Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21415

a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (6102),

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460, or by calling (202) 260–7548. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James Szykman or Mr. Anthony Wayne,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone (919) 541–2452

(Szykman) or (919) 541–5439 (Wayne).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If no

significant, adverse comments are

timely received, no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule, and the direct final rule

in the final rules section of this Federal

Register will automatically go into effect

on the date specified in that rule. If

significant adverse comments are timely

received, the direct final rule will be

withdrawn, and all public comment

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule. Because the EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this proposed rule, any

parties interested in commenting should

do so during this comment period.

For further supplemental information,

the detailed rationale, and the rule

provisions, see the information

provided in the direct final rule in the

final rules section of this Federal

Register.

Administrative

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

This rule was classified ‘‘nonsignificant’’ under Executive Order

12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget.

B. Impact on Reporting Requirements

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated rule for Regulations

Governing Equivalent Emission

Limitations by Permit were submitted to

and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget. A copy of this

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document (OMB control number 2060–

0266) may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division (2136), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–2740. Today’s proposed

revisions to the deadline for submittal of

section 112(j) permit applications does

not affect the information collection

burden estimates made previously.

Therefore, the ICR has not been revised.

C. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires the identification of potentially

adverse impacts of Federal regulations

upon small business entities. The Act

specifically requires the completion of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those

instances where small business impacts

are possible. Because this proposed

rulemaking imposes no economic

impacts, adverse or otherwise, a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not

been prepared.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

business entities.

D. Reduction of Governmental Burden

Executive Order 12875 (‘‘Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership’’) is

designed to reduce the burden to State,

local, and Tribal governments of the

cumulative effect of unfunded Federal

mandates. The Order recognizes the

need for these entities to be free from

unnecessary Federal regulation to

enhance their ability to address

problems they face and provides for

Federal agencies to grant waivers to

these entities from discretionary Federal

requirements. The Order applies to any

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local, or Tribal government. The EPA

anticipates that there will be no

additional cost burden imposed on

State, local, and Tribal governments as

a result of today’s action. Indeed, the

purpose of the action is to reduce

unnecessary burden on permitting

agencies.

E. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires that

each Federal agency shall make

achieving environmental justice part of

its mission by identifying and

addressing, as appropriate,

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

of its programs, policies, and activities

on minority and low-income

populations. Today’s action will help

ensure timely compliance and the

application of consistent regulatory

requirements by allowing the section

112(d) MACT standards to become

effective without triggering an

unnecessary section 112(j) process.

Therefore, no adverse human health or

environmental effects are anticipated as

a result of today’s action.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), the 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, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

action proposed 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. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Act do not apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practices and

procedures, Air pollution control,

Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 3, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11738 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[AZR92–0004; FRL–5503–8]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment Area;

Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the

Phoenix, Arizona carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area has not attained the

CO national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS) by the Clean Air Act

(CAA) mandated attainment date for

moderate nonattainment areas,

December 31, 1995. This proposed

finding is based on EPA’s review of

monitored air quality data for

compliance with the CO NAAQS. If EPA

takes final action on this proposed

finding, the Phoenix CO nonattainment

area will be reclassified by operation of

law as a serious nonattainment area.

The intended effect of such a
21416 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth

in section 187(a) of the Act and differ depending

on whether the area’s design value is below or

above 12.7 ppm. The Phoenix area has a design

value below 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR part 81.303.

2See generally memorandum from Sally L.

Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies and

Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air Office

Directors, entitled ‘‘Criteria for Granting Attainment

Date Extensions, Making Attainment

Determinations, and Determinations of Failure to

Attain the NAAQS for Moderate CO Nonattainment

Areas,’’ October 23, 1995 (Shaver memorandum).

3 See memorandum from William G. Laxton,

Director Technical Support Division, entitled

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value

Calculations’’, June 18, 1990. See also Shaver

memorandum.

reclassification would be to allow the

State additional time to submit a new

State implementation plan (SIP)

providing for attainment of the CO

NAAQS by no later than December 31,

2000, the CAA attainment deadline for

serious CO areas.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received by June 10,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Wallace Woo, Chief, Plans

Development Section, A–2–2, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

The rulemaking docket for this notice,

Docket No. 96–AZ–PL–002, may be

inspected and copied at the following

location between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying parts of the docket.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, Air and Toxics

Division, Plans Development Section,

A–2–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

Copies of the docket are also available

at the State office listed below: Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality,

Library, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry

Wamsley, A–2–2, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California 94105, (415)

744–1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions

Concerning Designation and

Classifications

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 (CAA) were enacted on November

15, 1990. Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of

the CAA, each carbon monoxide (CO)

area designated nonattainment prior to

enactment of the 1990 Amendments,

such as the Phoenix area, was

designated nonattainment by operation

of law upon enactment of the 1990

Amendments. Under section 186(a) of

the Act, each CO area designated

nonattainment under section 107(d) was

also classified by operation of law as

either ‘‘moderate’’ or ‘‘serious’’

depending on the severity of the area’s

air quality problem. CO areas with

design values between 9.1 and 16.4

parts per million (ppm), such as the

Phoenix area, were classified as

moderate. These nonattainment

designations and classifications were

codified in 40 CFR part 81. See 56 FR

56694 (November 6, 1991).

States containing areas that were

classified as moderate nonattainment by

operation of law under section 107(d)

were required to submit State

implementation plans (SIPs) designed to

attain the CO national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than December 31, 1995.1

B. Reclassification to a Serious

Nonattainment Area

EPA has the responsibility, pursuant

to sections 179(c) and 186(b)(2) of the

CAA, of determining, within six months

of the applicable attainment date

whether the Phoenix area has attained

the CO NAAQS. Under section

186(b)(2)(A), if EPA finds that the area

has not attained the CO NAAQS, it is

reclassified as serious by operation of

law. Pursuant to section 186(b)(2)(B) of

the Act, EPA must publish a notice in

the Federal Register identifying areas

which failed to attain the standard and

therefore must be reclassified as serious

by operation of law.

EPA makes attainment determinations

for CO nonattainment areas based upon

whether an area has two years (or eight

consecutive quarters) of clean air quality

data.2 Section 179(c)(1) of the Act states

that the attainment determination must

be based upon an area’s ‘‘air quality as

of the attainment date.’’ Consequently,

EPA will determine whether an area’s

air quality has met the CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1995 based upon the most

recent two years of air quality data

entered into the Aerometric Information

Retrieval System (AIRS) data base.

EPA determines a CO nonattainment

area’s air quality status in accordance

with 40 CFR part 50.8 and EPA policy.3

EPA has promulgated two NAAQS for

CO: an 8-hour average concentration

and a 1-hour average concentration.

Because there were no violations of the

1-hour standard in the Phoenix area in

1994 and 1995, this notice addresses

only the air quality status of the Phoenix

area with respect to the 8-hour standard.

The 8-hour CO NAAQS requires that not

more than one non-overlapping 8-hour

average per year per monitoring site can

exceed 9.0 ppm (values below 9.5 are

rounded down to 9.0 and they are not

considered exceedances). The second

exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS at

a given monitoring site within the same

year constitutes a violation of the CO

NAAQS.

C. Attainment Date Extensions

If a state does not have the two

consecutive years of clean data

necessary to show attainment of the

NAAQS, it may apply, under section

186(a)(4) of the CAA, for a one year

attainment date extension. EPA may, in

its discretion, grant such an extension if

the state has: (1) Complied with the

requirements and commitments

pertaining to the applicable

implementation plan for the area, and

(2) the area has measured no more than

one exceedance of the CO NAAQS at

any monitoring site in the

nonattainment area in the year

preceding the extension year. Under

section 186(a)(4), EPA may grant up to

two such extensions if these conditions

have been met.

II. Today’s Action

By today’s action, EPA is proposing to

find that the Phoenix CO nonattainment

area has failed to demonstrate

attainment of the CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1995. This proposed

finding is based upon air quality data

showing violations of the CO NAAQS

during 1994 and 1995.

A. Ambient Air Monitoring Data

The following table lists each of the

monitoring sites in the Phoenix CO

nonattainment area where the 8-hour

CO NAAQS has been exceeded during

1994 and 1995.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21417

4See letter from Edward Z. Fox, Director, Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality to David P.

Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxics Division, EPA,

Region IX, March 31, 1995.

5EPA has established criteria and procedures to

identify or flag data which may be affected by

exceptional events (e.g., structural fires or industrial

accidents) in its ‘‘Guideline on the Identification

and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptional

Events,’’ July 1986. Under the flagging system, state

and local air pollution control agencies are

responsible for initially identifying and

documenting data influenced by exceptional events.

These agencies are expected to develop the

appropriate background information necessary to

support a decision to flag an individual piece of

data. The agencies must then submit the

information to EPA for concurrence. Flagging a

piece of data or data set does not exclude that data

from being used for nonattainment designations or

classifications. The actual exclusion would only be

allowed if, as a result of a public review process,

the responsible government agency, in this case

EPA, determines that the data are inappropriate for

use in a specific regulatory activity.

6See letter from David P. Howekamp, Director,

EPA, to Russell F. Rhoades, Director, Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality, November

27, 1995.

7See letter from Russell F. Rhoades, ADEQ, to

David Howekamp, EPA, March 25, 1996.

8See e.g., letter from Roger A. Herzog, MAG, to

Russell F. Rhoades, ADEQ, February 22, 1996; letter

from Nancy Wrona, ADEQ, to John DeBolske, MAG,

March 29, 1996.

9On March 11, 1996, MAG requested that ADEQ

flag as affected by exceptional events (unusual

traffic conditions and meteorological

considerations) CO NAAQS exceedances on January

10 and 13, 1996 at Grand Avenue. See letter from

Roger A. Herzog, MAG, to Russell F. Rhoades,

ADEQ, March 11, 1996, attached to letter from

Russell F. Rhoades to David Howekamp, March 25,

1996. In its March 25, 1996 letter to EPA, ADEQ

submitted documentation from MAG in support of

these claims. These 1996 exceedances, while

lending additional support to EPA’s proposed

Continued

EXCEEDANCES OF 8-HOUR CO NAAQS FOR PHOENIX NONATTAINMENT AREA

Monitoring site

1994 1995

Concentration Date Concentration Date

3847 W. Earll Drive ............................................................................................................ 9.6 ppm ............ 12/3 None recorded.

10.0 ppm .......... 12/17 .

1845 E. Roosevelt Street ................................................................................................... 9.7 ppm ............ 12/17 None recorded.

2710 N.W. Grand Avenue .................................................................................................. ........................... ............ None recorded

9.89 ppm .......... 11/23

10.23 ppm ........ 12/2

9.5 ppm ............ 12/3

3315 W. Indian School Road ............................................................................................. 9.7 ppm ............ 12/2 10.1 ppm .......... 12/2

10.4 ppm .......... 12/3 9.5 ppm ............ 12/3

10.5 ppm .......... 12/17

1. 1994 Data

In a March 1995 letter to EPA,4

Arizona requested that the 1994

exceedances of the CO NAAQS at the

West Indian School Road monitoring

site be ‘‘flagged’’ as affected by

‘‘exceptional events’’ as those terms are

defined in EPA guidance.5 In the same

letter, the State requested that the

December 17, 1994 exceedance at the

West Earll Drive monitoring site be

invalidated because that monitor had

failed an audit. In response, EPA

requested more information to evaluate

the exceptional event claims at the West

Indian School Road monitoring site and

disapproved the State’s request to

invalidate the December 17, 1994

exceedance at the West Earll Drive

monitoring site.6

In response to EPA’s request for more

information, on March 25, 1996, the

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) submitted to EPA

additional documentation, prepared by

the Maricopa Association of

Governments (MAG), on the West

Indian School Road exceedances.7 On

April 12, 1996, EPA responded to

ADEQ’s submittal by concluding that

MAG’s claims that these 1994

exceedances were affected by

exceptional events (unusual traffic

conditions and air stagnation

conditions) were not supported by the

submitted documentation. EPA stated

that minor traffic accidents are common

in any metropolitan area and that air

stagnation conditions routinely occur

during the CO season in the Phoenix

area. See letter from David P.

Howekamp, EPA, to Russell Rhoades,

ADEQ, April 12, 1996.

Furthermore, as demonstrated in the

table above, even if the West Indian

School Road exceedances were deemed

to be exceptional events and ultimately

rejected for use in the Phoenix area’s

attainment status determination, there

would still be two exceedances in 1994

at West Earll Drive since EPA

disapproved the State’s request to

invalidate the December 17, 1994

exceedance. As discussed in section I.B.

of this notice, the second exceedance at

a given monitoring site in the same year

constitutes a violation. Therefore, based

on the 1994 data alone, EPA has

concluded that the Phoenix area cannot

be deemed to have attained the CO

NAAQS by December 31, 1995.

2. 1995 Data

As demonstrated by the above table,

the monitoring data indicate that

Phoenix area recorded violations of the

CO NAAQS in 1995 at Grand Avenue

(three exceedances) and West Indian

School Road (two exceedances). To

date, the State has made no claims to

EPA that the exceedances recorded at

these monitoring sites are invalid for the

purpose of determining the area’s

attainment status. However, EPA is

aware that there have been ongoing

communications between ADEQ and

MAG regarding potential exceptional

events claims for all except one of these

exceedances (December 3, 1995 at West

Indian School Road).8 MAG has

recommended that ADEQ flag all 1995

exceedances at Grand Avenue and the

December 2, 1995 exceedance at West

Indian School Road as being affected by

traffic accidents, freeway ramp closures,

meteorological considerations, and

other events. In response, ADEQ stated

that in order to meet EPA’s Exceptional

Event Guideline, MAG would have to

submit appropriate documentation

demonstrating a causal relationship

between the events and measured air

quality, and referred MAG to EPA’s

November 27, 1995 letter on the

appropriate documentation regarding

traffic accidents. EPA concurs with

ADEQ’s assessment and refers the

reader for further detail to the

correspondence between MAG and

ADEQ.

Based on the MAG/ADEQ

correspondence, EPA believes that the

1995 exceedances are valid for use in

determining the attainment status of the

Phoenix area. EPA is therefore

proposing to find, based on the 1994

and 1995 CO violations discussed

above, that the area did not attain the

CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.

Similarly, because of the 1995

violations, EPA does not believe that the

area could qualify for a one year

extension of the attainment deadline.9
21418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

finding of failure to attain based on the 1994 and

1995 data, are relevant to today’s proposal in only

one respect. If EPA were to conclude that the

Phoenix area qualified for a one year extension of

the attainment date, the 1996 exceedances, if

validated as a NAAQS violation, would prevent the

area from obtaining a second one year extension. As

stated above, EPA does not believe the Phoenix area

can qualify for the first extension. Moreover, EPA

does not believe that the 1996 exceedances were

affected by exceptional events. See letter from

David P. Howekamp, EPA to Russell Rhoades,

ADEQ, April 12, 1996. Therefore, the 1996 data are

not addressed further in this notice.

B. SIP Requirements for Serious CO

Areas

CO nonattainment areas reclassified

as serious under section 186(b)(2) of the

CAA are required to submit, within 18

months of the area’s reclassification, SIP

revisions demonstrating attainment of

the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December

31, 2000. The serious CO area planning

requirements are set forth in section

187(b) of the CAA. EPA has issued two

general guidance documents related to

the planning requirements for CO SIPs.

The first is the ‘‘General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’

that sets forth EPA’s preliminary views

on how the Agency intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act.

See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

The second general guidance document

for CO SIPs issued by EPA is the

‘‘Technical Support Document to Aid

the States with the Development of

Carbon Monoxide State Implementation

Plans,’’ July 1992.

If the Phoenix area is reclassified to

serious, the State would have to submit

a SIP revision to EPA that, in addition

to the attainment demonstration,

includes: (1) a forecast of vehicle miles

travelled (VMT) for each year before the

attainment year and provisions for

annual updates of these forecasts; (2)

adopted contingency measures; and (3)

adopted transportation control measures

and strategies to offset any growth in CO

emissions from growth in VMT or

number of vehicle trips. See CAA

sections 187(a)(7), 187(a)(2)(A),

187(a)(3), 187(b)(2), and 187(b)(1). Upon

reclassification, contingency measures

in the moderate area plan for the

Phoenix area must be implemented.

III. Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735

(October 4, 1993), EPA is required to

determine whether regulatory actions

are significant and therefore should be

subject to OMB review, economic

analysis, and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Executive Order

defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

as one that is likely to result in a rule

that may meet at least one of the four

criteria identified in section 3(f),

including, under paragraph (1), that the

rule may ‘‘have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect, in a material way, the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities.’’

The Agency has determined that the

finding of failure to attain proposed

today would result in none of the effects

identified in section 3(f). Under section

186(b)(2) of the CAA, findings of failure

to attain and reclassification of

nonattainment areas are based upon air

quality considerations and must occur

by operation of law in light of certain air

quality conditions. They do not, in-andof-themselves, impose any new

requirements on any sectors of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because those

requirements are automatically triggered

by classifications that, in turn, are

triggered by air quality values, findings

of failure to attain and reclassification

cannot be said to impose a materially

adverse impact on State, local, or tribal

governments or communities.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 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

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

As discussed in section III of this

notice, findings of failure to attain and

reclassification of nonattainment areas

under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA do

not in-and-of-themselves create any new

requirements. Therefore, I certify that

today’s proposed action does not have a

significant impact on small entities.

Unfunded Mandates

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 must

assess whether various actions

undertaken in association with

proposed or final regulations 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.

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Arizona-Phoenix; Carbon Monoxide 14

EPA believes, as discussed above, that

the proposed finding of failure to attain

and reclassification of the Phoenix

nonattainment area are factual

determinations based upon air quality

considerations and must occur by

operation of law and, hence, do not

impose any Federal intergovernmental

mandate, as defined in section 101 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Carbon monoxide.

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

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11739 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271

[FRL–5503–4]

RIN 2050–AE05

Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV

Proposed Rule—Issues Associated

With Clean Water Act Treatment

Equivalency, and Treatment Standards

for Wood Preserving Wastes and

Toxicity Characteristic Metal Wastes;

Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY: Since publication of the Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Phase IV

proposal (60 FR 43654, August 22,

1995), EPA has received additional

information which will be considered in

developing its final rule. The public has

30 days from publication of this notice

to comment on that additional

information. Readers should note that

only comments about the new

information discussed in this notice will

be considered during the comment

period; issues proposed in the August

22, 1995 Phase IV rule, and in the Phase

IV Supplemental Proposal on mineral

processing wastes (61 FR 2338, January

25, 1996), that are not discussed in this

Notice of Data Availability, are not open

for further comment.

DATES: Comments are due by June 10,

1996.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the

public must send an original and two

copies to Docket Number F–96–P42A–