[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18712-18716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9949]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
