Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Mammoth Lakes Nonattainment Area; PMINF10

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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, 1991\1\:

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

\1\ There 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.

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

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

[[Page 32342]]

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.

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

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

provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of

section 110(a)(2).

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

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.

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

Peak 24-

hour PM10

Source category emissions Percentage

(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 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\ EPA 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.

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

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

[[Page 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/Cinders.

Road Dust.

(1) Reduce Vehicle Traffic................ Road Dust/Cinders.

(1) Institute Public Awareness Program for Wood Stoves/Fireplaces.

Wood Burning.

(1) Replace or Remove Non-certified Wood Wood Stoves/Fireplaces.

Stoves Upon Resale.

(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 Wood Stoves/Fireplaces.

Installers.

(2) Require 20% Wood Moisture Limit for

Wood Retailers.

(3) Prohibit Trash and Coal Burning in

Wood Stoves.

(4) Set 20% Opacity Limit for Wood Burning

(1) Voluntary Wood Burning Ban During Wood Stoves/Fireplaces.

Periods of Poor Air Quality.

(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 non-certified

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 g/m3),

and an annual standard (50 g/m3). The 24-hour standard is

attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-

hour average concentration above 150 g/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 g/

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 150g/m3 24-hour standard that may

last several days or more. The MLPA has not violated the 50 g/

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

[[Page 32344]]

210 g/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

re-entrained 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-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations

of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, 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

[[Page 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:

Sec. 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