12688 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or 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.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 8, 1995.

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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Small business assistance

program.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the State of

Washington was approved by the Director of

the Office of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 1, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

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 WW—Washington

2. Section 52.2470 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(45) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(45) On November 16, 1992 the

Director of the Washington State

Department of Ecology submitted ‘‘State

Implementation Plan for the

Washington State Business Assistance

Program,’’ adopted November 13, 1992,

as a revision to the Washington SIP.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) November 13, 1992 letter from the

Director of the Washington State

Department of Ecology submitting

‘‘State Implementation Plan for the

Washington State Business Assistance

Program’’ to EPA.

(B) State Implementation Plan for the

Washington State Business Assistance

Program, including Appendix B,

Revised Code of Washington (RCW)

70.94.035; Appendix D, Washington

Administrative Code 173–400–180;

Appendix E, RCW 70.94.181; and

Appendix F, Business Assistance

Program Guidelines (and exluding

Appendices A, C, and G), dated

November 1992, and adopted November

13, 1992.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5447 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 52

[GA–15–1–6285a; GA–21–4–6514a: FRL–

5153–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans Georgia:

Approval of Part D New Source Review

(NSR) Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1986, and

November 13, 1992, the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources,

Environmental Protection Division

(EPD) submitted to EPA amendments to

Georgia Air Quality Control Rules for

Definitions and Permits. Georgia’s

definitions rule was amended to

incorporate and adopt by reference

definitions in Federal rules for

application in designated nonattainment

areas. Georgia’s permit rule was

amended to add new paragraphs to meet

the requirements of the Clean Air Act

(Act) as amended in 1977 and 1990. The

New Source Review (NSR) revisions of

the Georgia submittal fully meet the

NSR requirements of the amended Act.

Therefore, EPA is approving the

submitted revisions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

May 8, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 7, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Dick Schutt, Regulatory

Planning and Development Section, Air

Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides &

Toxics Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this final action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Region 4 Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency,

345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta,

Georgia 30365.

Air Protection Branch, Georgia

Environmental Protection Division,

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, 4244 International

Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia

30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please contact Dick Schutt of the EPA

Region 4 Air Programs Branch at 404–

347–3555, extension 4206, and at the

above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 15, 1986, the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

submitted changes to Chapter 391–3–1

of their rules, Rules for Air Quality

Control. Among the revisions were

amendments to Georgia Air Quality

Control Rules 391–3–1–.01, Definitions,

and 391–3–1–.03, Permits. EPA

proposed to approve these revisions in

the June 3, 1988 Federal Register

document (53 FR 20347).

In response to the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (CAAA), the DNR

submitted on November 13, 1992,

additional changes to the Air Quality

rules. This submittal, along with the

1986 submittal, satisfies the new source

review requirements for nonattainment

areas in Georgia. Georgia Rule 391–3–1–

.01, Definitions, was amended to

incorporate and adopt by reference the

definitions contained in 40 CFR

51.165(a)(1) (i)–(xix) for application in

designated nonattainment areas. The

definitions contained in the Federal

rules include definitions for the

following: stationary source, major

stationary source, potential to emit,

major modification, net emissions

increase, emissions unit, secondary

emissions, fugitive emissions,

significant, allowable emissions, actual

emissions, lowest achievable emission

rate, federally enforceable, begin actual

construction, commence, necessary
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12689

preconstruction approvals or permits,

construction, and volatile organic

compounds.

Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.03(8) provides

for permitting of new and modified

major sources. Paragraph 1 of Georgia

Rule 391–3–1–.03(8)(c) was revised to

conform to the statutory language in

section 173(a)(1)(A) of the Act,

concerning emission offsets. Paragraphs

2 and 3 were not changed and require

a proposed source to comply with the

lowest achievable emission rate and to

demonstrate statewide compliance

under the Act by the owner or operator

of the proposed source. Paragraph 4 was

revised to conform to the statutory

language in section 173(a)(5) by

requiring an analysis of alternatives to

any proposed source. Paragraph 5 was

not changed and requires a finding that

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) is

being carried out in accordance with the

requirements of part D of Title I of the

Act.

Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.03(8)(c),

Permits, was amended in 1986 to add

six new paragraphs (paragraphs 6 to 11)

to meet the requirements of 40 CFR

51.165(a)(3)(i), (3)(ii)(C)–(D), (3)(ii)(F)–

(G), and (4)(i)–(xxvii). The new

paragraph of 391–3–1–.03(8)(c)

specified as paragraph six (6) meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i).

Paragraph six (6) is more stringent than

the latter in stating that ‘‘the offset

baseline for determining credits for

emission reductions at a source is the

applicable emission limit in this

Chapter or the actual emissions at the

time the application to construct is

filed, whichever is less.’’ Regulation 40

CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i) simply states that

‘‘the baseline for determining credit for

emission reductions is the emissions

limit under the applicable State

Implementation Plan in effect at the

time the application to construct is

filed, except that the offset baseline

shall be the actual emissions of the

source from which the offset credit is

obtained * * *. In addition, paragraph

six (6) incorporates the stipulation that

‘‘creditable reductions must occur

within two years prior to the filing of

the permit application and the time the

newly permitted source emissions

commence.’’

Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.03(8)(c),

paragraph seven (7) specifies that in

order to be used for offset credits, a

‘‘shutdown or curtailment of

production’’ occurring prior to the date

of the new source application must

occur ‘‘less than one year prior to the

date of permit application,’’ and the

new source must be a replacement for

the shutdown in whole or in part.

Paragraph seven (7) meets the

requirements of 40 CFR

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C).

Paragraph eight (8) of Georgia Rule

391–3–1–.03(8)(c) states, ‘‘No emission

offset credit may be allowed for

replacing one VOC compound with

another of less reactivity.’’ This

paragraph is more stringent than the

corresponding Federal regulation, 40

CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(D), which allows for

certain exceptions.

Paragraph nine (9) of Georgia Rule

391–3–1–.03(8)(c) is identical to 40 CFR

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F), except in an apparent

typographical error, paragraph nine

refers to 40 CFR Part 52, Appendix S,

rather than 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S.

Because there is no Appendix S to Part

52, EPA believes that a typographical

error occurred and interprets the

paragraph to refer to 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix S. Paragraph ten (10),

although worded differently, is identical

in meaning to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G).

Paragraph eleven (11) is identical in

meaning to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(4)(i)–

(xxvii), but stated in a different manner.

Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.03(8)(c) was

amended in 1992 to add two new

paragraphs to meet the NSR

requirements of the amended Act.

Paragraph 12 was added to meet the

offset requirements and paragraph 13

was added to identify additional

provisions for the ozone nonattainment

areas. Paragraph 12 is nearly identical to

the statutory language in section 173(c)

of the Act. Paragraph 13 is nearly

identical to the statutory language in

section 182(c), especially section

182(c)(6–8, 10), of the Act.

The 1992 submittal also deleted

Georgia Rule 391–3–1.03(8)(f). The

requirement in this paragraph regarding

de minimis levels was incorporated in

the paragraph (8)(c).

The 1986 submittal adopted the

definition of ‘‘stationary source’’ which

was promulgated on June 25, 1982 (47

FR 27554), by EPA. This definition

excludes all vessel emissions in

determining if the source is major. On

January 17, 1984, the Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

overturned and remanded to EPA for

further consideration the vessel

emission exemption portion of EPA’s

new source review regulations. EPA has

not yet completed its reconsideration of

how vessel emissions are to be treated.

However, Georgia has submitted a

written statement specifying that

waterways (of the appropriate depth and

width) to afford passage of ships and

barges are not located within the Atlanta

nonattainment area, the only such area

in Georgia. Therefore, EPA is approving

the amendments to Georgia Rules 391–

3–1–.01 and 391–3–1–.03.

The proposal (June 3, 1988 (53 FR

20347)) referenced that Georgia lacked

provisions for source responsibility (40

CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii)). The Georgia

Environmental Protection Division

notified EPA on February 28, 1989, that

they intend to apply Georgia Rule 391–

3–1-.03(8)(c) to any source which

becomes a major source or undergoes

modification due to a change in

operation and not covered in an

enforceable permit. EPA believes that

this satisfies the requirement of 40 CFR

51.165(a)(5)(ii).

On October 14, 1981, the EPA revised

the NSR regulations in 40 CFR Part 51

to give states the option of adopting the

‘‘plantwide’’ definition of stationary

source which provides that only

physical or operational changes that

result in a net increase in emissions at

the entire plant require a NSR permit.

For example, if a plant increased

emissions from one piece of process

equipment but reduced emissions by the

same amount at another piece of process

equipment, then there would be no net

increase in emissions at the plant and

therefore, no ‘‘modification’’ to the

‘‘source.’’ The plantwide definition is in

contrast to the so-called ‘‘dual’’

definition [or definitional structure like

that in the 1979 offset ruling (44 FR

3274), which has much the same effect

as the dual definition]. Under the dual

definition, the emissions from each

physical or operational change are

gauged without regard to reductions

elsewhere at the plant.

In the October 1981 Federal Register

document, EPA set forth its rationale for

allowing use of the plantwide definition

(46 FR 50766–50769). In EPA’s view,

allowing use of the plantwide definition

was a reasonable accommodation of the

conflicting goals of part D of the Act.

The Act provided for reasonable further

progress (RFP) and timely attainment of

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS), while also allowing for

maximum state flexibility and economic

growth. EPA recognized that the

plantwide definition would bring fewer

plant modifications into the

nonattainment permitting process, but

emphasized that this generally would

not interfere with RFP and timely

attainment primarily because the states,

under the demands of part D, eventually

would have adequate SIPs in place. For

instance, EPA stated:

Since demonstration of attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS continues to be

required, deletion of the dual definition

increases State flexibility without interfering

with timely attainment of the ambient

standards and so is consistent with Part D [46

FR 50767 col. 2].
12690 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

EPA also indicated that under the

plantwide definition, new equipment

would still be subjected to any

applicable new source performance

standard and that wholly new plants, as

well as any modifications that resulted

in a significant net emissions increase,

would still be subject to NSR. Thus,

EPA saw no significant disadvantage in

the plantwide definition from the

environmental standpoint, but the

advantages from the standpoints of state

flexibility and economic growth. It

regarded the plantwide definition as

presenting, at the very worst,

environmental risks that were

manageable because of the independent

impetus to create adequate part D plans.

As a result, EPA ruled that a state

wishing to adopt a plantwide definition

generally has complete discretion to do

so, and it set only one restriction on that

discretion. If a state had specifically

projected emission reductions from its

NSR program as a result of a dual or

similar definition and had relied on

those reductions in an attainment

strategy that EPA later approved, then

the state needed to revise its attainment

strategy as necessary to accommodate

reduced NSR permitting under the

plantwide definition (46 FR 50767 Col.

2 and 50769 Col. 1).

In 1984, the Supreme Court upheld

EPA’s action as a reasonable

accommodation of the conflicting

purposes of part D of the Act, and

hence, well within EPA’s broad

discretion. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.

Natural Resources Defense Council,

Inc., 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984). Specifically,

the Court agreed that the plantwide

definition is fully consistent with the

Act’s goal of maximizing state flexibility

and allowing reasonable economic

growth. Likewise, the Court recognized

that EPA had advanced a reasonable

explanation for its conclusion that the

plantwide definition serves the Act’s

environmental objectives as well (see

104 S. Ct. at 2792). EPA today generally

reaffirms the rationales stated in the

1981 rulemaking. Those rationales were

left undisturbed by the Supreme Court

decision.

The SIP revision EPA is approving in

this action substitutes a plantwide

definition for a dual definition in

Georgia’s existing NSR program. The

one nonattainment area to which this

program applies (the 13-county

metropolitan Atlanta area for ozone) has

a part D plan previously approved by

EPA, but nevertheless is still

experiencing violations of the ozone

NAAQS. In response to a 1984 SIP call,

Georgia submitted a SIP addressing the

nonattainment situation on May 22,

1985. Due to major deficiencies in the

submittal EPA proposed disapproval (52

FR 26435, July 14, 1987). An updated

and revised SIP was later submitted

October 1, 1987. The SIP addressed

many problems noted in the earlier

submittal, however, a few minor

problems still existed after a detailed

review by EPA. In a letter to the Georgia

Environmental Protection Division

dated November 9, 1989, EPA identified

a few remaining minor Volatile Organic

Compound (VOC) Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) issues that

had to be resolved before EPA could

approve the revision. Georgia resolved

these issues and they have been

approved by EPA in a Federal Register

document dated October 13, 1992 (57

FR 46780). In fact Georgia has submitted

several revisions required by the

amended Act prior to the attainment of

the NAAQS by 1999, the statutory

attainment date for serious ozone

nonattainment areas. Georgia has

submitted revisions for VOC and NOX

Reasonable Available Control

Technology, Stage II vapor recovery,

clean fuel fleet regulations and 15%

VOC reduction. These revisions will be

acted on in subsequent actions. The

State has shown that in obtaining EPA

approval of its original part D SIP it did

not rely on any emission reductions

from the operation of its existing NSR

program. Therefore, EPA approves the

switch to a plantwide definition, in

accordance with its 1981 action.

Georgia’s plantwide definition of

source is consistent with the NSR

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas in the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990. The Atlanta area is classified as

a ‘‘serious’’ ozone nonattainment area.

Therefore, the attainment date for

Atlanta is now 1999 (see section 181(a)),

and Georgia must meet an independent

requirement to reduce VOC emissions

by fifteen percent in the first six years

after 1990 and three percent per year

thereafter (see section 182 (b) and

(c)(2)(B)). While Georgia must account

for the impact of its plantwide

definition of source in the attainment

and reasonable further progress

demonstrations it submits under the

1990 Amendments, it is clear that

Congress anticipated States could use

the plantwide definition of source when

devising such plans.

The 1990 Amendments include

provisions regulating the application of

the plantwide definition of source,

including a special rule for serious and

severe ozone nonattainment areas for

determining ‘‘de minimis’’ net increases

in VOC emissions from source

modifications (section 182(c)(6)). It is

clear that Congress anticipates states

will often continue to employ EPA’s

plantwide definition of source in ozone

nonattainment areas (except in extreme

areas, see section 182(e)(2)), provided

the states can also meet the new

reasonable further progress

requirements in the Act. In addition, it

is important to note that the 1990

Amendments’ adoption of new future

attainment deadlines for ozone has

mooted concerns regarding the

approvability of a plantwide source

definition where a state has additional

time to submit a revised SIP to provide

for attainment by the revised deadline.

As described above, Georgia has already

begun to meet its obligations under the

1990 Amendments.

All of the amendments to Georgia

Rules 391–3–1–.01 and 391–3–1–.03 are

identical to or more stringent than

corresponding federal regulations.

Therefore, they will adequately protect

the NAAQS and meet all requirements

of the Act.

Public Comments

EPA received comments on the

proposed approval of these SIP

revisions from two sources. Both

commenters questioned approval of the

‘‘plantwide’’ new source definition for

nonattainment areas without an

approved plan.

Response to Comments

As discussed earlier in this document,

Georgia’s submission, including the

plantwide source definition, meets all

applicable Federal regulations and

policies. Further, the 1990 Amendments

accommodate a plantwide definition of

source and provide revised attainment

deadlines. Finally, the State’s previous

attainment demonstration did not rely

on NSR reductions from the dual source

definition, and Georgia is making

reasonable efforts to develop a complete

and approvable ozone SIP in accordance

with the 1990 Amendments. Therefore,

EPA is approving this SIP revision.

Final Action

EPA is approving the aforementioned

amendments to the Georgia rules

submitted on December 15, 1986, and

November 13, 1992.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views these as noncontroversial

amendments and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revisions should

adverse or critical comments be filed.

This action will be effective on May 8,

1995 unless, by April 7, 1995 adverse or

critical comments are received.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12691

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective on May 8, 1995.

Nothing in this action shall be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for a 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.

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 May 8, 1995. This action may

not be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See 307(b)(2).)

The OMB has exempted these actions

from review under Executive Order

12866.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

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 it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action.

The Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency et al,

96 S.Ct. 2518 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2) and 7410(k).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Environmental

protection, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: February 6, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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 L—Georgia

2. Section 52.570 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(39) to read as

follows:

§ 52.570 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(39) On December 15, 1986, and

November 13, 1992, the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources,

Environmental Protection Division

submitted regulations for Part D New

Source Review.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

Revisions to the following Rules of

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection

Division, effective November 22, 1992:

(A) 391–3–1–.01 introductory

paragraph

(B) 391–3–1–.03(8)(c)

(ii) Other material. Letter dated

February 28, 1989, from the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources, page

3 regarding change in operation of a

source.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5441 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[AR–3–1–5727a; FRL–5155–8]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of Title V, Section 507,

Small Business Stationary Source

Technical and Environmental

Compliance Assistance Program for

Arkansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Arkansas for the purpose of establishing

a Small Business Stationary Source

Technical and Environmental

Compliance Assistance Program. The

SIP revision was submitted by the State

to satisfy the Federal mandate, found in

the Clean Air Act (CAA), to ensure that

small businesses have access to the

technical assistance and regulatory

information necessary to comply with

the CAA. The rationale for the approval

is set forth in this document; additional

information is available at the address

indicated in the ADDRESSES section.

DATES: This final rule will become

effective on May 8, 1995, unless adverse

or critical comments are received by

April 7, 1995. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas Diggs, Chief (6T–AP), Planning

Section, at the EPA Regional Office

listed below. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Programs Branch (6T–

AP), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460.

Arkansas Department of Pollution

Control and Ecology, Division of Air

Pollution Control, 8001 National

Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Crocker, Planning Section (6T–

AP), Air Programs Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214)

665–7596.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Implementation of the provisions of

the CAA, as amended in 1990, will

require regulation of many small

businesses so that areas may attain and

maintain the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and reduce

the emissions of air toxics. Small

businesses frequently lack the technical

expertise and financial resources