[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11149-11153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CO37-2-6290(a); FRL-5417-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA approves the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Colorado. This revision establishes and
requires the implementation of a basic motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado
Springs), Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld Counties (Greeley). The
intended effect of this action is approval of a basic motor vehicle I/M
program. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This action is effective on May 20, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by April 18, 1996. If the effective date
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Douglas Skie,
Chief, Air Programs Branch (8ART-AP), USEPA Region 8, 999 18th Street,
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the address listed above. Anyone wanting to
view these documents must make an appointment at least 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott P. Lee, Air Programs Branch,
State Implementation Plan Section (8ART-AP), USEPA, Region 8, Denver,
Colorado 80202, (303) 293-1887.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Clean Air Act Requirements
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAAA or Act), requires
states to make changes to improve existing I/M programs or implement
new ones. Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires any ozone nonattainment area
which has been classified as ``marginal'' (pursuant to section 181(a)
of the Act) or worse with an existing I/M program that was part of a
SIP, or any area that was required by the 1977 Amendments to the Act to
have an I/M program, to immediately submit a SIP revision to bring the
program up to the level required in past EPA guidance or to what had
been committed to previously in the SIP whichever was more stringent.
All carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas were also subject to this
requirement to improve existing or previously required programs to this
level.
In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to
publish updated guidance for state I/M programs, taking into
consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations
of these programs. The states were to incorporate this guidance into
the SIP for all areas required by the Act to have an I/M program.
On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the EPA published a final
regulation establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182
and 187 of the Act. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S, and requires states to submit an I/M SIP revision which
includes all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40
CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993. The State of
Colorado has met these requirements.
The nonattainment designations for CO and ozone were published in
the Federal Register (FR) on November 6, 1991, and November 30, 1992,
and have been codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See 56
FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992),
codified at 40 CFR 81.300 through 81.437. Based on these nonattainment
designations, basic I/M programs are required in three of Colorado's
Front Range Counties. These are: El Paso County (Colorado Springs area
nonattainment for CO); Larimer County (Fort Collins area nonattainment
for CO); and Weld County (Greeley area nonattainment for CO).
By this action, the EPA is approving this submittal. The EPA has
reviewed the State submittal against the statutory requirements and for
consistency with the EPA regulations. EPA summarizes the requirements
of the Federal I/M regulations as found in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373
and its analysis of the State submittal below. Parties desiring
additional details on the Federal I/M regulation are referred to the
November 5, 1992 Federal Register document (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR
51.350 through 51.373.
II. Background
On January 14, 1994, and on June 24, 1994, the State of Colorado
submitted its
[[Page 11150]]
basic I/M SIP revision for the Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and
Greeley urbanized areas.
The January 14, 1994, submittal included authorizing legislation
(HB1340 adopted by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor);
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation Number 11;
Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, adopted and effective as an
emergency rule December 16, 1993, and the SIP narrative with appendices
entitled, ``State of Colorado Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance State Implementation Plan'', adopted by the AQCC on
November 12, 1993, and again on December 16, 1993, with no substantive
changes. EPA reviewed the January 14, 1994, submittal and identified
aspects which the State would need to address prior to EPA approval.
EPA's primary concerns concentrated on: the need for the State to
submit a final binding regulation to replace the since-lapsed, December
16, 1993, emergency rule. Governor Romer's June 24, 1994, submittal
included a binding regulation adopted by the State on March 17, 1994.
III. State Submittal
The State submittal provides for the upgrading of the existing I/M
program to an EPA approved basic I/M program in the Colorado Springs,
Fort Collins, and Greeley urbanized areas. Colorado is implementing
annual test-and-repair I/M programs which meet the requirements of
EPA's performance standard and other requirements contained in the
Federal I/M rule in the applicable urbanized areas. Testing will be
performed by independent inspection stations with state oversight.
Other aspects of the Colorado I/M program include: testing of all
model-year gasoline-powered vehicles, a test fee to ensure the State/
Counties have adequate resources to implement the program, enforcement
by registration denial, a repair effectiveness program, a commitment to
testing convenience, quality assurance, data collection, three percent
(3%) waiver rate, reporting, test equipment and test procedure
specifications, a commitment to ongoing public information and consumer
protection programs, inspector training and certification, and
penalties against inspector incompetence. An analysis of how the
Colorado I/M programs meet the Federal SIP requirements by section of
the Federal I/M rule is provided below.
A. Applicability
The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas in detail and,
consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the legal authority or
rules necessary to establish program boundaries. Colorado's I/M
program, as authorized by Section 42-4-309(3) C.R.S. are to be
implemented in the western half of El Paso County; Southeastern \2/3\
of Larimer County; and the Greeley metropolitain area including the
cities of Evans, LaSalle, and Garden City. [Boundaries simplified--see
C.R.S. for exact boundary deliniation].
B. Basic I/M Performance Standard
The I/M programs provided for in the SIP are required to meet a
performance standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the
affected area to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard
sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a program in
order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also provide that the
program will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with
provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met. The
State has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA computer
model, MOBILE 5a, showing that the basic performance standard is met in
all of the affected urbanized areas.
C. Network Type
The SIP needs to include a description of the network to be
employed, the required legal authority, and, in the case of areas
making claims for case-by-case equivalency, the required demonstration.
Colorado has chosen to implement decentralized, test-and-repair basic
I/M programs, which are comprised of independently operated facilities.
The Colorado I/M programs, in each of the affected urbanized areas,
allow fleet self-testing programs with oversight by Department of
Revenue employees. Legal authority which is contained in Sections 42-4-
306.5 thru 42-4-316 C.R.S., authorizes the State Departments of Health
and Revenue to implement and oversee these programs.
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
The SIP needs to include a description of the resources that will
be used for program operation, which include: (1) A detailed budget
plan which describes the source of funds for personnel, program
administration, program enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment,
and any other requirements discussed throughout, for the period prior
to the next biennial self-evaluation required in Federal I/M rule; and
(2) a description of personnel resources, the number of personnel
dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program
administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions and the
training attendant to each function.
The SIP narrative and Regulation No. 11, and the authorizing
legislation contained in the submittal, describe the budget, staffing
support, and equipment and resources dedicated to the program meeting
the requirements of the Federal Rule.
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
The SIP needs to include the test schedule in detail, including the
test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. Also, the
SIP needs to include the legal authority necessary to implement and
enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how the test
frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process.
The Colorado basic I/M program requires annual inspections for all
subject motor vehicles. For new vehicles the first test is required for
re-registration four years after initial registration.
F. Vehicle Coverage
The SIP needs to include a detailed description of the number and
types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a plan for how
those vehicles are to be identified, including vehicles that are
routinely operated in the area, but which may not be registered in the
area. Also, the SIP needs to include a description of any special
exemptions which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the
percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be impacted. Such
exemptions need to be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis.
In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority or rule
necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.
Colorado's basic I/M program area vehicle coverage includes all
model year gasoline-powered light-duty cars and trucks, and heavy-duty
gasoline powered trucks registered or required to be registered within
the affected urbanized areas. Additionally, all vehicles operated in
the program area more than ninety days per year are required to comply
with the program requirements. Vehicles are identified through random
parking lot surveys and motor vehicles registration database queries.
Vehicles exempted from the program include: motorcycles, farm
plated vehicles, collector series vehicles, electric vehicles, two-
cycle powered vehicles, vehicles registered as horseless carriages, and
diesel vehicles (required
[[Page 11151]]
to be inspected in diesel emission program). The exempted vehicles are
accounted for in the modeling submitted by the State and documented in
the SIP narrative as required.
G. Test Procedures and Standards
The SIP needs to include a description of each test procedure used.
The SIP also needs to include the rule, ordinance or law describing and
establishing the test procedures.
Colorado's I/M programs use EPA's Preconditioned two-speed idle
test as specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/M-90-3 March 1990, Technical Report,
``Recommended I/M Short Test Procedures for the 1990's: Six
Alternatives.'' The Colorado95 Analyzer calibration specifications and
emissions test procedures meet the minimum standard established in
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart S. Test procedures are established
in Regulation No. 11 as contained in the SIP.
H. Test Equipment
The SIP needs to include written technical specifications for all
test equipment used in the program and shall address each of the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M rule. The
specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance
testing criteria and procedures.
The Colorado I/M SIP commits to meeting the California BAR 90
accuracy standards at a minimum. The Colorado SIP addresses the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and includes descriptions of performance
features and functional characteristics of the Colorado95 computerized
test systems. The necessary test equipment, required features, and
acceptance testing criteria are also contained in the SIP.
I. Quality Control
The SIP needs to include a description of quality control and
recordkeeping procedures. The SIP also needs to include the procedures
manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the
quality control procedures and requirements. The Colorado I/M SIP
narrative contains descriptions and requirements establishing the
quality control procedures in accordance with the Federal I/M rule.
These requirements will help ensure that equipment calibrations are
properly performed and recorded, as well as maintaining compliance
document security. Additional requirements are documented in the SIP
narrative, Regulation No. 11., and the authorizing legislation.
J. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection
The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a
percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be
used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling
analysis. Also, the State needs to take corrective action if the waiver
rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the
emission reductions claimed accordingly.
In addition, the SIP needs to describe the waiver criteria and
procedures, including cost limits, quality assurance methods and
measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP shall include the
necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to issue waivers, set
and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out any other functions
necessary to administer the waiver system, including enforcement of the
waiver provisions. The Colorado basic I/M program commits to a waiver
rate of 3 percent or less. Waiver procedures are detailed in the
Appendices to the SIP submittal, Regulation No. 11, and the authorizing
legislation. Legal authority for waivers is contained in Section 42-4-
312 C.R.S.
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
The SIP needs to provide information concerning the enforcement
process, including: (1) A description of the existing compliance
mechanism if it is to be used in the future and the demonstration that
it is as effective or more effective than registration-denial
enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies responsible for
performing each of the applicable activities in this section; (3) a
description of and accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and
(4) a description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car
fleets, leased vehicles, and any other special classes of subject
vehicles, e.g. those operated in (but not necessarily registered in)
the program area. Also, the SIP needs to include a determination of the
current compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an
estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and
unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such
loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism need to be
supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include
the legal authority to implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the
SIP needs to include a commitment to an enforcement level to be used
for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
The motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented, by
the Department of Revenue Motor Vehicles Division, which will take the
lead in ensuring that owners of all subject vehicles are denied
registration unless they provide valid proof of having received a
certificate indicating they passed an emissions test or been granted a
compliance waiver. State and local police agencies have the authority
to cite motorists with expired registration tags and out-dated
emissions windshield stickers.
Current compliance rates are estimated at greater than 96 percent
in the each of the urbanized areas. The SIP commits to a level of
motorist enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less
than 96 percent among subject vehicles.
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight
The SIP needs to include a description of enforcement program
oversight and information management activities. Penalties for failure
to comply with the program are described in the authorizing legislation
and the Colorado Revised Statutes. Fines of up to $1,000 can be imposed
in cases where motorists are involved in fraudulently obtaining
certificates of compliance, stickers, or registrations. Failure to
register a vehicle also results in significant penalties, as described
in the Colorado Revised Statutes regarding registration penalties. The
State of Colorado has met EPA's requirements for the imposition of
mandatory fines. The State commits to corrective action if a compliance
rate of 96 percent is not maintained in practice.
M. Quality Assurance
The SIP needs to include a description of the quality assurance
program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert
performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. This
requirement does not include materials or discussion of details of
enforcement strategies that would ultimately hamper the enforcement
process.
The Colorado I/M SIP includes a description of its quality
assurance program. The program includes operation and progress reports,
and overt and covert audits of all emission inspectors and emission
inspections. Overt and covert audits, and remote inspector audits will
be performed by the Department of Revenue. Procedures and techniques
for overt and covert
[[Page 11152]]
performance, recordkeeping, and equipment audits are given to auditors
and updated as needed. Current auditor procedures are contained in the
Appendices to the SIP.
N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors
The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal
authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license
suspension, and revocations. In the case of state constitutional
impediments to immediate suspension authority, the state Attorney
General shall furnish an official opinion for the SIP explaining the
constitutional impediment, as well as relevant case law. Also, the SIP
needs to describe the administrative and judicial procedures and
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which
agencies, courts, and jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute
and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the
program requirements, the resources to be allocated to this function,
and the source of those funds. In states without immediate suspension
authority, the SIP needs to demonstrate that sufficient resources,
personnel, and systems are in place to meet the three day case
management requirement for violations that directly affect emission
reductions.
The Colorado submittal includes the legal authority to establish
and impose penalties against stations, contractors and inspectors. The
I/M SIP and regulations include penalty provisions for stations,
contractors, and inspectors. These penalty schedules meet the Federal
I/M regulation requirements and are approvable. The I/M program
legislative authority gives the state auditors the authority to
temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or certificates
immediately upon finding a violation. The submittal includes a
description of administrative and judicial procedures relevant to the
enforcement process which meet Federal I/M regulations and are
approvable.
O. Data Analysis and Reporting
The SIP needs to describe the types of data to be collected. The
State regulation requires the collection of data on each individual
test conducted and describes the type of data to be collected. The type
of test data collected meets the Federal I/M regulation requirements
and is approvable. The appendices to the I/M SIP submittal contain a
procedure manual that details the gathering and reporting requirements
of the State required under 40 CFR Part 51.359 and is approvable. The
Colorado I/M SIP provides reporting summary data based upon program
activities taking place in the previous year. The report will provide
statistics for the testing program, the quality control program, the
quality assurance program, and the enforcement program. At a minimum,
Colorado commits to address all of the data elements listed in section
51.366 of the Federal I/M rule.
P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification
The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the
written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.
The Colorado I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training,
certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training
will include all elements required by 51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule.
All inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect vehicles in
the Colorado I/M program.
Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness
The SIP needs to include a description of the technical assistance
program to be implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria
to be used in meeting the performance monitoring requirements of this
section for enhanced I/M programs, and a description of the repair
technician training resources available in the community.
The Colorado SIP commits the program technical and supervisory
staff to continue to work with both motor vehicle owners and the
automotive service industry regarding their vehicles failing to meet
the exhaust emission levels. These direct contacts are normally either
by telephone or person-to-person. Customers with vehicles that present
unusual testing problems or situations are referred to a State-run
Technical Center for further testing and diagnostics.
IV. This Action
In this action, the EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by
the State of Colorado for purposes of implementing a Basic I/M program
in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado Springs), Larimer (Fort
Collins), and Weld Counties (Greeley). The EPA has reviewed this
revision to the Colorado SIP and is approving it as submitted. The
State's Basic I/M program revisions meet requirements pursuant to
sections 182 and 187 of the Act and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. Thus, today's direct
final action will be effective May 20, 1996, unless, by April 18, 1996,
adverse or critical comments are received.
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 May 20, 1996.
The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the CAA. The EPA
has determined that this action conforms with those requirements.
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 a SIP shall be considered separately
in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and
in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
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 that are
less than 50,000.
SIP revision approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D,
of the CAA 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, the EPA
certifies that this proposed rule would 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
[[Page 11153]]
economic reasonableness of State actions. The CAA forbids the EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-266 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section
7410(a)(2).
Under Section 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 today 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
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
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.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), petitions
for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996. 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).)
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control for hydrocarbons, Incorporation by Reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 28, 1995.
Jack W. McGraw,
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 G--Colorado
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(73) On January 14, 1994 and on June 24, 1994, Roy Romer, the
Governor of Colorado, submitted SIP revisions to the State
Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution. This revisions
requires the implementation of a basic motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado
Springs), Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld (Greeley) Counties meeting
the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This material
is being incorporated by reference for the enforcement of Colorado's
basic I/M program only.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 42-4-306.5--42-4-316 adopted June 8,
1993 as House Bill 93-1340, effective July 1, 1993.
(B) Regulation No. 11 (Inspection/Maintenance Program) as adopted
by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on March 17,
1994, effective April 30, 1994.
[FR Doc. 96-6005 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P