Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Implementation Plans; Rhode Island

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RI-6972a; FRL-5711-1]

Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Implementation Plans;

Rhode Island

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing a limited approval, limited disapproval

action on State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the

State of Rhode Island. The SIP revisions consist of the State's 15

Percent Rate of Progress (ROP) Plan and contingency plan. The 15

percent ROP and contingency plans were submitted to satisfy CAA

provisions that require ozone nonattainment areas classified as

moderate and above to devise plans to reduce volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions 15 percent by 1996 when compared to a 1990 baseline.

DATES: This rule is effective May 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during normal business hours, by

appointment, at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th Floor, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02203, and at the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management, Division of Air Resources, 291 Promenade

Street, Providence, Rhode Island, 02908-5767. Persons interested in

examining these documents should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. McConnell, Air Quality

Planning Unit, EPA Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02203; telephone (617) 565-9266.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55943), EPA

published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Rhode

Island. One portion of the NPR consisted of a proposed limited

approval, limited disapproval of a revision to the Rhode Island SIP

establishing a 15 Percent VOC emission reduction plan and contingency

plan. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Rhode Island on March

15, 1994 and updated on May 23, 1994.

The 15 Percent and Contingency plans submitted by Rhode Island

outline

[[Page 18713]]

a strategy to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the Providence, Rhode

Island serious nonattainment area. The specific components of the

State's plans and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained

in the NPR and will not be restated here.

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) was

the sole commenter on the NPR. Their comments are contained within a

November 26, 1996 letter to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office of

Ecosystem Protection. The region has responded fully to the RI-DEM

comments in a response to comments memorandum available in the docket

for this action. A summary of these comments and EPA's responses

appears below.

Comment--Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M): The DEM

acknowledges that implementation of an I/M program has not yet

occurred, but points out that much work has occurred over the past

several years to initiate such a program. The DEM feels that EPA's

recent flexibility in the design of such programs, while laudable, has

made it difficult to finalize any particular program. A brief history

of the State's efforts in this area is then provided.

Response: EPA recognizes the actions taken to date by Rhode Island

with regard to the implementation of an I/M program in the State.

However, Rhode Island has not complied with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act and EPA regulations which required that states start such

programs by January 1, 1995. Rhode Island correctly notes that EPA has

been modifying requirements to provide greater flexibility to states

for I/M programs, and that EPA has allowed time for states to take

advantage of these new provisions.

The National Highway Systems Designation Act (NHSDA) provided an

opportunity with a very short time window for states to submit test-

and-repair programs without the penalty previously utilized by EPA for

calculating emissions from such programs, and in addition provided time

for program startup. The states which took advantage of this

opportunity are required to start their programs no later than November

15, 1997 in order for a full two year test cycle to occur by November

15, 1999, the date for 15% plan compliance. (There is one NHSDA program

that will not start until 1998, but it has a one year test cycle.)

Rhode Island did not submit an I/M program under the NHSDA. Rhode

Island is not implementing the program currently authorized in the

State and has not yet proposed a substitute program. It is EPA's

understanding that Rhode Island currently envisions starting testing of

motor vehicles in late 1998 or early 1999, and will most likely adopt a

biennial program. That schedule puts the State about one year behind

virtually all other States that need emission reductions from auto

emissions testing to meet the 15 percent emission reduction

requirement. Since Rhode Island's 15% plan relies heavily upon the

emission reductions from a motor vehicle emission testing program, the

timeframe for achieving the 15 percent VOC reductions is similarly

delayed. In an August 1996 memorandum from John Seitz and Margo Oge to

the Regional Air Directors, EPA articulated that emission reductions

from revised I/M programs that occur before November, 1999 will be

allowed to count towards 15% plan emission reductions. The continued

delay by Rhode Island in implementing a motor vehicle emission

inspection program will make meeting the November 1999 target date

increasingly difficult for the State.

Comment--Other Deficiencies: The DEM notes that EPA's proposal

identifies several minor discrepancies between EPA's calculation of

appropriate emission reductions and the reductions calculated by the

State, as described below:

1. Comment--Submittal of Drafts, AIM Credit: The RI-DEM notes that

they had submitted the regulations relied upon within the 15% plan, as

well as the 15% plan itself, to EPA in draft form. EPA reviewed and

commented on the draft regulations and the draft 15% plan, and should

have identified these minor problems through that process but did not.

Several of the problems cited, for example, the lack of inclusion of

windshield wiper fluid in the consumer and commercial products rule,

could have easily been addressed at that time. Additionally, EPA

changed the amount of credit states could take due to the EPA's pending

national rule on architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM)

coatings after Rhode Island submitted its 15% plan. The DEM feels that

the EPA's delay in proposing approval or disapproval of the State's

plan should not be grounds for discounting credit due to a revised

estimate of the emission reductions from the pending AIM rule.

Response: The DEM's 15% plan, and four VOC control regulations

relied upon in the plan to achieve emission reductions were submitted

in early 1994. EPA used the best information available at the time

drafts of these documents were submitted to review and analyze the

emission reduction claims made by the state, and made a good faith

effort to identify all errors at that time. A minor discrepancy (0.05

tons per day) in the amount of credit claimed from plant shutdowns was

not detected at that time, but was noted subsequent to the final

submittal by the state.

During 1995, EPA finalized a report to Congress on VOC emissions

from the consumer and commercial product category. Information

contained in that report allowed EPA to perform a detailed analysis of

the emission reductions claimed by Rhode Island from its rule on this

emission source category. That review disclosed that the State had

overestimated the emission reductions likely to result from this rule.

EPA agrees that Rhode Island correctly calculated the amount of

credit likely to occur from the EPA's pending AIM rule based on EPA

guidance available at the time of the State's submittal. However, EPA

later revised the emission reduction estimate downward based on a

better understanding of what the provisions of the final rule would be.

The DEM could have revised its plan in light of the new guidance. EPA

believes that the best information available should be used in making

determinations on the emission reductions within the 15% plan, and

therefore feels that the most recent guidance memorandum on credit from

the AIM rule is the appropriate tool to use to analyze the State's

credit claim.

With regard to delays by EPA in processing the State's SIP, EPA did

not feel it was appropriate to move forward with an approval or

disapproval of Rhode Island's 15% plan given the uncertain status of

the State's auto emission testing program. EPA chose to propose

disapproval of the State's plan when it became clear that significant

delays were occurring in the implementation of the program.

2. Comment--Air Toxics and Non-Control Technique Guideline (CTG)

Reductions: The DEM's comments reflect that EPA's only reason for not

approving the emission reduction credit generated by these programs is

that they have not been submitted to EPA as SIP revisions. The DEM

notes that since the reductions have occurred, according to the

Transportation Conformity Regulation, these deficiencies could be

protected by a protective finding and should not trigger the

transportation consequences indicated in the proposed disapproval.

Response: Section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires

creditable reductions to be in a State's implementation plan, EPA

rules, or

[[Page 18714]]

Title V permits. As discussed within the proposed action, Rhode Island

can receive credit from these programs by incorporating the relevant

documents into the State's SIP.

The DEM's claim that pursuant to the EPA's Transportation

Conformity Regulation these deficiencies could be protected by a

protective finding is not correct. EPA's rationale for not proposing to

institute a protective finding was based on the failure of the state to

implement an auto emission testing program, not on the failure to

incorporate air toxics and non-CTG orders into the State's SIP. The

failure to implement the auto emission testing program has made the

State's mobile source emission budget unrealistic, and therefore a

protective finding was not proposed.

3. Comment--Basis for Proposed Disapproval: The DEM notes their

understanding that based on conversations with EPA staff, the non-I/M

deficiencies noted in the proposed disapproval would not of themselves

have led EPA to propose disapproval of the State's 15% plan, and that a

recalculation of the State's 15% plan using updated growth assumptions

could negate the need for these non- I/M reductions. DEM requests that

EPA's final rule should clearly state that the failure to secure I/M

reductions formed the basis of EPA's action, and that the other issues

may not be an issue once the ROP calculations are updated.

Response: EPA agrees that it based its proposed disapproval action

primarily on the failure of the State to secure I/M reductions. The

proposed disapproval notice contained a table outlining the magnitude

of the noncreditable emission reductions from which it can clearly be

seen that the failure to achieve reductions from I/M caused the

majority of the shortfall. EPA also agrees that the other issues may

not be of consequence once the State revises its plan. It is possible

that the State will design and implement an I/M program that will

achieve sufficient reductions to yield an approvable 15% plan without

addressing EPA's issues on the non-I/M elements of the plan. But a

great deal depends on the design and timing of Rhode Island's I/M

program, which is still so uncertain that EPA cannot predict whether

Rhode Island will ultimately need to revise the non-I/M elements of its

plan. Additionally EPA notes that the State's current intention to

revise its 15% plan to incorporate updated growth assumptions presents

an opportunity for the State to make these minor corrections and to

submit the SIP revisions necessary to make the non-CTG and air toxics

emission reductions creditable towards the 15% reduction.

Comment--Proposed Action, Conformity Lapse: The DEM notes that

EPA's proposal stipulates that a conformity lapse will occur 120 days

after a final disapproval action, and that after the lapse no new

project level conformity determinations may be made. The DEM agrees

that this is consistent with EPA's current conformity rule, but points

out that under a proposed revision to the EPA's conformity rule

published in July of 1996, a lapse would be imposed 2 years after a

final disapproval action, and that a conformity freeze rather than a

lapse would be imposed 120 days after a final disapproval action.

The DEM notes that the 15% plan was submitted in the Spring of

1994, and that EPA, by proposing action on the plan at this point in

time, gives the appearance of attempting to rush the action through so

that a lapse will occur in the State instead of the less punitive

freeze. The DEM feels this is inappropriate, particularly in light of

the State's good faith efforts to implement I/M in the State.

Accordingly, DEM urges EPA to delay finalizing the disapproval action

until the conformity amendments are finalized. DEM, in turn, will

continue to move forward with I/M as expeditiously as possible, and

will introduce I/M legislation in January of 1997. The DEM also pledges

to update its 15% plan and submit a revised plan to the EPA as an SIP

revision.

Response: EPA did not propose action on Rhode Island's 15% plan in

the fall of 1996 in an attempt to ensure that a conformity lapse,

rather than a freeze, occur. Contrary to Rhode Island's suggestion that

EPA is hurrying this action, EPA has been exceedingly deliberate in its

approach to Rhode Island's 15% plan and I/M program. The EPA has

delayed action on most 15% plans because most of these plans relied

substantially on the reductions from I/M programs, and most I/M

programs have been delayed. In 1995, EPA revised its criteria for

acceptable I/M programs. The goal of the revised I/M criteria was to

give states flexibility in the design of such programs. The NHSDA of

1995 outlines the EPA's revised I/M criteria, and set a timetable for

States to implement the revised criteria. Rhode Island did not meet

this timetable, and it was that failure that finally led EPA to propose

disapproval of Rhode Island's 15% plan. Although EPA hopes that Rhode

Island is committed to implementing I/M, the fact is that the State is

significantly behind similar efforts being made by other States.

On January 17, 1997, EPA's Regional Administrator sent a letter to

Governor Almond addressing the issue of the timing of a conformity

lapse. Within that letter, EPA notes that once the proposed revisions

to the conformity rule are finalized, Rhode Island will be subject to

their provisions, regardless of when the final disapproval action is

published for the State's 15% plan. Therefore, if EPA's conformity rule

is finalized as it was proposed, and prior to the expiration of the 120

day conformity lapse clock required by the current conformity rule, a

conformity freeze rather than a lapse will be imposed on the state. If

EPA's conformity rule is finalized after expiration of the 120 day

clock, a lapse would go into effect. The lapse, however, would convert

to a freeze once EPA's conformity rule is finalized, presuming the

final conformity rule reflects the position on this issue articulated

in the proposal.

Final Action

The EPA is issuing a limited approval, limited disapproval of the

Rhode Island 15 Percent ROP and Contingency plans. The Rhode Island 15

Percent ROP plan will not achieve enough reductions to meet the

requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. Additionally, the portion

of the State's contingency plan consisting of the two VOC control

regulations does not meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the

CAA. These regulations are triggered upon failure of the State to meet

ROP requirements, but are not also triggered by failure of the State to

attain the NAAQS for ozone by the area's attainment date as required by

section 172(c)(9). In light of these deficiencies, the EPA cannot grant

full approval of these plan revisions under Section 110(k)(3) and Part

D.

However, the EPA may grant a limited approval of the submitted

plans under section 110(k)(3) and section 301(a) since the rules making

up the 15 Percent Plan and the Contingency Plan will result in VOC

emission reductions and will strengthen the SIP. Thus, the EPA is

issuing a limited approval of the Rhode Island 15 Percent Plan and

Contingency Plan under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

The EPA is also issuing a limited disapproval of the Rhode Island

15 Percent plan under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) because the

submittal does not fully meet the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of

the CAA for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans, and the plan does

not achieve the required emission reductions. In addition, the EPA is

issuing a limited disapproval of

[[Page 18715]]

the Rhode Island Contingency plan. The plan does not meet the

requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for contingency

measures because the plan, if implemented, will not achieve the

required 3 percent emission reduction. Additionally, the plan does not

fully meet the requirements of section 172(c)(9) regarding

implementation of contingency measures if the area's attainment date is

not met according to the schedule outlined within the CAA.

Rhode Island has expressed its intention to submit a revised

vehicle I/M program. The additional reductions from vehicle I/M may

serve to correct the shortfall identified in this proposed Federal

Register Action. Alternatively, Rhode Island could implement its

existing I/M program. To gain full approval of its 15 percent plan,

Rhode Island will need to submit a revised plan that documents the

necessary enforceable reductions, such as those resulting from a

revised I/M program or other enforceable measures, to meet the 15

percent rate of progress requirements and include sufficient

contingency measures to achieve a 3 percent reduction.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a

submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment

based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements

required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions

set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two

sanctions available to the Administrator: The imposition of emission

two for one offset requirements, and loss of certain highway funding.

The 18-month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the

effective date established in the final limited disapproval action. If

the deficiency is not corrected within 6 months of the imposition of

the first sanction, the second sanction will apply. This sanctions

process is set forth at 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994), to be codified at

40 CFR 52.31. Moreover, within two years of the final disapproval of a

required SIP submission, the EPA shall promulgate a federal

implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c).

On January 18, 1995, the EPA made a completeness determination on

the Rhode Island 15 percent plans with an approval of the established

motor vehicle emission budget for use in transportation conformity

determinations. Because the motor vehicle emission budget is based to a

significant extent upon an I/M program not being implemented by Rhode

Island, EPA has determined that budget is no longer credible. EPA,

therefore, is rescinding the protective finding \1\ through this final

disapproval action. EPA is notifying the State, the Metropolitan

Planning Organizations, the U.S. Federal Highway Agency, and the U.S.

Federal Transit Administration of the effect of a disapproval action on

conformity in Rhode Island. Under the current Transportation Conformity

Regulations, the conformity status of the transportation plan and

transportation improvement program shall lapse 120 days after the

effective date of EPA's final disapproval without a protective finding,

and no new project-level conformity determinations may be made.

Furthermore, no new transportation plan, TIP, or projects may be found

to conform until another control strategy implementation plan revision

fulfilling the same Clean Air Act requirements is submitted, found

complete, and conformity to this submission is determined.

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

\1\ Protective finding means a determination by EPA that the

control strategy contained in a submitted control strategy

implementation plan revision would have been considered approvable

with respect to requirements for emission reductions if all

committed measures had been submitted in enforceable form as

required by Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(A).

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

The timeframe for the conformity lapse, which as discussed above is

120 days after the effective date of EPA's final disapproval action,

could be changed by a revision to EPA's conformity rule. On July 9,

1996, EPA published (61 FR 36112) a proposed rule which would modify

the Transportation Conformity rule. A key provision contained in the

proposal was a change in the penalty that occurs 120 days after a final

disapproval action. Instead of a lapse, a less punitive conformity

freeze was proposed to occur in 120 days. In EPA's proposed conformity

rule revision, the more restrictive lapse would be imposed 2 years

after a final disapproval action. Therefore, if the conformity rule is

finalized as proposed, the conformity lapse will take place 2 years

from the effective date of the final disapproval action, and a freeze

would be imposed in the period between 120 days and 2 years following

the effective date of this action. Rhode Island will ultimately be

subject to the provisions contained in EPA's final conformity rule.

Nothing in this proposed rule 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 any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted

this action from review under Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, the 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 sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D

of the Clean Air 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 CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v U.S.

EPA, 427 US 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

The EPA's limited disapproval of the State request under sections

110 and 301, and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any

existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing

Federal requirements remain in place after this limited disapproval.

Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State-

enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's limited disapproval of the

submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the

EPA certifies that this limited disapproval action does not

[[Page 18716]]

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing requirements, nor does it impose

any new Federal requirements.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany 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. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting Office prior to

publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial 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 June 16, 1997. 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: March 8, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region I.

Part 52 of 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 OO--Rhode Island

2. Section 52.2070 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(50) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.2070 Identification of plan.

* * * * * *

(c) * * *

(50) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management on March 15, 1994.

The revisions consist of the State's 15 Percent Plan and Contingency

Plan. EPA is approving only the following portions of these submittals:

15 Percent Plan--the EPA is approving the calculation of the required

emission reductions, and the emission reduction credit claimed from

surface coating, printing operations, marine vessel loading, plant

closures (0.79 tons per day approved out of 0.84 claimed), cutback

asphalt, auto refinishing, stage II, reformulated gas in on-road and

off-road engines, and tier I motor vehicle controls. Contingency Plan--

the EPA is approving the calculation of the required emission

reduction, and a portion of the emission reduction credits claimed from

Consumer and Commercial products (1.1 tons per day approved out of 1.9

tons claimed), and architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM)

coatings (1.9 tons per day approved out of 2.4 tons claimed). EPA is

concurrently disapproving portions of these SIP submissions, as

discussed within Sec. 52.2084(a)(2).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management dated March 15, 1994, submitting a revision to the Rhode

Island State Implementation Plan.

2. Section 52.2084 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.2084 Rules and Regulations.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management on March 15, 1994.

The revisions consist of the State's 15 Percent Plan and Contingency

Plan. EPA is disapproving the following portions of these SIP

submittals: 15 Percent Plan--Emission reductions claimed from motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance program, non-CTG sources, air toxic

sources, and plant closures (0.05 tons per day disapproved out of 0.84

tons claimed). Contingency Plan--a portion of the credit claimed from

consumer and commercial products (0.8 tons per day disapproved out of

1.9 tons claimed), and a portion of the credit claimed from AIM

coatings (0.5 tons per day disapproved out of 2.4 tons claimed).

[FR Doc. 97-9949 Filed 4-16-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P