioner for the Food and

Drug Administration.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary of Health and Human Services.

[FR Doc. 98–19944 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN75; FRL–6129–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is approving Indiana’s request

to grant an exemption for the northwest

Indiana (Lake and Porter Counties)

severe ozone nonattainment area from

the applicable Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)

transportation conformity requirements.

The USEPA proposed approval on

January 6, 1998. The proposal was based

on information the Indiana Department

of Environmental Management (IDEM)

submitted to the USEPA as a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request for an exemption under section

182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act). The

technical basis for IDEM’s request was

the urban airshed modeling (UAM)

conducted for an attainment

demonstration for the Lake Michigan

Ozone Study (LMOS) modeling domain.

DATES: This rule is effective August 26,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision,

public comments and USEPA’s

responses are available for inspection at

the following address: United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Patricia Morris at (312) 353–8656 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia A. Morris, Regulation

Development Section (AR–18J), Air

Programs Branch, Air and Radiation

Division, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone Number (312) 353–

8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii)

requires, in order to demonstrate

conformity with the applicable SIP, that

transportation plans and Transportation

Improvement Programs (TIPs)

contribute to emissions reductions in

ozone and carbon monoxide

nonattainment areas during the period

before control strategy SIPs are

approved by USEPA. This requirement

is implemented in 40 CFR 93.119,

which establishes what is known as the

‘‘build/no-build test.’’ The conformity

requirements of 176(c)(3)(A) are more

fully explained in the notice of

proposed rulemaking (63 FR 456,

January 6, 1998).

On July 13, 1994, the States of Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin (the

States) submitted to the USEPA a

petition for an exemption from the

requirements of section 182(f) of the

Clean Air Act (Act). The States, acting

through the Lake Michigan Air Directors

Consortium (LADCo), petitioned for an

exemption from the Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

and New Source Review (NSR)

requirements for major stationary

sources of NOX. The petition also asked

for an exemption from the

transportation and general conformity

requirements for NOX in all ozone

nonattainment areas in the Lake

Michigan Modeling domain.

On March 6, 1995, the USEPA

published a rulemaking proposing

approval of the NOX exemption petition

for the RACT, NSR and transportation

and general conformity requirements. A

number of comments were received on

the proposal. Several commenters

argued that NOX exemptions are

provided for in two separate parts of the

Act, in sections 182(b)(1) and 182(f), but

that the Act’s transportation conformity

provisions in section 176(c)(3) explicitly

reference section 182(b)(1). In April

1995, the USEPA entered into an

agreement to change the procedural

mechanism through which a NOX

exemption from transportation

conformity would be granted (EDF et al.

v. USEPA, No. 94–1044, U.S. Court of

Appeals, D.C. Circuit). Instead of a

petition under 182(f), transportation

conformity NOX exemptions for ozone

nonattainment areas that are subject to

section 182(b)(1) now need to be

submitted as a SIP revision request. The

northwest Indiana ozone nonattainment

area is classified as severe and, thus, is

subject to section 182(b)(1). Thus, the

NOX waiver for transportation

conformity would have been granted in

January 26, 1996, at the same time as the

waiver for RACT, NSR and general

conformity except for the technical

correction to require a SIP revision

request under 182(b)(1).

The transportation conformity

requirements are found at sections

176(c)(2), (3), and (4) of the Act. The

conformity requirements apply on an

areawide basis in all nonattainment and

maintenance areas. The USEPA’s

transportation conformity rule was

amended on August 29, 1995 (60 FR

44762) to reference section 182(b)(1)

rather than 182(f) as the means for

exempting areas subject to section

182(b)(1) from the transportation

conformity NOX requirements.

The May 24, 1996, SIP revision

request from Indiana was submitted to

meet the requirements in accordance

with 182(b)(1). Public hearings on this

SIP revision request were held on June

11, 1996.

In evaluating the 182(b) SIP revision

request, the USEPA considered whether

additional NOX reductions would

contribute to attainment of the standard

in the northwest Indiana severe ozone

nonattainment area and also in the

downwind areas of the LMOS modeling

domain. The USEPA granted a NOX

waiver for RACT, NSR, and general

conformity based on the submitted

modeling on January 26, 1996, (61 FR

2428). At the same time and using the

same technical support evaluation, the

USEPA would have granted the

transportation conformity waiver but for

the technical correction to grant the

waiver under 182(b)(1) instead of 182(f).

This rulemaking completes the efforts

under this technical correction.

On January 6, 1998, (63 FR 456), the

USEPA proposed approval of Indiana’s

request to grant an exemption for the

northwest Indiana severe ozone

nonattainment area from the applicable

NOX transportation conformity

requirements.

II. Public Comments

The USEPA received two sets of

comments during the public comment
40042 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

period, which ended on February 5,

1998. One set was in favor of the USEPA

proposal, and one set was critical. The

following are the critical comments on

the proposal and USEPA’s responses to

the comments:

Comment: Indiana has failed to

establish a NOX budget for the ozone

nonattainment area. Indiana has yet to

develop and submit such a budget as

required by November 1994. Until the

attainment demonstrations,

encompassing verifiable and allocated

(biogenic, point, mobile, and area) NOX

emission budgets, are submitted and

complete, any determination that

required control strategies are not

necessary is premature and unfounded.

Response: Approval of the

transportation conformity NOX waiver

does not eliminate the need for a NOX

budget determination. As described in

the background section, the waiver

merely removes the requirement for the

build/no-build test. It is anticipated that

in the future, Indiana will submit a NOX

transportation budget in its state

implementation plan.

Comment: The NOX waiver technical

documentation is outdated, incomplete

and inconsistent with USEPA’s NOX SIP

call.

Response: USEPA’s NOX SIP call

proposal published November 7, 1997,

(62 FR 60317) is based on modeling

conducted by the Ozone Transport

Assessment Group (OTAG). OTAG used

information and ozone episodes

contributed by LADCo and the State of

Indiana. USEPA’s NOX SIP call

acknowledges the NOX ‘‘disbenefit’’

issue and specifically mentions the Lake

Michigan states as an area where the

modeling shows a disbenefit. A

‘‘disbenefit’’ from NOX is when

reductions in NOX emissions create an

increase in the concentrations of ozone.

USEPA’s NOX SIP call encourages local

and regional modeling to determine the

extent of the NOX disbenefit; and the

appropriate control strategies to deal

with the disbenefit. LADCo is currently

conducting modeling to refine the NOX

disbenefit and the State of Indiana, in

cooperation with the other Lake

Michigan states, intends to submit the

modeling and analysis in response to

the SIP call. Thus, there is nothing in

the most recent modeling which

contradicts the phenomenon of the NOX

disbenefit in the Lake Michigan area.

Comment: The Indiana submittal

failed to demonstrate that low-level

NOX reductions in the northwest

Indiana area would not improve air

quality. While the submittal did analyze

domain-wide low-level NOX reductions,

no such analysis was performed for the

specific Indiana counties. The State of

Indiana, in coordination with LADCo,

has the capabilities to model NOX

emissions from mobile sources in these

counties. Therefore, USEPA should

require such a demonstration before

taking final action on this rulemaking.

Response: The LADCo analysis

demonstrated that across-the-board

reductions in NOX from point, area, and

mobile sources generally showed a

‘‘disbenefit’’ in many areas of the

modeling domain. Further, LADCo

performed an analysis which focused on

NOX reductions from point sources.

This analysis showed a small increase

in ozone formation. From this result,

LADCo concluded that low level NOX

controls, i.e. mobile and area sources,

would be detrimental to air quality in

the modeling domain. The LADCo

analysis is consistent with the USEPA

NOX waiver policy which requires

consideration of modeling domain wide

peak ozone concentrations.

Comment: Indiana and Michigan

counties now in violation of the ozone

NAAQS will benefit from low-level NOX

emissions reductions.

Response: Regional modeling is

currently being conducted to determine

more precisely where NOX reductions

give a disbenefit. The OTAG modeling

demonstrated that elevated and lowlevel NOX reductions across many states

will generally reduce transported ozone.

The USEPA NOX SIP call proposed on

November 7, 1997, proposed statewide

budgets for NOX. The State has the

ability to decide what NOX reductions

would be most beneficial, after

consideration of downwind benefits and

local disbenefits. The States are

currently conducting additional

modeling in the Lake Michigan area to

determine where NOX reductions are

most beneficial. It is premature to

subject transportation sources in Lake

and Porter Counties to NOX reductions

until this additional modeling is

completed and USEPA finalizes the SIP

call notice and Indiana submits its plan

for NOX reductions.

Comment: USEPA’s PM2.5 NAAQS

requires an additional net air quality

benefit analysis.

Response: The USEPA timeline for

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS

begins with setting up a monitoring

network and collecting data for several

years before designating areas under the

new NAAQS. At this time, the USEPA

does not know which areas will be

designated nonattainment for PM2.5, nor

are there any control strategies currently

proposed for PM2.5. The transportation

conformity requirement is to enable

attainment of the one hour ozone

standard. In this notice, USEPA is only

waiving the transportation conformity

build/no-build test, which requires

reductions in NOX in ozone

nonattainment areas.

Comment: The USEPA has failed to

adequately consider the net

environmental benefits (such as acid

rain reduction) of NOX emissions

reductions in Lake and Porter Counties.

Response: As stated above, the LADCo

analysis demonstrated that across the

board reductions in NOX from point,

area, and mobile sources showed both

benefits and disbenefits in the modeling

domain. Further, the transportation

conformity rule does not require the

build/no-build test for NOX as an ozone

precursor in ozone nonattainment areas

where the Administrator determines

that additional reductions of NOX

would not contribute to attainment of

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. A net

benefit analysis for all environmental

benefits is not required since this

requirement is specific to ozone

nonattainment.

Comment: The USEPA and Indiana

failed to perform the appropriate

environmental justice analysis. The

USEPA has failed to consider the spatial

impact of where reductions could be

anticipated and where increases might

occur with and without NOX conformity

compliance in northwest Indiana and

southeast Chicago. The USEPA is

expected to address the full range of

environmental implications including:

(1) Will the rulemaking increase already

unacceptable levels of air toxics in these

communities? (2) Will this rulemaking

increase already unacceptable levels of

fine particulate matter in these

communities? (3) Will the sprawl

included by the proposal—or the

elevated speed limits allowed—

disproportionately impact at-risk

populations? (4) Will this proposal

further exacerbate the difficulty of low

income and unemployed citizens in the

region commuting to employment

opportunities?

Response: As discussed in the January

6, 1998, proposed approval, the role that

NOX emissions play in producing ozone

at any given place and time is complex.

Modeling shows that controlling low

level NOX in northwest Indiana could in

fact increase ozone concentrations in

local urban areas particularly the

minority areas in Lake County, Indiana

and southeast Chicago. This disbenefit

is caused by the reaction of nitrogen

oxide with ozone, which locally reduces

ozone concentrations, and is referred to

as ozone scavenging. Since emissions of

NOX from fuel combustion sources,

whether internal combustion engines or

stationary combustion sources, such as

industrial boilers, contain significant
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40043

amounts of NO, it is expected that ozone

concentrations immediately downwind

of such NOX sources will be reduced

through ozone scavenging. Therefore,

reducing NOX emissions can lead to

increased ozone concentrations in the

vicinity of the controlled NOX emission

sources, while causing a reduction in

ozone concentrations further

downwind. Reducing NOX emissions in

VOC-limited areas (areas with low VOC

emissions relative to NOX emissions)

may produce minimal ozone reductions

or even ozone increases. This pattern of

NOX scavenging is demonstrated in the

LADCo modeling. Therefore, controlling

low level NOX in northwest Indiana

could in fact increase ozone

concentrations in local urban areas

particularly the minority areas in Lake

County, Indiana and southeast Chicago.

This, in fact, is what the LADCo

modeling demonstrated.

As for the other environmental and

social implications, this rulemaking

addresses NOX reduction for meeting

the ozone standard and merely waives

the build/no-build reduction

requirement for transportation sources.

NOX from the transportation plan is not

expected to increase significantly and

thus will not increase air toxics or fine

particulates. It is through the

transportation planning process that

transportation decisions are made.

This transportation conformity waiver

is not expected to adversely affect the

transportation options of minority

populations in northwest Indiana. In

fact, letters from IDEM and Indiana

Department of Transportation and the

Northwestern Indiana Regional

Planning Commission indicate that the

NOX transportation waiver, will allow

transportation planning to be simplified

and allow federal funding of

transportation improvements to

proceed.

Comment: The Indiana request

utilizes the BEIS–I inventory for

biogenic emissions. OTAG concluded

that the BEIS–II inventory is the

preferred inventory for UAM analyses.

Response: The BEIS–I was the

approved and most appropriate biogenic

emissions inventory available to LADCo

when the NOX modeling analysis was

performed. Any subsequent modeling

performed by LADCo will utilize the

BEIS–II biogenic emissions inventory.

Comment: OTAG concluded that both

elevated and low level NOX reductions

are effective in reducing ozone levels.

These conclusions were based

extensively on OTAG modeling, and are

significant and relevant to USEPA’s

action on this rule. The modeling

clearly demonstrated the efficacy of

reducing low-level (mobile source) NOX

in controlling ozone. The conclusions of

the policy group were that such

reductions were cost effective, and

beneficial to reduce transport to

downwind areas.

Response: It should be noted that

OTAG concluded that States must have

the opportunity to conduct additional

local and subregional modeling to assess

appropriate, type, and timing of

controls. OTAG further concluded that

States can work together, in

coordination with USEPA, toward

developing local SIPs including an

evaluation of possible local NOX

disbenefits. In addition, OTAG

modeling results demonstrated a

significant potential for NOX control

disbenefits in the Lake Michigan area.

Comment: OTAG concluded that

disbenefit analyses found ozone

increases to be less frequent and severe

than USEPA concluded based on the

July 13, 1994 LADCo 182(f) NOX waiver

submittal.

Response: The OTAG fine grid

analysis utilized a 12 km grid as

compared to the LADCo fine grid of 4

km. This disparity in fine grid size can

de-emphasize the NOX disbenefit at the

local urbanized area. OTAG concluded

that some areas will experience local

NOX disbenefits at more frequent

pronounced levels when finer grids are

considered.

Comment: In previous rulemakings on

similar NOX waiver requests, USEPA

committed to incorporate the OTAG

findings in future USEPA rulemakings.

OTAG recommendations are now

complete, OTAG findings are clear, and

USEPA has validated these OTAG

findings in proposing its NOX SIP call.

This proposal is inconsistent with and

even undermines the USEPA NOX SIP

call.

Response: The summary of OTAG

findings states that NOX reductions

decrease and increase ozone: decreases

occur domain wide; increases are

confined to a few days in a few urban

areas.

The USEPA’s recently proposed

regional NOX rulemaking uses the

OTAG findings to identify States which

contribute significantly to ozone

problem areas in other states. In

addition, the proposed rulemaking

establishes State wide NOX budgets for

the year 2007.

A section of the rulemaking also

solicits comments on approaches that

can be used to address the disbenefit

issue in areas such as Lake Michigan.

Subsequent modeling by the LADCo

States will need to address the

disbenefit issue as it pertains to the NOX

budget, ozone transport, and attainment.

It is premature at this time to require

NOX reductions from transportation

sources in northwest Indiana before

completion of modeling, finalization of

the NOX SIP call and preparation of the

State implementation plan to address

state NOX reductions.

IV. USEPA Action

In this final action, USEPA is

approving the transportation conformity

NOX waiver SIP revision for the State of

Indiana. In light of the modeling

completed thus far and considering the

importance of the Ozone Transport

Assessment Group process and

attainment plan modeling efforts the

USEPA notes that it may reexamine the

impact of this NOX waiver as future

modeling becomes available. In the near

future, USEPA intends to require

appropriate States to submit SIP

measures to achieve emissions

reductions of ozone precursors needed

to prevent significant transport of ozone.

The USEPA will evaluate the States’

submitted SIP measures and available

refined modeling to determine whether

the NOX waiver should remain in place,

or whether USEPA will require a new

plan revision.

The USEPA also reserves the right to

require NOX emission controls for

transportation sources under section

110(a)(2)(D) of the Act if future ozone

modeling demonstrates that such

controls are needed to achieve the ozone

standard in downwind areas.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Executive Order 13045

This final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks,’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

Executive Order 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not
40044 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impactr on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of the

State action. The Clean Air Act forbids

EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs

on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.

EPA., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

undertake various actions in association

with any proposed or final rule that

includes a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs to state, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more. This federal action does not

impose any new federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or the

private sector, result from this action.

E. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective.

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by September 25, 1998. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (see section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ozone,

Transportation-air quality planning,

Transportation conformity.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: July 15, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.777 is amended by

adding paragraph (t) to read as follows:

§ 52.777 Control strategy: Photochemical

Oxidants (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *

(t) Approval—On May 24, 1996, the

Indiana Department of Environmental

Management submitted a revision to the

ozone State Implementation Plan for

Lake and Porter Counties. The submittal

pertained to a plan for the

implementation of the Federal

transportation conformity requirements

in accordance with 40 CFR part 51

subpart T—Conformity to State or

Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Developed, Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the

Federal Transit Act.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–19931 Filed 7–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY–90–1–9735a: FRL–6130–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans Kentucky:

Adoption of General Conformity

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1995, the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, through

the Kentucky Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet

(KNREPC), submitted revisions to EPA

concerning the adoption of general

conformity rules into the Kentucky State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Since

general conformity rules are required by

Section 176 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

in all nonattainment and maintenance

areas and the Kentucky submittal is

consistent with EPA requirements, these

revisions are being incorporated into the

Federally approved Kentucky SIP.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 25, 1998 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 26, 1998. If adverse

comment is received, EPA will publish

a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Gregory

O. Crawford at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of

documents relative to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the locations

below. The interested persons wanting

to examine these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. Reference file

KY–90–9735. The Region 4 office may

have additional background documents

not available at the other locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303, Gregory O. Crawford, 404/562–

9046.

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural

Resources and Environmental