Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32341

1There are additional submittals associated with

moderate PM10 nonattainment plans, such as a

permit program for the construction of new and

modified major stationary sources and contingency

measures. See sections 189(a) and 172(c)(9). These

submittals were required 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.

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review

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 OMB has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Nonattainment areas.

Dated: April 11, 1996.

Lynda F. Carroll,

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 GG—New Mexico

2. Section 52.1620 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(61) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(61) A revision to the New 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 to reflect EPA’s approval

for lifting the construction ban in

Bernalillo County, superseding the

supplement dated April 14, 1993.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) October 12, 1994 Supplement to

the New Mexico State Implementation

Plan to Control Air Pollution in Area(s)

of Bernalillo County Designated

Nonattainment as approved by the

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air

Quality Control Board on November 9,

1994.

[FR Doc. 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; California—

Mammoth Lakes Nonattainment Area;

PM10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA today approves the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the State of California for the purpose of

bringing about attainment in the

Mammoth Lakes Planning Area (MLPA)

of the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) for particulate

matter with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers (PM10). The ‘‘moderate’’

area SIP was submitted by the State to

satisfy certain Federal requirements in

the Clean Air Act for an approvable

nonattainment area PM10 plan for the

MLPA.

The intended effect of approving this

plan is to regulate emissions of PM10 in

accordance with the requirements of the

CAA, as amended in 1990.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

August 23, 1996 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by July

24, 1996. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other information are

contained in the docket for this

rulemaking. The docket is available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the 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 of enactment of the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments, PM10 areas,

including the Mammoth Lakes Planning

Area, meeting the conditions of section

107(d) of the Act were designated

nonattainment by operation of law.

Once an area is designated

nonattainment, section 188 of the Act

outlines the process for classification 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 of law. See 40

CFR 81.303 (1993) A moderate area may

subsequently be reclassified as

‘‘serious’’ if at any time EPA determines

that the area cannot practicably attain

the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable

attainment date for moderate 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 after that date.

See section 188(b) of the Clean Air Act.

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title

I of the 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 I of the 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). Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of Title I advanced

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 taking into 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, of reasonably 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
32342 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

2Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2).

3EPA issued guidance on PM10 emissions

inventories prior to the enactment of the 1990 Clean

Air Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM10

SIP Development Guideline. Pursuant to section

193 of the Amendments, the guidance provided in

this document, as well as all other pre-Amendment

guidance cited in this notice, remains in effect.

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994 or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable;

3. Pursuant to section 189(c) of the

Act, for plan 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 of PM10 also apply to

major stationary sources of PM10

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 of the Act.

II. Today’s Action

Section 110(k) of the 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 MLPA because

it meets all of the applicable

requirements of the Act.

A. Analysis of State Submission

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) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a state must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.2 Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

state under the Act must be adopted by

such state after reasonable 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 of law if a completeness

determination is not made by EPA six

months after receipt of the submission.

The State of California originally

submitted the Mammoth Lakes Planning

Area PM10 implementation plan

revision to EPA on September 11, 1991.

By operation of law, 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

PM10 SIP. This submittal contained

revisions which are primarily

administrative in nature to assist in the

effective implementation of the SIP

control strategies. By operation of law,

this second submittal was deemed

complete on July 9, 1992.

In today’s action, EPA approves

California’s PM10 SIP submittal for the

MLPA.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires

that nonattainment plan provisions

include a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of relevant 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

PM10 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 as the primary causes of

nonattainment, contributing over 99

percent of total PM10 emissions during

times of peak concentrations. The

remaining 1 percent of the emissions is

comprised of motor vehicle exhaust,

tire-wear, and industrial sources. By

applying known 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.

Source category

Peak 24-

hour

PM10

emissions

(kg/day)

Percentage

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 of the plan

revision’s air quality analysis consistent

with the requirements of sections

172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Clean

Air Act.3 For further details see the

Technical Support Document (TSD) that

is contained in the docket for today’s

action.

3. RACM

As noted, the initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas must submit

provisions to assure that RACM

(including RACT) are implemented no

later than December 10, 1993. See

sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C).

EPA’s General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments contains a

detailed discussion of EPA’s

interpretation of the RACM (including

RACT) requirement. See 57 FR 13540–

45 and 13560–61.

As stated in EPA’s General Preamble,

the suggested starting point for

determining RACM for a particular area

is to list all of the RACM measures for

which EPA has issued guidance under

section 190 of the Act. If a state receives

substantive public comment

demonstrating that additional measures

may be reasonably available, those

measures should then be added to the

original list.

As noted in the Emissions Inventory

section of this 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

motor vehicles and industrial sources.

Given this emissions inventory with

limited contributions from a number of

source categories, a list of control

measures was developed by the Great

Basin Unified Air Pollution Control

District for consideration in a draft 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 of December 31, 1994.

Where sources of PM10 do not

contribute significantly to the PM10

problem in an area, EPA’s policy is that

a state is not reasonably 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32343

dust and cinders, and the fact that the

area is able to demonstrate attainment of

the PM10 NAAQS by the CAA deadline,

EPA believes that the State has provided

a reasoned justification for eliminating

measures from its initial list of possible

RACM. The remaining measures are

legally enforceable. Therefore, EPA has

concluded that the regulations adopted

for the State’s moderate area PM10 SIP

revision represent RACM as required by

sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c) of the

Act.

4. Control Strategy

The control strategy was developed by

the GBUAPCD and the Town of

Mammoth Lakes. The final control

strategy relies upon the implementation

of nine measures which were adopted as

a Town Ordinance on November 7,

1990, and added into the Mammoth

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 of Mammoth on

November 6, 1991. The regulations will

reduce emissions from re-entrained road

cinders, will phase out non-certified

wood burning appliances, and will

institute wood burning curtailments

during periods of high PM10

concentrations. The measures adopted

by the Mammoth Lakes Town Council

and subsequently adopted as Great

Basin Unified APCD Rule 431 to control

PM10 emissions are summarized in the

following table.

Control measures Source category

(1) Vacuum Street Sweeper for Cinders and Road

Dust.

Road Dust/Cinders.

(1) Reduce Vehicle Traffic Road Dust/Cinders.

(1) Institute Public Awareness Program for Wood

Burning.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

(1) Replace or Remove

Non-certified Wood

Stoves Upon Resale.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

(2) Limit Installation of

Woodstoves.

(1) Ban Fireplaces in New

Dwellings.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

(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.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

(2) Require 20% Wood

Moisture Limit for Wood

Retailers.

Control measures Source category

(3) Prohibit Trash and

Coal Burning in Wood

Stoves.

(4) Set 20% Opacity Limit

for Wood Burning.

(1) Voluntary Wood Burning Ban During Periods

of Poor Air Quality.

Wood Stoves/

Fireplaces.

(2) Mandatory Wood Burning Ban when NAAQS

Violation Expected.

The regulations’ primary measures

will result in the eventual phasing out

of all 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 of a

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 all wood burning if more

reductions are needed to attain the

standard.

Road dust reduction measures include

vacuum street sweeping, reduction

measures for vehicle miles travelled

(VMT) for new developments, and an

overall limit of VMT in the Town of

Mammoth.

Section 6 of the MLPA SIP revision

and Appendix F set forth 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 of the 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 of the strategy is

included in Appendix H.

Many of the 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 of the

measures, and the potential impacts of

the contingency measures. These

calculations are best summarized in

Appendix I, pages I–21 and I–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 are reasonable

to control in light of the attainment

needs of the area and the feasibility of

such controls. The Mammoth Lakes

Planning Area contains no major point

sources of PM10, and the imposition of

available control technology on other

existing sources would not expedite

attainment; therefore, implementation of

available control technology (RACT) is

not reasonably required in this plan (57

FR 13543). A more detailed discussion

of the control strategy in the SIP

revision can be found in the Technical

Support Document (TSD).

6. Demonstration

As noted, the initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas must submit a

demonstration (including air quality

modeling) showing that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994. Alternatively, the

state must show that attainment by

December 31, 1994 is impracticable. See

section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

In order for a state to properly

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS,

the SIP control strategy must provide for

attainment of each primary ambient air

quality standard. There are two primary

air quality standards for PM10, a 24-hour

standard (150 μg/m3), and an annual

standard (50 μg/m3). The 24-hour

standard is attained when the expected

number of days per calendar year with

a 24-hour average concentration above

150 μg/m3 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

μg/m3 (lid). See 40 CFR 50.6.

In the MLPA, peak PM10

concentrations are directly related to the

influx of visitors to the area during peak

periods of the ski season, coupled with

low wind speeds. Increased particulate

air pollution and stagnant air conditions

lead to air pollution episodes with

violations of the 150μg/m3 24-hour

standard that may last several days or

more. The MLPA has not violated the 50

μg/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 for the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS is
32344 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

210 μg/m3, 40 percent greater than the

standard. The control strategy used to

achieve attainment concentrations is

summarized in the section of this notice

entitled ‘‘Control Strategy .’’

By this notice EPA approves the

State’s demonstration of attainment of

the PM10 NAAQS by December 31,

1994. For a more detailed description of

the demonstration of attainment, see the

TSD accompanying this notice.

7. PM10 Precursors

The control requirements which are

applicable to major stationary sources of

PM10 also apply to major stationary

sources of PM10 precursors, unless EPA

determines such sources do not

contribute significantly to PM10 levels in

excess of the NAAQS in that area. See

section 189(e) of the Act. An analysis of

air quality and emissions data for the

MLPA indicates that exceedances of the

NAAQS are attributable chiefly to direct

particulate matter emissions from reentrained road dust and cinders and

residential woodburning. Sources of

particulate matter precursor emissions

of ammonium sulfate and ammonium

nitrate contribute a negligible

percentage of the total annual emissions

of PM10. Consequently, EPA finds that

sources of precursors of PM10 in the

MLPA do not contribute significantly to

PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS.

The consequence of this finding is to

exclude these sources from the

applicability of PM10 moderate

nonattainment area control

requirements. Further discussion of the

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 of the area

including, for example, the existing mix

of sources in the area. It is possible,

therefore, that future growth could

change the significance of precursors in

the area. EPA intends to issue future

guidance addressing such potential

changes in the significance of precursor

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 of PM10 emission 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 by EPA and

the State. See sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556. The EPA

criteria addressing the 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 of the Act

and EPA guidance, nonattainment area

plan provisions must also contain a

program that provides for enforcement

of the 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 of that

provision. See section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii).

The State of California has a program

that will ensure that the measures

contained in the SIP revision are

adequately enforced. Primary

enforcement of the RACM rules will be

under the jurisdiction of the Great Basin

Unified APCD and the Town of

Mammoth Lakes.

Under section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) of the

Act, the State must also provide

necessary assurances that the State has

responsibility for ensuring adequate

implementation of these 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 of Today’s Action

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 of California has

demonstrated that the MLPA can

practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by

December 31, 1994.

As noted, additional submittals for

the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment

areas were due at later dates. EPA will

determine the adequacy of any 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.

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing 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 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

on August 23, 1996.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility

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

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.

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, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

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

must undertake 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 of the state

implementation plan or plan revisions
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32345

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 of the 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 of any mandate upon the

state or local governments either as the

owner or operator of a source or as a

regulator, or would impose or lead to

the imposition of any 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 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 Executive Order

12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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 of 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 F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c) (226) and (228) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

* * * * *

(226) Air Quality Management Plan

for the following APCD was submitted

on September 11, 1991, by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(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 APCD were submitted

on January 9, 1992, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(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 of Mammoth 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 of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: The State of Nevada 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 of Nevada’s application and

has made a decision, subject to public

review and comment, that Nevada’s

hazardous waste program revisions

satisfy all of the 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 of business July

24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Nevada’s program

revision application is available during

the business hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00

p.m. at the following addresses for

inspection and copying:

Nevada Department of Conservation 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) of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

(‘‘RCRA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), 42 U.S.C.

6929(b), have a continuing 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 waste programs are

necessary when Federal or State

statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, State program

revisions are necessitated by changes to

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR parts 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

of its program revisions in accordance

with 40 CFR 271.21.

EPA has reviewed Nevada’s

application, and has made an immediate

final decision that Nevada’s hazardous