[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4459-4463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2288]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO-001-0009a; FRL-5674-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Colorado; Revisions to Regulation No's. 3 and 7 for Pioneer Metal 
Finishing Inc. and a Revision to Regulation No. 7 for Lexmark 
International Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the revisions to the Colorado State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) as submitted by the Governor on August 25, 
1995, and October 16, 1995. The revisions consist of amendments to 
Regulation No. 3, ``Air Contaminant Emissions Notices,'' and Regulation 
No. 7, ``Regulation To Control Emissions of Volatile Organic 
Compounds.'' The revisions to Regulations Nos. 3 and 7 for Pioneer 
Metal Finishing Inc. (PMF) consist of a source-specific SIP revision to 
allow PMF to purchase banked Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emission 
reduction credits (ERC) from Coors Brewing Company (Coors), to enable 
PMF to come into compliance with the VOC Reasonable Available Control 
Technology (RACT) requirements of Regulation No. 7 (Reg. 7). The 
revision to Reg. 7 for Lexmark International Inc. (Lexmark) consists of 
a source-specific SIP revision to allow

[[Page 4460]]

Lexmark to utilize the provisions of Reg. 7 to perform crossline 
averaging for the purposes of meeting the VOC RACT requirements of Reg. 
7. This Federal Register action applies to both of these submittals. 
EPA's approval will serve to make these revisions federally enforceable 
and was requested by the State of Colorado.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 31, 1997 unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by March 3, 1997. If the effective date 
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to:Richard R. Long, 
Director, Air Program (8P2-A), United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday at 
the following office:

    United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Air 
Program, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program (8P2-A), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, 
suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466; Telephone number: (303) 312-
6479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 110(a)(2)(H)(i) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), as amended in 1990, provides the State the opportunity to amend 
its SIP from time to time as may be necessary. The State is utilizing 
this authority of the CAA to update and revise existing regulations 
which are part of the SIP.

I. Background to the Action

    On March 3, 1978, EPA designated the Denver-Boulder metropolitan 
area as nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) for ozone (43 FR 8976). This designation was reaffirmed by EPA 
on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the 
CAA, as amended in 1990. Furthermore, since the Denver-Boulder area had 
not shown a violation of the ozone standard during the three-year 
period from January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1989, the Denver-Boulder 
area was classified as a ``transitional'' ozone nonattainment area 
under section 185A of the amended Act.
    The current Colorado Ozone SIP was approved by EPA in the Federal 
Register on December 12, 1983 (48 FR 55284). The SIP contains Reg. 7 
which applies RACT to stationary sources of VOCs. Reg. 7 was adopted to 
meet the requirements of section 172(b)(2) and (3) of the 1977 CAA 
(concerning the application of RACT to stationary sources 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The requirement to apply RACT to existing stationary sources 
in a nonattainment area was carried forth under the amended Act in 
section 172(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During 1987 and 1988, EPA Region 8 conducted a review of Reg. 7 for 
consistency with the Control Techniques Guidelines documents (CTGs) and 
regulatory guidance, for enforceability and for clarity. The CTGs, 
which are guidance documents issued by EPA, set forth measures that are 
presumptively RACT for specific categories of sources of VOCs. A 
substantial number of deficiencies were identified in Reg. 7. In 1987, 
EPA published a proposed policy document that included, among other 
things, an interpretation of the RACT requirements as they applied to 
VOC nonattainment areas (see 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987). On May 
25, 1988, EPA published a guidance document entitled ``Issues Relating 
to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, 
Clarification to Appendix D of the November 24, 1987 Federal Register 
Notice'' (the ``Blue Book''). A review of Reg. 7 against these 
documents uncovered additional deficiencies in the regulation.
    On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of Colorado that the 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) SIPs for Colorado Springs and Fort Collins were 
inadequate to achieve the CO NAAQS. In that letter, EPA also notified 
the Governor that the ozone portion of the SIP had significant 
deficiencies in design and implementation, and requested that these 
deficiencies be remedied. EPA did not make a formal call for a revision 
to the ozone portion of the SIP in the May 1988 letter 2, even 
though the Denver-Boulder area was, and continues to be, designated 
nonattainment for ozone. The reason for this decision was that no 
violations of the ozone NAAQS had been recorded in the nonattainment 
area for the previous three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under the pre-amended Act, EPA had the authority under 
section 110(a)(2)(H) to issue a ``SIP Call'' requiring a State to 
correct deficiencies in an existing SIP. Section 110(a)(2)(H) was 
not modified by the 1990 Amendments. In addition, the amended Act 
contains new section 110(k)(5) which also provides authority for a 
SIP Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated September 27, 1989, the Governor submitted 
revisions to Reg. 7, as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control 
Commission (AQCC) on September 21, 1989, (effective October 30, 1989) 
which partially addressed EPA's concerns. Revisions were made to 
numerous sections of Reg. 7, including 7.I Applicability, 7.II General 
Provisions, and 7.IX Surface Coating Operations.
    In a letter dated August 30, 1990, the Governor submitted 
additional revisions to Reg. 7, as adopted by the AQCC on July 19, 1990 
(effective August 30, 1990) to address EPA's remaining concerns with 
the September 27, 1989, SIP revision. Revisions were made to several 
sections of Reg. 7, including sections 7.I.B. and 7.I.C. 
(Applicability--Compliance Schedule) requiring all sources to come into 
compliance with the revised Reg. 7 by October 31, 1991. Sources which 
were in existence prior to the regulation revisions and which were 
covered by the then-current regulations were required to maintain 
compliance with those provisions.
    On May 30, 1995, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 28055) that fully approved the Governor's September 27, 1989, 
and August 30, 1990, revisions to Reg. 7. The final rule became 
effective on June 29, 1995.

A. Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc. (PMF)

    In a letter dated January 14, 1991, PMF advised the Tri-County 
Health Department (for Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties) of its 
operation. The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the Colorado 
Department of Health subsequently determined that the PMF facility was 
an emitting source which did not possess a permit from the State. PMF 
filed an initial permit application with the State on January 15, 1991. 
Upon review of the permit application, the APCD found that PMF was not 
in compliance with the VOC RACT requirements of Reg. 7, section IX., 
``Surface Coating Operations,'' subsection L, ``Manufactured Metal 
Parts and Metal Products,'' as PMF could not meet the three pounds per 
hour or fifteen pounds per day cutoffs for use of non-compliant 
coatings. PMF was required to meet the RACT provisions of Reg. 7 by 
October 30, 1991, as detailed in section I.B.2 (Applicability to 
Existing Sources) of the AQCC revisions to Reg. 7 that appeared in the 
Governor's SIP revision submittals dated September 27, 1989, and August 
30, 1990.
    PMF is a small facility (approximately ten employees were noted in 
the January 15, 1991, permit application) that applies coatings via 
spray guns to metal parts and wood products that are brought to PMF by 
customers who do not have coating facilities or who find that 
establishing individual coating facilities would not be cost-effective. 
This work may involve quantities of

[[Page 4461]]

high VOC coatings being used on several different jobs at once.
    In a letter dated August 18, 1992, the State indicated that it was 
denying PMF's permit application. PMF considered installing VOC RACT 
control equipment on its paint booths, but found the costs economically 
infeasible for its operation. PMF then proposed various solutions to 
its problems of being unable to comply with the revised Reg. 7 limits, 
including an outright exemption, less stringent threshold (the five 
percent equivalency rule 3), and shifting the compliance 
requirements to PMF's customers. None of these solutions was acceptable 
to the State or EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This EPA rule, which is detailed in the Agency's May 25, 
1988, document ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, 
Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of [the] 
November 24, 1987 Federal Register'' (re: the ``Blue Book'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A solution to PMF's dilemma began to evolve with the advent of 
EPA's Economic Incentive Program (EIP) rules of April 7, 1994 (59 FR 
16690). With the development of this emission trading policy, EPA 
advised Colorado and PMF that PMF could utilize emission trading as a 
means to achieve the RACT requirements of Reg. 7.
    EPA's prior policy on emissions trading, entitled ``Emissions 
Trading Policy Statement; General Principles for Creation, Banking, and 
Use of Emission Reduction Credits; Final Policy Statement and 
Accompanying Technical Issues Document'' (51 FR 43814, December 4, 
1986), did not address the use of emission trading for the purposes of 
achieving compliance with RACT. The EIP rules, however, specifically 
addressed the issue of emission trading to achieve compliance for RACT 
provisions (see 59 FR 16695 to 16697 and 59 FR 16702 to 16705, April 7, 
1994). Based on the provisions in EPA's EIP rules, PMF and Colorado 
designed a source-specific revision to the SIP which would allow PMF to 
purchase banked VOC emission reduction credits from Coors Brewing 
Company (State Emissions Reduction Credit Permit 91AR120R, July 25, 
1994) to compensate for PMF's excess VOC emissions that would have 
otherwise been reduced by RACT control equipment and/or use of 
compliant coatings. The development and adoption of the necessary 
revisions to the State's Reg. 3 and Reg. 7 are further explained below 
in ``II. Analysis of the State's Submittals''.

B. Lexmark International Inc. (Lexmark)

    Colorado's Reg. 7, section IX, establishes VOC emission limitations 
for specified surface coating operations and includes provisions to 
allow sources to achieve these emission limits through the installation 
and operation of RACT control equipment, use of compliant coatings, and 
alternative compliance methods as a source specific revision to the 
SIP. One such alternative compliance method involves the use of 
crossline averaging of emissions. The requirements for crossline 
averaging appear in Reg. 7, section IX.5(d). The crossline averaging 
provisions of section IX.5(d) were submitted by the Governor in his 
September 27, 1989, revision to the SIP and were fully approved by EPA 
on May 30, 1995 (see 60 FR 28055).
    Lexmark proposed to the AQCC a source-specific revision to the SIP 
to enable Lexmark to use crossline averaging as a means of complying 
with the emission limitations that apply to Plastic Film Coating 
Operations (Reg. 7, section IX.J) and Manufactured Metal Parts and 
Metal Products operations (Reg. 7, section IX.L). Crossline averaging 
is appropriate in this case as it would allow Lexmark the flexibility 
to effect greater emission reductions than otherwise required on 
certain production lines and to use those additional emission 
reductions to offset emissions from lines where use of abatement 
technology is not cost effective. This crossline averaging will be 
applied to the facility which Lexmark operates in Boulder, Colorado. 
The development and adoption of the necessary revision to the State's 
Reg. 7 are further explained below in ``II. Analysis of the State's 
Submittals''.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittals

    Section 110(k) of the CAA sets out provisions governing EPA's 
action on submissions of revisions to a State Implementation Plan. The 
CAA also requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in 
developing SIP revisions for submittal to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the 
CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after going through a 
reasonable notice and public hearing process prior to being submitted 
by a State to EPA.

A. Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc. (PMF)

    The adoption of the necessary revisions to the SIP for PMF to 
achieve compliance with the VOC RACT provisions of Reg. 7 was handled, 
essentially, as a two-step process. First, changes were required to 
sections V.A., V.C.1, V.C.3, V.C.5, V.D.6, V.D.7, V.D.9, V.E., V.F., 
V.F.5, V.F.7, V.F.8.l, V.F.14, and V.F.15, of Reg. 3 (which contains 
Colorado's emission trading provisions), to allow Emission Reduction 
Credits (ERCs) to be used for bubble, netting, offset transactions, and 
alternative compliance methods. In addition, a change was necessary to 
section II.D.1 of Reg. 7, so that sources could use an alternative 
emission control plan or, in PMF's case, an alternative compliance 
method. To accomplish this, the AQCC held a public hearing on October 
20, 1994, directly after which the AQCC adopted the revisions to Reg. 3 
and Reg. 7. These revisions became effective on December 30, 1994. The 
Governor submitted these revisions to Reg. 3 and Reg. 7 by a letter 
dated October 16, 1995. In his October 16, 1995, letter, however, the 
Governor asked for conditional approval as these SIP revisions must 
first be approved by the Colorado General Assembly as required by the 
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (CAPPCA). The CAPPCA 
is strictly a State-only mandated requirement that any revision to the 
SIP must first be approved by the State General Assembly prior to the 
Governor asking EPA for final approval of the revision to the SIP. EPA 
received this revision to the SIP on October 17, 1995. Due to 
unresolved EPA legal issues involving the CAPPCA, EPA took no action on 
the Governor's submittal and, by operation of law under the provisions 
of section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the submittal became complete on 
April 17, 1996. By a letter dated June 25, 1996, the Governor advised 
that certain revisions to the SIP, which had previously been submitted 
for conditional approval, had been approved by the Colorado General 
Assembly and should now be considered by EPA for final approval and 
inclusion in the SIP. Mention of the particular revisions to Reg. 3 and 
Reg. 7, however, was inadvertently left out of the Governor's June 25, 
1996, letter. This concern was noted and corrected in a supplemental 
letter, dated July 1, 1996, from Douglas Lempke, Acting Technical 
Secretary for the AQCC, on behalf of the Governor.
    The second step in this two-step process involved specific 
revisions to Reg. 7, which required a new section IX.L.2.c through 
IX.L.2.c.xv, that included 15 source-specific provisions allowing PMF 
to use emission trading to demonstrate compliance with the VOC RACT 
provisions of Reg. 7. The AQCC held a public hearing on February 16, 
1995, directly after which the AQCC adopted the PMF revisions to Reg. 
7. These revisions became effective on April 30, 1995. The Governor 
submitted these particular revisions to Reg. 7 by a letter dated August 
25, 1995. In his August 25, 1995, letter, however, the Governor asked 
for conditional approval as these SIP revisions must first be approved 
by the Colorado General

[[Page 4462]]

Assembly as required by the CAPPCA as described above. EPA received 
this revision to the SIP on August 28, 1995. Again, due to the 
unresolved EPA legal issues involving the CAPPCA, EPA took no action on 
the Governor's submittal and by operation of the provisions of section 
110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the submittal became complete on February 28, 
1996. By a letter dated June 25, 1996, the Governor advised that 
certain revisions to the SIP, which had previously been submitted for 
conditional approval, had been approved by the Colorado General 
Assembly and should now be considered by EPA for final approval and 
inclusion in the SIP. Again, mention of the particular revisions to 
Reg. 7 was inadvertently left out of the Governor's June 25, 1996, 
letter. This concern was noted and corrected in a supplemental letter, 
dated July 1, 1996, from Douglas Lempke, Acting Technical Secretary for 
the AQCC, on behalf of the Governor.

B. Lexmark International Inc. (Lexmark)

    The source-specific revisions to Reg. 7, for crossline averaging 
for Lexmark's operations, involved changes to Reg. 7 which required a 
new section IX.A.12 through IX.A.12.a.(xi), that included 11 source-
specific requirements for Lexmark to demonstrate compliance with VOC 
RACT crossline averaging provisions. The AQCC held a public hearing on 
May 18, 1995, directly after which the AQCC adopted the Lexmark 
revisions Reg. 7. These revisions became effective on July 30, 1995. 
The Governor submitted revisions to Reg. 7 by a letter dated August 25, 
1995. In his August 25, 1995, letter, however, the Governor asked for 
conditional approval as the SIP revisions must first be approved by the 
Colorado General Assembly as required by the CAPPCA, as described 
above. EPA received this revision to the SIP on August 28, 1995. Again, 
due to the unresolved EPA legal issues involving the CAPPCA, EPA took 
no action on the Governor's submittal and by operation of the 
provisions of section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the submittal became 
complete on February 28, 1996. By a letter dated June 25, 1996, the 
Governor advised that certain revisions to the SIP, which had 
previously been submitted for conditional approval, had been approved 
by the Colorado General Assembly and should now be considered by EPA 
for final approval and inclusion in the SIP. Again, mention of the 
revision to Reg. 7, however, was inadvertently left out of the 
Governor's June 25, 1996, letter. This concern was noted and corrected 
in a supplemental letter, dated July 1, 1996, from Douglas Lempke, 
Acting Technical Secretary for the AQCC, on behalf of the Governor.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Reg. 3 and Reg. 7 revisions that were adopted 
by the AQCC on October 20, 1994, February 16, 1995, and May 18, 1995. 
All supporting documentation for these revisions is contained in the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this issue of the 
Federal Register, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective 
March 31, 1997 unless, by March 3, 1997, adverse or critical comments 
are received.
    If 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. 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 March 31, 1997.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to 
any State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. 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 (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 
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, the 
Administrator certifies that it does not have 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 CAA forbids EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 
U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    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 rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
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.

[[Page 4463]]

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by March 31, 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) of the CAA).

E. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the 
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Colorado was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1980.

    Dated: December 2, 1996.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 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)(78) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.320  Identification of plan.

 * * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (78) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan were 
submitted by the Governor of the State of Colorado on August 25, 1995, 
and October 16, 1995. The revisions consist or amendments to Regulation 
No. 3, ``Air Contaminant Emissions Notices'' and to Regulation No. 7, 
``Regulation To Control Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds.'' 
These revisions involve source-specific State Implementation Plan 
requirements for emission trading for Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc. and 
crossline averaging for Lexmark International Inc.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Revisions to Regulation No. 3, 5 CCR 1001-5, sections V.A. 
(Purpose), V.C.1 , V.C.3, V.C.5 (Definitions), V.D.6, V.D.7, V.D.9 
(Procedure for Certification of Emissions Reductions and Approval of 
Transactions), V.E. (Criteria for Certification of Emissions 
Reductions), V.F., V.F.5, V.F.7, V.F.8.l, V.F.14, and V.F.15 (Criteria 
for Approval of all Transactions) and Revisions to Regulation No. 7, 5 
CCR 1001-9, section II.D.1.a (Alternative Control Plans and Test 
Methods) became effective on December 30, 1994. The new section 
IX.L.2.c through IX.L.2.c.xv (Manufactured Metal Parts and Metal 
Products) to Regulation No. 7, 5 CCR 1001-9, applicable to Pioneer 
Metal Finishing Inc., became effective on April 30, 1995. The new 
section IX.A.12 through IX.A.12.a.(xi) (General Provisions) to 
Regulation No. 7, 5 CCR 1001-9, applicable to Lexmark International 
Inc., became effective July 30, 1995.
 * * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-2288 Filed 1-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F