# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 61 Fed. Reg. 32341 1996

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed May 13 14:18:26 2015
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Office ofManagement andBudget (OMB)review

This action has been classified as a Table 3action for signature by the Regional Administratorunder the procedures published in theFederal Register on January 19, 1989 (54FR 2214-2225), asrevised by aJuly 10, 1995, memorandum from MaryNichols, Assistant Administrator forAir and Radiation. The OMBhas exempted this regulatory action fromExecutive Order 12866 review.
ListofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nonattainment areas.

Dated: April 11, 1996. Lynda F. Carroll,
ActingRegional Administrator.


### 40 CFRpart 52is amended as follows:

PART52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues toread asfollows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 7671q. 

### Subpart GG-New Mexico

2. Section 52.1620 is amended by addingparagraph (c)(61) toread as follows: 

### §52.1620 Identificationofplan.

(c) * * * 

### (61) Arevision to theNew Mexico SIP
to udpate the Supplement to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan to 

### Control Air Pollution in Area(s) of Bernalillo County Designated 

### Nonattainment toreflect EPA's approval for lifting the construction ban in Bernalillo County, superseding the supplement dated April 14, 1993.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (A) October 12, 1994 Supplement to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan to Control Air Pollution in Area(s) ofBernalillo County Designated 

### Nonattainment as approved by the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board on November 9, 1994. [FRDoc. 96 16023 Filed 6 21 96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 40 CFR Part 52 [CA-19-2-725-a; FRL-5511-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; CaliforniaMammoth Lakes Nonattainment Area; PM10 

### AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct finalrule.
SUMMARY: EPA today approves the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State ofCalifornia for thepurpose of bringing about attainment in the Mammoth Lakes Planning Area (MLPA) ofthenational ambient airquality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM1

### o).The "moderate"

area SIP was submitted bythe State to satisfycertain Federal requirements in the Clean AirAct for an approvable nonattainment area PM10 

### plan for the MLPA.

The intended effect ofapproving this plan is toregulate emissions ofPM10 

### in accordance with therequirements ofthe CAA, as amended in 1990. DATES: This finalrule iseffective on August 23, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are received by July 24, 1996. Ifthe effective date isdelayed, timely notice will bepublished in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe State's submittal and otherinformation are contained in the docket for this rulemaking. The docket is available for inspection during normal business hours atthe following locations: U. S.Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street,P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95814 Great Basin Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 157 Short Street, Suite 6,Bishop, CA 93514. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Stephanie G. Valentine (A-2-2),U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air and Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)744-1178.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### I. Background

On the date ofenactment ofthe 1990 Clean AirAct Amendments, PM10 

### areas, including theMammoth Lakes Planning Area, meetingthe conditions ofsection 107(d) oftheAct were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw. Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 188 ofthe Act outlines the process forclassification of the area and establishes the area's attainment date. In accordance with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM10 nonattainment

areas were initially classified as "moderate" by operation oflaw. See40 CFR 81.303 (1993) A moderate area may subsequently be reclassified as "serious" ifat any time EPA determines that the area cannot practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date formoderate areas, December 31, 1994. Moreover, a moderate area must be reclassified if EPA determines within six months after the applicable attainment date that the

area is not in attainment afterthat date. See section 188(b) ofthe Clean Air Act.

The air quality planningrequirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas
are setout in subparts 1 and 4 ofTitle Iofthe Act. EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing EPA's preliminary views on how the Agency intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title Iofthe Act, including those
state submittals containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP provisions. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 

### 28, 1992). BecauseEPA is describing its interpretations here onlyin broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion 

### ofthe interpretations ofTitle Iadvanced in today's action and the supporting rationale. In today's rulemaking action

on California's moderate PM10 SIP for the MLPA, EPA is applying its 

### interpretations takinginto consideration the specific factual issues presented.

Those states containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by November 15, 19911: 1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology-RACT) shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993;



### 2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously

1There are additional submittals associated with
moderate PM10 nonattainmentplans, such as a permit program forthe construction ofnew and modified major stationary sources and contingency

measures. See sections 189(a) and 172(c)(9). These submittals wererequired to be submitted in 1992 and 1993, respectively, and are not the subject of today's action which addresses only those plan provisions required to be submitted on November 15, 1991. 

## 32341

## 32342 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

as practicable but no later than December 31, 1994 or ademonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable;

3. Pursuant to section 189(c) ofthe Act, forplan revisions demonstrating attainment, quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment by December 31, 1994; and

4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources ofPMlo also apply to major stationary sources ofPM10 precursors except where the Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly
to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 ofthe Act.

II. Today's Action

Section I10(k)ofthe Act sets out provisions governing EPA's review of SIP submittals. See 57 FR 13565-66. In today's action, EPA approves the plan revision submitted to EPA on September 11, 1991, and the addenda submitted January 9, 1992, for the MLPAbecause it meets all ofthe applicable requirements ofthe Act.

A. Analysis ofStateSubmission

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) ofthe Actprovides that each implementation plan submitted by a state must be adopted afterreasonable notice and public hearing. 2 Section 110(1) ofthe Act similarlyprovides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a stateunder the Act must be adopted by such state afterreasonable notice and public hearing.

The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants further EPA review and action. See section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565. EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1993). EPA attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation oflaw if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt ofthe submission.

The State ofCalifornia originally submitted the Mammoth Lakes Planning

2Also section 172(c)(7) oftheAct requires that plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). Area PM 10 implementation plan revision to EPA on September 11, 1991. By operation oflaw, this submittal was deemed complete on March 11, 1992. On January 9, 1992, the State of California submitted a second revision
to the Mammoth Lakes Planning Area PM 10 SIP. This submittal contained revisions which are primarily administrative in nature to assist in the effective implementation ofthe SIP control strategies. By operation oflaw, this second submittal was deemed complete on July 9, 1992.

In today's action, EPA approves California's PM 10 SIP submittal for the MLPA.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) ofthe Act requires that nonattainment plan provisions include acomprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all sources ofrelevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. Because such inventories are necessary to an area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the emissions inventories must be received with the submission. See 57 FR 13539.

California submitted a peak 24-hour PM 10 emissions inventory for the MLPA which is based on a 1987-88 emissions inventory survey. This 1987-88 inventory identifies re-entrained dust and cinders from paved roads and emissions from fireplaces and wood
stoves asthe primary causes of nonattainment, contributing over 99 percent oftotal PM1 oemissions during times ofpeak concentrations. The remaining 1percent ofthe emissions is comprised ofmotor vehicle exhaust, tire-wear, and industrial sources. By applyingknown population growth factors to the 1987-88 inventory, the Great Basin Unified APCD also projected 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995, 2000, and 2005 inventories. The chart below identifies 1987-88 contributions to the emission inventory.

Peak 24- hour PercentSource category PM 10 emissions age (kg/day)
Fireplaces

.................. 882 20.7 Woodstoves

.............. 957 22.5 Resuspended Road

Dirt/Cinders

............ 2,390 56.1 Motor Vehicles

.......... 23 0.5 Industrial

.................... 7 0.2

Total

............... 4,259 100

EPA approves the emissions inventory because it generally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a sufficient basis for determining the adequacy ofthe plan revision's air quality analysis consistent with the requirements ofsections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) ofthe Clean Air Act.3 Forfurther details see the Technical Support Document (TSD) that is contained in the docket for today's action.

3. RACM

As noted, the initial moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas must submit provisions to assure that RACM (includingRACT) are implemented no laterthan December 10, 1993. See sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C). EPA's General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitleI ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments contains a detailed discussion ofEPA's interpretation ofthe RACM (including RACT) requirement. See 57 FR 13540- 45 and 13560-61.

As stated in EPA's General Preamble, the suggested startingpoint for determining RACM for aparticular area is to list all ofthe RACM measures for which EPA has issued guidance under section 190 ofthe Act. Ifa state receives substantive public comment demonstrating that additional measures maybe reasonably available, those

measures should then be added to the original list.

As noted in the Emissions Inventory section ofthis document, 99 percent of the PM10 nonattainment problem in the MLPA comes from resuspended road dust/cinders and fireplaces/woodstoves. The remaining one percent comes from
motorvehicles and industrial sources. Given this emissions inventory with limited contributions from a number of

source categories, a list ofcontrol

measures was developed by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District for consideration in adraft SIP revision. Through the public hearing process, the list was refined to form a final control strategy that provides for attainment by the Clean Air Act deadline ofDecember 31, 1994.

Where sources ofPM1 odo not contribute significantly to the PM1 o problem in an area, EPA's policy is that

a state is notreasonably required to implement potentially available control

measures for such sources (57 FR 13543). Based upon the MLPA emissions inventory which is dominated by wood burning and road

3EPA issued guidance on PM 10 emissions inventories prior to the enactment ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments in the form ofthe 1987 PM 10 SIPDevelopment Guideline. Pursuant to section 193 ofthe Amendments, the guidance provided in this document, as well as all otherpre-Amendment guidance cited in this notice, remains in effect.

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

dust and cinders, and the factthat the

area is able todemonstrate attainment of the PM10 

### NAAQS by the CAA deadline, EPA believes thatthe Statehas provided

areasoned justification for eliminating

measures from its initiallist ofpossible RACM. Theremaining measures are legally enforceable. Therefore, EPAhas concluded that theregulations adopted for the State's moderate area PM10 

### SIP revision represent RACM as required by sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c) ofthe Act.
4. Control Strategy

The control strategy was developed by the GBUAPCD and theTown of Mammoth Lakes. Thefinal control strategyrelies upon theimplementation ofnine measures which were adopted as
aTown Ordinance on November 7, 1990, and added into theMammoth Lakes Municipal Code as Chapter 8.30, Particulate Emissions Regulations. These regulations were subsequently adopted by the Great Basin Unified APCD as Rule 431 Particulate Emissions-Town ofMammoth on November 6, 1991. The regulations will reduce emissions from re-entrained road cinders, willphase out non-certified wood burning appliances, and will institute wood burning curtailments duringperiods ofhigh PM10 

### concentrations. The measures adopted by theMammoth Lakes Town Council and subsequently adopted as Great Basin Unified APCDRule 431 to control PM 10 

### emissions are summarized in the following table.

Control measures Sourcecategory
(1)Vacuum Street Sweeperfor Cinders and Road Dust. (1) ReduceVehicle Traffic
(1) Institute Public Awareness Program for Wood Burning. (1) Replaceor Remove

Non-certified Wood Stoves Upon Resale. (2) Limit Installation of

Woodstoves. (1) Ban Fireplaces in New

Dwellings. (2) Require Transient Occupancy Units to Phase Out Fireplaces. (3) Require Fireplace

Phase Out Upon Resale of Home. ((1) Require Certification

for Wood Stove Installers. (2) Require 20% Wood

Moisture Limit for Wood Retailers. Road Dust/Cinders.

Road Dust/Cinders. Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces. Control measures Source category (3) ProhibitTrash and

Coal Burning in Wood Stoves. (4) Set 20% Opacity Limit

for Wood Burning. (1)Voluntary Wood Burn- Wood Stoves/

ing Ban During Periods Fireplaces. of Poor Air Quality. (2) Mandatory Wood Burning Ban when NAAQS Violation Expected.

The regulations' primary measures will result in the eventual phasing out ofall non-EPA-certified wood stoves and wood burning fireplaces. This will be accomplished by replacing noncertified appliances with certified wood stoves, pellet stoves, or gas log fireplaces before the resale ofa dwelling. In addition to phasing out non-certified appliances, the Town will rely on a mandatory wood burning curtailment. This mandatory curtailment program will initially exempt certified wood stoves, but may include allwood burning ifmore reductions are needed to attain the standard.

Road dustreduction measures include

vacuum street sweeping, reduction

measures forvehicle miles travelled (VMT) for new developments, and an overall limit ofVMT in the Town of Mammoth. Section 6 ofthe MLPA SIPrevision and Appendix F setforth the selected control measures and expected emissions reductions. The controls are evaluated for two cases; Case A, a wood burning dominated day, and Case B, a road dust and cinder dominated day. Section 5 ofthe SIP revision shows that Case B, the road dust and cinder dominated day will require the most stringent controls. The control strategy, therefore, was selected for Case B conditions. An additional analysis to confirm the adequacy ofthe strategy is included in Appendix H.

Many ofthe proposed control

measures are interrelated, so that reduction credits are not simple independent calculations. The SIP also includes contingency measures such as

an accelerated replacement schedule for non-certified wood stoves and wood burning fireplaces. However, as noted in footnote #1, contingency measures will
not be addressed in today's action. Appendix I shows the effectiveness calculations for the regulations, including the interrelationships ofthe
measures, and the potential impacts of the contingency measures. These calculations are best summarized in Appendix I, pages 1-21 and 1-22. By this document, EPA approves the control strategy.
5. RACT

The General Preamble states that generally EPA recommends that available control technology be applied
to those existing sources in the nonattainment area that arereasonable
to control in light ofthe attainment needs ofthe area and the feasibility of such controls. The Mammoth Lakes Planning Area contains no major point

sources ofPM10, and the imposition of available control technology on other existing sources would not expedite attainment; therefore, implementation of available control technology (RACT) is
notreasonably required in this plan (57 FR 13543). A more detailed discussion ofthe control strategy in the SIP revision can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD).

6. Demonstration

As noted, the initial moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously

aspracticable but no later than December 31, 1994. Alternatively, the state must show that attainment by December 31, 1994is impracticable. See section 189(a)(1)(B) ofthe Act.

In order for a state to properly demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQS, the SIP control strategy must provide for attainment ofeach primary ambient air quality standard. There are two primary air quality standards for PM10, a 24-hour standard (150 

### jig/m 3), and an annual standard (50 

### jig/m 3). The 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number ofdays per calendar year with

a 24-hour average concentration above 150 jig/m 3 is equal to or less than one. The annual standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 jig/m 3 (lid). See 40 CFR 50.6.

In the MLPA, peak PM 1o concentrations are directly related to the influx ofvisitors to the area during peak periods ofthe ski season, coupled with low wind speeds. Increased particulate air pollution and stagnant air conditions lead to air pollution episodes with violations ofthe 150gg/m 3 24-hour standard that may last several days or
more. The MLPA has not violated the 50 gg/m3 annual average standard. California used receptor modeling coupled with a proportional rollback model for its MLPA air quality analysis. This analysis indicates that the 24 hour standard for PM10 can be attained by December 31, 1994. The SIP's design value forthe 24 hour PM10 NAAQS is 

## 32343

## 32344 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

210 

### gLg/m 3

,40 percent greater than the standard. The control strategy used to achieve attainment concentrations is summarized in the section ofthis notice entitled "Control Strategy ."

By this notice EPA approves the State's demonstration ofattainment of the PM1oNAAQS by December 31, 1994. For a more detailed description of the demonstration of attainment, see the TSD accompanying this notice.

7. PM1 oPrecursors

The controlrequirements which are applicable to major stationary sources of PM 1oalso apply to major stationary

sources ofPM1 oprecursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels in

excess ofthe NAAQS in that area. See section 189(e) ofthe Act. An analysis of air quality and emissions data for the MLPA indicates that exceedances ofthe NAAQS are attributable chiefly to direct particulate matter emissions from reentrained road dust and cinders and residential woodburning. Sources of particulate matter precursor emissions ofammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate contribute a negligible percentage ofthe total annual emissions ofPM10. Consequently, EPA finds that

sources ofprecursors ofPM1 oin the MLPA do not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels in excess ofthe NAAQS. The consequence ofthis findingis to exclude these sources from the applicability ofPM1omoderate nonattainment area control requirements. Further discussion ofthe analyses and supporting rationale for EPA's finding are contained in the TSD accompanying this notice. Note that while EPA is making a general finding for this area, today's finding is based on the current character ofthe area including, for example, the existing mix ofsources in the area. Itis possible, therefore, that future growth could change the significance ofprecursors in the area. EPA intends to issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance ofprecursor emissions in an area.
8. Enforceability

The particular control measures contained in the SIP revision for the MLPA are addressed above under the section entitled "Control Strategy." These control measures apply to the types ofPM1 oemission sources identified in that discussion, predominantly road dust and cinders and residential wood burning.

All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable byEPA and the State. See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556. The EPA criteria addressingthe enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions are stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with attachments) from J.Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al. See 57 FR 13541. The TSD for this notice contains detailed information on enforceability requirements including applicability, the source types subject to the rules, compliance schedules as appropriate, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In addition to meeting the enforceability requirements ofthe Act and EPA guidance, nonattainment area plan provisions must also contain a program that provides for enforcement ofthe control measures and other elements in the SIP. See sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 172(c)(7). Moreover, where the State relies on a local or regional government agency for implementing any plan provision, the State has the responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation ofthat provision. See section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii).

The State ofCalifornia has a program that will ensure that the measures contained in the SIP revision are adequately enforced. Primary enforcement ofthe RACM rules will be under thejurisdiction ofthe Great Basin Unified APCD and the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

Under section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) ofthe Act, the State must also provide necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation ofthese plan provisions. The State has the authority
to take legal action against the District if the State determines that the District is not carrying out its enforcement responsibilities.


### III. Implications ofToday'sAction

EPA approves the moderate nonattainment area PM10 plan revision submitted to EPA for the Mammoth Lakes Planning Area on September 11, 1991, and amended on January 9, 1992. The State ofCalifornia has demonstrated that the MLPA can practicably attain the PM 10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.

As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM1 ononattainment

areas were due atlater dates. EPA will determine the adequacy ofany such submittal as appropriate.

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 Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective August 23, 1996 unless by July 24, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received.

IfEPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before the effective date bypublishing a subsequent final rule 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 notinstitute a second comment period on this action. Anyparties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Ifno such
comments arereceived, the public is advised that this action will be effective

on August 23, 1996.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany 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 economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000. SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, PartD ofthe Clean Air Act do notcreate any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does notimpose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature ofthe federal-state relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation ofa regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410 (a)(2).

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
mustundertake various actions in association with proposed or final rules that include a Federal Mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million

or more to the private sector, or to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission ofthe state implementation plan or plan revisions

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

approved in this action, the State and any affected local governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under Title I and sections 110, 172, 189, and 190 ofthe Clean Air Act. The rules and commitments approved in this action may bind state and local governments to perform certain actions and also may ultimately lead to the private sector being required to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules and commitments being approved by this action will impose or lead to the imposition ofany mandate upon the
state or local governments either as the

owner or operator ofa source or as a regulator, or would impose or lead to the imposition ofany mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are already subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State or local governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. Therefore, EPA has determined that this final action does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million

or more to the State or local governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.

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 aJuly 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Listof Subjects in 40 CFR Part52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 31, 1996. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator. Subpart F ofpart 52, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 7671q.
Subpart F-California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by addingparagraphs (c) (226) and (228) to read as follows: §52.220 Identification of plan. )* * * * * (c)*

(226) Air Quality Management Plan for the following APCDwas submitted

on September 11, 1991, bythe Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Air Quality Management Plan for the Mammoth Lakes PM-10 Planning Area adopted December 12, 1990.

(228) Air Quality Management Plans for the following APCDwere submitted

on January 9, 1992, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Revisions to the Air Quality Management Plan for Mammoth Lakes PM-10 Planning Area adopted November 6, 1991. (i) Rule 431 adopted November 6, 1991.

(ii) Town ofMammoth Lakes Municipal Code Chapter 8.30 dated October 2, 1991. [FR Doc. 96 15905 Filed 6 21 96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-5510-9]

Nevada: Final Authorization ofState Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Immediate finalrule.

SUMMARY: The State ofNevada has applied for final authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

as amended. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed its review ofNevada's application and has made a decision, subject to public review and comment, that Nevada's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy allofthe requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Thus, EPA intends to approve Nevada's hazardous waste program revisions. Nevada's application for program revision is available for public review and comment. DATES: Final authorization for Nevada is effective August 23, 1996. Unless EPA publishes a prior Federal Register action withdrawing this immediate final rule. All comments on Nevada's program revision application must be received by the close ofbusiness July 24, 1996. ADDRESSES: Copies ofNevada's program revision application is available during the business hours of9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the following addresses for inspection and copying: Nevada Department ofConservation and

Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, 333 W. Nye Lane, Carson City,NV 89710 Phone: 702/687-5872, Contact L.H. Dodgion, Administrator U.S. EPA Region IX Library-Information

Center, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415/744- 1510. Written comments should be sent to Lisa McClain-Vanderpool, U.S. EPA Region IX (H-4),75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415/ 744-2086. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa McClain-Vanderpool, U.S. EPA Region IX (H-4),75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415/744- 2086.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
States with final authorization under section 3006(b) ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA" or "the Act"), 42U.S.C. 6929(b),have acontinuing obligation to maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. Revisions to State hazardous wasteprograms are necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes

occur.Most commonly, Stateprogram revisions are necessitated by changes to EPA's regulations in 40CFRparts 260- 266, 268, 124, 270 and 279.

B. Nevada

Nevada initially received final authorization for the base program on November 1, 1985. On June 12, 1995, Nevada received final authorization for revisions to its hazardous waste program, which included substantially all the Federal RCRA implementing regulations published in the Federal Register through July 1, 1994. On March 28, 1996, Nevada submitted an application for additional revision approvals. Nevada is seeking approval ofits program revisions in accordance with 40CFR 271.21.

EPA has reviewed Nevada's application, and has made an immediate final decision that Nevada's hazardous 

## 32345