+(,121/,1(

Citation: 43 Fed. Reg. 38872 1978 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Mar 22 07:35:33 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
PROPOSED RULES

percent of the time for a purpose

other than, on-the-job training, it

would be used in a significant manner

for a purpose other than job training.

Thus, a production facility is not an on-the-job training facility for purposes of section 188 simply because new employees receive training on the

machines they will be using as fully productive employees. A facility is considered to be used by an employer in

connection with an occupational training program for his employees or prospective employees if at least 80 percent of the trainees participating in

the program are employees or prospective employees. For purposes of this

section, a prospective employee is a trainee with respect to whom it is rea- sonably expected that the trainee will

be employed by the employer upon

successful completion of the training

program.

(4) Qualified child care facility. A

"qualified child care facility" is a facility which is-

(i) Particularly suited to provide

child care services and specifically

used by an employer to provide such

services primarily for his employees'.

children;

(ii) Operated as a licensed or approved facility under applicable local

law, if any, relating to the.day care of

children; and

(iiI) If directly or indirectly funded

to any extent by the United States, es- tablished and operated in compliance

with the requirements contained in

Part 71 of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, relating to Federal

-Interagency Day Care Requirements.

For purposes of this subparagrapli, a "facility" consists of the buildings, or portions or structural components

thereof, in which children receive such

personal care, protection, arid supervision In the absence of their parents as may be required to meet their needs,

and the equipment or other personal

property necessary to render such ser- vices. Whether or not a facility, or any

component property thereof, is particularly suited for the needs of the

children being cared for depends upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Generally, a building and its structural components, or a room therein, and equipment are particularly suitable for furnishing child care service if they are designed or adapted for such use or satisfy re- quirements under local law for such use as a condition to granting a license

for the operation of the facility. For

example, such property includes special kitchen or toilet facilities connected to the building or room in which

the services are rendered and equipment such as children's desks, chairs,

and play or instructional equipment.

Such property would not include general purpose rooms used for many purposes (for example, a room used as an

employee recreation center during the

evening) nor would it include a room

or a part of a room which is simply

screened off for use by children during

the day. For purposes of this section, a

facility is considered to be specifically

used as a child care-facility if such facility is actually used for such purpose

and is not used in a significant manner

for any purpose other than child care.

For purposes of this subparagraph, a

child care facility is used by an employer to provide 'child care services

primarily for children of employees of

the employer if, for any month, no

more than 20 percent of the average

daily enrolled or attending children

for such month are other than children of such employees.

(5) -Placed in service. For purposes of

section 188 and this section, the term

"placed in service" shall have the

meaning assigned to such term in

paragraph (d) of § 1.46-3.

(e) Effective date. The provisions of

section 188 and this section apply to

taxable years ending after December

31, 1971.

PAR. 2. Section 1.642(f)-i is amended

to read as follows:"

§ 1.642(f)-1 Amortization deductions.

-An estate or trust is allowed amortization deductions with respect to an

emergency facility as defined in seetion-168(d), with respect to a certified

pollution control facility as defined in

section 169(d), with respect to qualified railroad rolling stock as defined in

section 184(d), with respect to certified

coal mine safety equipment as defined

in section 187(d), and with respect to

on-the-job training and child care facilities as defined in section 188(b), in

the same manner and 'to the same

extent as in the case of an individual.

However, the principles governing the

apportionment of the deductions for

depreciation and depletion between fiduciaries and the beneficiaries of an

estate or trust (see sections 167(h) and

611(b) and the regulations thereunder) shall be applicable with respect to

such amortization deductions.

JEROME KURTZ,

Commissioner of

- Internal Revenue.

(FR Doc. 78-24620 Filed 8-30-78; 8:45 am]

[6560-01]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[40 CFR Part 601

S[FRL 933-3J

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW

STATIONARY SOURCES

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of

Public Hearing.

SUMMARY: This action contains

EPA's proposed list of major source categories for which standards of performance must be promulgated by

August 1982. The Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977 require EPA to

publish by August 1978, a list of the

.categories of major stationary sources which have not been previously listed as source categories for which standards of perforamce will be established,

The intent of this action is to provide

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the proposed list.

A public hearing will be held to pro.

vide interested persons an opportunity

for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed

list.

Comments. Comments must be re- ceived on or before October 30, 1978.

Pyblic Hearing. The public hearing

will be held on Friday, September 20,

1978.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Per- sons wishing to attendthe hearing or present oral testimony should contact

EPA by September 25, 1978.

Comments. Comments should be

submitted to Gary D. McCutchen,

'Standards Development Branch (MD13), Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

N.C. 27711.

Public Hearing. The public hearing

will be held Friday, September 29,

1978, at 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in room 3906,

Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, D.C. Persons wishing to

present oral testimony should notify

Mary Jane Clark, Emission Standards

and Engineering Tivision (MD-13),

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, telephone number 919-541-5271.

Background Document. The background document for the proposed priority list may be obtained from the

U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research

Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, telephone

number 919-541-2777. Please refer to

"priorities for New Source Perform- ance Standards Under the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1977 (EPA-450/3-

78-019)."

Docket. EPA has determined that a docket is not required for this action,

but public comments received and a copy of the background report used in

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 170-THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978

38872

HeinOnline -- 43 Fed. Reg. 38872 1978
PROPOSED RULES

the development of this list will be

available for public inspection and

copying at the Public Information

Reference Unit, Room 2922, 401 M

Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

-CONTACT.

Mr. Gary McCutchen, Emission

Standards and Engineering Division

(MD-13, Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park,

N.C. 27711, telephone number 919-

541-5421.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

-The new source performance standard

(NSPS) program began in December

1970, when the Clean Air Act was

signed into law. Authorized under sec- tion 111 of the act, NSPS were to re- quire the best control system (considering cost) for new facilities, and were intended to complement the other air

quality management approaches authorized by the 1970 act. A total of 28 source categories are regulated by

NSPS, withNSPS for an additional 25

source categdries under development.

During the 1977 hearings on the

Clean Air Act,- Congress received testimony on the need for more rapid development of NSPS. There was concern-that not all.sources which had

the potential to endanger public

health or welfare were controlled by

NSPS and that the potentia, existed

for "environmental blackmail" from source categories not subject to NSPS.

,This concern was explicitly expressed

by the Governor of New Jersey, who

felt that industry could threaten to

leave, or simply not locate in, States

with more stringent regulations than

their neighbors. These concerns were reflected in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Specifically in section

111(f).

Section 111(f) requires that EPA

publish a list of major stationary

sources of air pollution not already

listed under section 111(b)(1)(A); that

is, for Which NSPS have not yet been

proposed or promulgated. The list is to

be promulgated by August 7, 1978,

after EPA has provided notice of and

opportunity for public hearings and

consulted with Governors and State

air pollution control agencies. In developing priorities, EPA is to consider:

(1) The quantity, of emissions from

each source category, (2) the extent to

which each pollutant endangers public

health or welfare, and (3) the mobility

and competitive nature of each stationary source category, e.g., the capability of a new or existing source to

locate in areas with less stringent air

pollution control .egulations. After

the list is promulgated, Governors

may submit applications under section

111(g) to add major source categories

to the list, add any source category to

the list which may endanger public

health or welfare, change the priority

ranking, or revise promulgated NSPS.

DEVELOPING TlE LsT

EPA initiated development of this

list by compiling information on a large number of source categories

from a number of literature resources.

This preliminary list was evaluated

using the criteria specified in section

111(f). A draft report describing this

analysis was reviewed by the National

Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee on April 6, 1978. A

final report is now- available which, In

addition to, describing the methodology used to apply the criteria, provides

the resource material used in developing the list.

The background report may be obtained from the U.S. EPA Library

(MD-35), Research Triangle Park,

N.C. 27711 (specify "Priorities for

NSPS Under the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977," EPA-450/3-78-

019).

The data were first analyzed to determine those sources which have the

potential to emit 100 tons or more per

year of any one pollutant. These

major source categories were then subjected to a priority ranking procedure

using the three criteria specified In

the act. In summary, this procedure,

which is described in more detail In

the following section, first ranks

source categories on a pollutant by

pollutant basis. This results In nine

lists [one for each pollutant-hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NO.).

particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO,), carbon-monoxide (CO), lead

(Pb); fluorides (F), acid mist (AM). and

hydrogen sulfide (H-S)] with each list

ranked using the criteria in the act. In

this ranking, first priority Is given to

quantity of emissions, second priority

to potential impact on health and welfare, and third priority to mobility.

Thus. sources with the greatest

growth rates and emission reduction

potential are high on each list; sources

with limited choice of location, low

growth and small emission potential are low bn each list. - The nine lists are combined into one by selecting pollutant goais-a procedure which, in effect, assigns a relative

priority to pollutants based upon the

potential impact of NSPS. After the

pollutant goals are selected, the final

priority list Is established through the

selection of source categories which

will have maxirhum impact on attaining the selected goals, The effect of

this procedure is to emphasize control

of organic (hydrocarbon), particulate

matter, and NO. emissions and to give

carbon monoxide and noncrlteria pollutants a lower priority.

The ranking of source categories on the list and, in fact, the differentiation

between major and minor sources Is

sensitive to the accuracy of the data

utilized. The ranking is especially sen-

-sitive to emission factors, source sizes,

and source category growth rates. Be- cause the data. base used to establish

the priority list was obtained from a

number of literature sources and because time was not available to perform an independent verification of

these data, it is expected that further

study wll identify certain inaccuracies

in the original data base If such errors are Identified after promulgation, EPA may, as described below,

take action to reorder priorities, delete

sources from the list, or add sources to

that list.

In developing standards for source categories on the list, EPA's first activIty will be a screening study. This ac- tivity takes approximately 2 months

to complete for each source category

and involves gathering basic data concerning the industry for which a standard is planned. This information

is obtained from State and local agencies and from owners and operators of sources in the affected industry, and is

more accurate and representative than

the data base used in developing the

priority list. EPA expects to initiate

the screening studies for all source categories listed within 18 to 24

months after promulgation of the list

and, therefore, even very large errors In the priority ranking will have-little

effect on the date a project is started.

If the screening study indicates that an NSPS would have little or no effect

on emissions, or that an NSPS would

be impractical, a source category can be removed from the list at the com-- pletion of the screening study before a standard is developed. Finding that

uncontrolled emission rates are below

100 tons per year or that the source category exhibits a low growth rate are examples of cases which could

cause EPA to remove a. category or lower Its priority. EPA may, however,

develop standards for sources which

emit less than 100 tons per year, especlally certain. minor sources which, in

aggregate, represent a large quantity

of emissions.

The proposed list identifies major

source categories, defined as categories

which have average size sources with

the potential (uncontrolled) to emit

100 tons per year (TPY) or more of

any pollutant regulated under the act.

Certain new sources of smaller than

average size within these categories

may have less than a 100 ton per year

emission potential, just as very large

units from nonlisted minor source categories may have more than this potential. Thus, this list of major source

categories was developed only for the

purpose of defining NSPS priorities

and should not be used to define sources subject to new source review

(NSR), which is conducted on a caseFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 170-THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978

.f

38873

HeinOnline -- 43 Fed. Reg. 38873 1978
PROPOSED RULES

by-case basis. Moreover, Some NSR

programs such as prevention of significant deterioration have separate and'

distinct criteria for defining- a major source (e.g., 100 tons per year potential for certain source types and 250

tons per year for others).

Two groups of sources in addition to

minor sources are not included on the

proposed list. One group includes sources which could not be -evaluated

due to insufficient data. This lack of

data suggests that these sources,

which are identified' in the background report, "Priorities for NSPS

under the Clean Air Act of 1977," have

not previously been regulated or studied and, therefore, are probably not

major sources. Nevertheless, EPA will

continue to investigate these sources and will add to the list any which are identified as being major.

The second group of unlisted source categories consists of those already

listed under section 111(b)(1)(A).

These are:

Fossil-fuel-fired steam generators. Incinerators.

Protland cement plants. Nitric acid plants. Sulfuric acid plants. Asphalt concrete plants. Petroleum refineries.

Storage vessels for petroleum liquids. Secondary lead smelters.

Secondary brass and bronze ingot produc- tion plants. Iron and steel plants. Sewage treatment plants. Primary copper smelters.

Primary zinc smelters.

Primary lead smelters.

Primary aluminum reduction plants. Phosphate fertilizer industry: Wet process phosphoric acid plants.

Phosphate fertilizer industry: Superphosphoric acid plants. Phosphate fertilizer industry: Diammonium

phosphate plants.

Phosphate fertilizer industry: Triple superphosphate plants. Phosphate fertilizer industry: Granular

triple-superphosphate storage facilities.

Coal preparation plants. Ferroalloy production facilities.

Steel plants: Electric arc furilaces.

Kraft pulpmills. Lime plants. Grain elevators.

Stationary gas turbines.

There are, however, some facilities (or

subcategories) within these soured categories for which NSPS have not been

developed, but which may by themselves be significant sources of air polluti6n. A 'nuimber- of these facilities were evaluated as if they were sepaxate source categories; three which

ranked high in priority are included on the priority list to indicate that

EPA plans to develop standards for

them: Petroleum refinery fugitive

emissions, industrial fossil-fuel-fired

steam generators, and idustrial-commertial incinerators. In addition to

these, EPA will continue to evaluate

affected facilities within listed source categoriesand may from time to time

add these to the list. Sintering plants

in the iron and steel industry is an ex- ample of a facility now being studied.

Although the growth rate for new sintering capacity is presently very low,

giving this facility a very low priority,

EPA is continuing to assess emission

control and measurement technology

with a view toward possible development of a standard for sintering plants

at a later date.

DETERMINING PRIORITIES

The methodology used to establish

priorities is explained in detail in the

report "Priorities for New Source Performance Standards Under the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1977." The description that follows conveys the

basic concepts used, but does not

detail the entire procedure.

The first task in the ranking procedure was to develop a method for applying the three criteria specified by

the CAA, amendments to each of the

nine pollutants. The second task was

to establish goals for each pollutant so that a single multipollutant priority

list could be compiled.

The first CAA criterion, quantity of

emissions, is represented by the emissions an NSPS would prevent after

being in" effect for a specified period of

time; in this case, 10 years. Emissions

for 1990 are first calculated assuming

-that the present'level of control con- tinues to be applied to new sources;

the resulting 1990 emission level is

termed Ts. Then 1990 emissions are

calculated agsuming a best level of

control, representative of an NSPS, is

applied to. all new sources constructed

between 1980 and 1990; this 1990 emission level is termed TN. The emissions

that could be prevented by an NSPS

after' 10 years-is represented by the

difference between Is and TN. The

value of (Ts-Tg) represents the first

CAA 8riterion.

The approach used to derivean objective measure of the impact or extent to which public health or welfare could be endangered consists of.

first determining the ambient air concent ration (X) for each pollutant in

the vicinity of a typical facility. This

involves several assumptions, including the tape of meteorology and dispersion equations, concentration and

quantity of emissions, and average stack' heights and stack gas emission

flow rates and temperatures. Since one pollutant could have no discernible effects at a concentration at which an- other pollutant could be dangerous, a method was needed to relate each of

these ambient air concentrations to

their health or welfare effects. The

approach selected was to divide each

ambient air concentration by an appropriate ambient thieshold value

(ATV) for that pollutant. The ATV

represents a level at which p ublic

health or welfare may be endangered.

The ATV is represented by the nation.

al ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS) for criteria pollutants and

by a concentration based on the

threshold limit value for the other

pollutants studied. These "normalized" values range from 0.QO01 to 170

and are used to represent health or welfare endangerment. A normalized

value of 1.0 would mean that ambient

concentrations in the vicinity of a typical facility are approximately

equal to the ATV level.

Evaluation of the mobility and com- petitive nature of source categories was subjective. "Mobility and competitive nature" in this analysis refers to

the feasibility of stationary source categories to relocate to, or locate new facilities In, areas with less stringent air

pollution control regulations. Nonmovable stationary source categories were identified on the basis of being

tied either to the market (e.g., dry

cleaners) or to a supply of materials

(e.g., mining operations). All other stationary source categories were consid.

ered movable by default.

For each pollutant, source categories were first separated Into three groups:

high, medium, and low emmissions

prevention potential (Ts-TN). Each of

these three emissions groups was then

divided into three subgroups: high,

medium, and low ambient air impact

(X/ATV). Each of these subgroups

'was then split into two subdivisions:

movable and nonmovable. Finally,

within each of the 18 resulting subdilisions, source categories were ranked

m order of emission prevention potential (Ts-TN), from highest to lowest,

Priority Was given to high (TN-TN),

high X/ATV, and movability, so that a prioritized listing of these subdivisions

is as follows, with highest priority

first:

(1) Iigh (T-T), high X/ATV, movable.

(2) High (Ts-TN), high X/ATV, nonmova ble.

(3) High (Ts-TN), medium X/ATV, movable.

(4) High (Ts-TN), medium X/ATV, nonmo. vable.

(5) High (Ts-TN), low X/ATV. movable.

(6) High (Ts-TN), low X/ATV, nonmova- ble.

(7) Medium (Ts-T), high X/ATV, movable.

(8) Medium (Ts-TN), high X/ATV, nonmo. vable.

(9) Medium (Ts-TN), medium X/ATV,

movable.

(10) Medium (Ts-TN), medium X/ATV,

nonmovable. t

(1") Medium (Ts-TN), low X/ATV, mov. able.

(12) Medium (Ts-TN), low X/ATV, nonmo. vable.

(13) Low (TN-T), high X/ATV, movable.

(14) Low (TN-TN), high X7ATV, nonmova. ble.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 170-THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978

38874

HeinOnline -- 43 Fed. Reg. 38874 1978
PROPOSED RULES

(15) Low (T-T.j), medium X/ATV, movable. -

(16) Low (Ts-TX). medium X/ATV. nomo- vable.

(17) Low (Ts-T,;), low X/ATV, movable.

(18) Low (Ts-T.), low X/ATV, nonmova- ble.

This provides -a separate priority

ranking for each pollutant. Developing a combined multipollutant priority list

requires the selection of pollutant

goals.

A compuiter program was -written to

calculate 1990 emissions from each

source/pollutant combination, then

determine which 1990 pollutant estimate was furthest from its goal. This

became the priority pollutant, and the

top priority source category from that

pollutant list was selected and an NSPS (E,- level of emissions) assumed

for new sources in that category from

that time on. It was assumed that

NSPS were promulgated at the same

time for any other pollutants emitted

from that source category. The com- puter program then recalculates 1990

emissions, selects the new priority pollutant, and repeats the selection procedure. A standard-setting rate was as- sumed that, beginning in 1980, results

in the promulgation by the end of

1982 6f NSPS for all the source categories listed. The resulting list can be

found in the background report (Table

3-12, p. 113), and is the basis for the

listing of major source categories that

appears in this notice.

The goals for PM, SO,, NO., HC, and

Pb were determined by assuming all

NSPS are promulgated in 1980 and

then calculating 1990 emissions based on NSPS control of all new sources

- during that 10-year period. For S02

and NO., emission§ will still increase,

but for PM, HC, and Pb, 1990 emis.

sions would be lower than 1980 emissions despite growth. Although EPA

cannot set all NSPS in 1980, the emission changes that result from such an assumption provide reasonable goals

to aim for.

These goals are summarized below:

1990 emission 1990 goal

without NSPS." percent change

Pollutant percent change from 1980

from 1980 em'ssIons"

emissions

Particulate

matter (PM).-. +30 -5

Sulfur dioxide

(SO.) +20 +10

Nitrogen oxides

(NO.) _ +55 +20

Hydrocarbons

(HC) - . +70 -30

Lead (Pb).- +55 -20

*Does not take into account emission reductions

that will accrue from State Implementation Plan

revisions or New Source Review decisions (including

prevention of significant deterioration and emission

offsets). -

"Determined by assuming that all NSPS are effective in 1980 and apply to-all new sources con- structed during the 10-year period 1980-90.

For the other pollutants (CO, AM,

HS, and F), 1990 emissions would be

lower than 1980 emissions if all NSPS were set in 1980, but these reductions are of lower priority than those listed

in the preceding paragraph. The lower

priority is based on prior EPA policy.

AM, H.S, and F are not regulated by

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and are considered

lower priority than NAAQS or criteria

pollutants. Although CO Is a crlterl.

pollutant, CO from statiomy sources

has not been considered a priority con- cern; emphasis has Instead been on emissions from vehicles. Therefore, a 1990 goal of no increase over 1980

emissions was selected, which in effect

deemphasizes CO, AM, HS, and F.

The goals calculated for these pollutants, based on the change in emission levels between 1980 and 1990, are shown below:

1990 emissions 1090 goal. without NSPS.' percent change

Pollutant percent chance from 19O

from 1980 emissions

emiL" ons

Carbon

monoxide

(CO) +30 "0

Acld mist (AM)- +135 .. o

Hydrogen sulfide (H.S) _ +30 .. 0

Fluorides (F)_ +35 .0

*Does not take Into account emLssion reduclons

that will accrue from State Implementation plan re- visions or new source review decst sn (Including prevention of significant deterioration and emInsson

offsets). -Setting a goal of 0 percent chance has the

effect of deemphasizing these pollutants since re- ductions below 1980 emisson levels are possble.

At the beginning of the computer

program, the priority pollutant is determined by the difference In tons of

emissions per year between the first

column (projected 1990 emissions) and

the second column (the 1990 emissions

goal).

IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCE CATE0RIES

There are some differences between

the list in the background report

(table 3-12) and the list which appears

below. These differences are primarily a result of aggregation of subcategories which had been subdivided for size

classification and priority ranking

analysis. Nonmetallic mineral mining,

for example, is composed of nine subcategories, eight of which were ana- lyzed separately (stone, sand and

gravel, clay, gypsum, lime, borax,

fluorspar, and phosphate rock mining)

and one of which Is considered a minor source (mica mining). EPA plans to

study the entire non-metallic mining

industry at one time, since many of

the processes and control techniques are similar. For this reason, the industry is Identified by a single listing.

This does not necessarily imply that a single standard would apply to all

38875

sources within the listed category.

Rather, as described below in the case

of synthetic organic chemical manu- facturing, the nature and scope of

standards will be determined only

after A. detailed study of sources within the category.

Also, 'in addition to the major

sources, three source categories not

identified as being major source categories have been added to the list-organlc solvent degreasing, industrial

surface coating: metal furniture, and

lead acid battery manufacture.

Organic solvent degreasing was chosen for study because this source category accounts. for some 5 percent

of stationary source emissions in a typical air quality control region.

Thus, although Individual facilities

typically emit less than 100 TPY, this

is a significant source of organic emissions and EPA considers it prudent to

continue the development of a standard for this source category.

The metal furniture coating industry-Is also a significant source of or- ganic emissions, and there are over 300

existing facilities with the potential to

emit more than 100 TPY. For this

reason, EPA has placed this source

category on the list.

Lead acid battery manufacture is a significant source of lead emissions.

An NSPS for this source category is

expected to assist in attainment of the

proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead.

EPA initiated work to develop standards for each of these source categories prior td the 1977 amendments to

the CAA and plans to continue work on them. Interrupting work on these

categories is not considered justified, as this would requirethat a significant

amount of work be repeated.

One listed source category which de- serves special attention is the synthetIc organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI). Preliminary estimates indicate that there may be over 600 different processes included in this

source category, but only 27 of these

processes have been evaluated and priority-ranked. For the other 575, there was not enough information available.

As Is the case with several other aggregate source categories, EPA expects to use generic standards to cover as many

of the 600 processes as possible, so separate NSPS for each process are un- likely. Based on an effort which has

been underway within EPA for 2 years

to study this complex source category,

the -generic standards could regulate

nearly all emissions by covering four

broad areas: process facilities; storage

facilities; leakage; and transpQrt and

handling losses. Also, since a number

of the pollutants emitted are potentially toxic or carcinogenic, regulation

under section 112, national-emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 170-THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978

HeinOnline -- 43 Fed. Reg. 38875 1978
38876

'(NESHAP) rather than NSPS may be

more appropriate. Therefore SOCMI

Is listed as a single source -category.

The 27 processes evaluated are considered the most likely candidates for

NSPS or NESHAP coverage through

generic standards, and are listed

below:

Acrylonitrile Plants.

Aeetio Acid Plants.

Acrylic Acid.

Acetic Anhydride Plants.

Cyclohexane Plants.

C1cohexanol/Cyclohexanone Plants.

Dimethyl Terephthalate Plants.

Ethylene Dichloride Plants.

Ethylene Oxide Plants.

Ethylbenzene Plants.

Ethylene Plants.

Ethylene Glycol Plants.

Formaldehyde Plants.

Maleie Anhydride Plants.

Methanol Plants.

Methyl Methacrylate Plants.

Phenol Plants.

Propylene Oxide Plants..

Terephthalic Acid Plants.

'Vinyl Acetate Plants."

Phthalic Anhydride (PAN) Plants.

Acetone Plants.

Carbon Tetrachloride Plants.

Adipic Acid Plants.

Methyl Chloroform Plants.

Styrene Plants.

Allyl Chlorldg Plants.

Additional information has resulted

in the exclusion from the list of some

source categories which are shown in

the background report. Mixed fuel

boilers and feed and grain milling are

regulated by the NSPS for fossil-fuel

steam generators and grain elevators,

respectively. Beer manufacture has a

much lower emission level than had

been assumed in the background

report, and whiskey manufacture was

deleted due to a.lack of any demonstrated control.technology.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The CAA requires that EPA, prior to

promulgating this list of source categories, consult with Governors and

State air pollution control agencies.

An invitation was extended on February 28, 1978, to the state and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the National Governors' Association (NGA) to attend

the first Working Group meeting,

March 16, 1978, and review the draft

background report and the methods'

used to apply the criteria. On March

24, 1978, EPA notified each Governor

and the director of each State air pollution control agency by letter of this

project, inviting them to participate

and/or comment:

(1) At the April 5-6, 1978, National

Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisoiy Committee NAPCTAC) meeting

in Alexandria, Va.;

(2) When the final background

report was mailed to them;

PROPOSED RULES

(3) When the list is proposed in the

FEDERAL REGISTER; or

(4) At a public hearing to be held on

the proposed list.

The draft background report was mailed to all NAPCTAC members, five

of which represent State or local agencies, two of which represent environmental groups, and eight of which represent industry. Copies were mailed to

six environmental groups and three consumer groups at the same time,

and to a representative of the NGA.

Copies of the final report were sent

to the Governors State, and local air

pollution control agencies, NAPCTAC

members, environmental groups, the

NGA, and other requesters in early

July..

A'public'hearing will be held to dis- cuss the proposed priority list in accordance with section 111(g)(8) of the

Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to

make oral presentations should contact, EPA at the address above. Any

member of the public may file a written statement with EPA before,

during, 6r within 30 days after the

hearing. Written statements should be

addressed to Mr. Gary D. McCutchen

at the address above.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing

and written statements will be available for public inspection and copying

during normal working hours in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Public Information Reference Unit (address same as above).

Note that application for revision of

the list at any time by a Governor is

specifically permitted in section

111(g). EPA must evaluate an application-within 90 days, explain why an application is not accepted, and implement acceptable applications following

a public hearing on the proposed

action. Applications relating to NSPS

may be to (1) add a major source category to the list, (2) add a source category to the list, .whether major or minor, if it has the potential to endanger health or welfare, (3) revise priorities if the criteria specified in the Act

have not been properly applied, or (4)

revise a promulgated NSPS that no longer reflects best control technology.

DEvELoPrmEN oF STANDARDS

When the list of source categories is

promulgated in the FEDERAL REGISTER,

EPA will undertake a program to promulgate standards for those source categories by August 7, 1982. EPA has

already initiated the development of

standards for nearly half of the source categories listed; work on the remaining source categories will be initiated

within the next 2 years.

It'should be pointed out that several

of the source categories listed could be

subject to standards which may be

adopted under section 112 of the

Clean Air Act (national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants or NESHAP). Included are byproduct

coke ovens and several source categories within the petroleum transport

and marketing Industry. If standards are developed under section 112 for

these or any other source categories

on the list being proposed today, then

standards would not be developed for

those source categories under section

ill.

The priority ranking is indicated by

the number to the left of each source category and will be used to decide the

order in which new projects are initiated, although this is not necessarily an indication of the order in which

projects will be completed. In fact,

higher priority source categories often

present difficult technical and regulatory problems, and may be among the

later source cttegories for which

standards are promulgated. It should be noted also that the source categories Identified on this

proposed list are not subject to the

.provisions of section 11l(b)(1)(B) which would require proposal 120 days

after adoption of the list. Rather, the

promulgation of standardr for sources contained on the list being proposed

here will be undertaken in accord;nce

with the time schedule prescribed in

section 111(f(1) of the Clean Air Act

amendments. That is, 25 percent are to be promulgated by August 1980, 75

percent by August 1981, and all of the

standards by August 1982.

Dated: August 24, 1978.

DOUGLAS M. CosTLE,

Administrator.

It is proposed to amend Part 60 of

Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of

l'ederal Regulations by adding § 60.16

to Subpart A as follows:

§ 60.16 Priority List.

Priority

number

STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION

16. Fossil-fuel-fired steam generators:

Industrial boilers.

14. Stationary internal combustion

engines.

METALLURGICAL PROCESSES

10. By-product coke ovens. 23. Foundries: Grey iron.

41. Foundries: Steel.

42. Secondary aluminum.,

20. Secondary copper.

66, Secondary zinc.

67. Uranium refining.

MINERAL PRODUCTS

57. Asphalt roofing.

2Low numbers have highest priority: e.g.,

No. 1 Is high priority, No. 72 Is low priority,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 170-THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978

HeinOnline -- 43 Fed. Reg. 38876 1978
49. Brick and related clay products.

60. Castable refractories.

58. Ceramic clay.

48. Fiberglass.

38. Glass.

45. Gypsum. -

19. Metallic mineral processing.

13. Mineral wool

18. Non-metallicmineral processing.

64. Perlite.

21. Phosphate rock preparation.

43. Sintering: Clay and flyash. "

POLYMERS AND RESINS

54. Polymers and resins: ABS-SAN

resins.

12. Polymers and resins: Acrylic

resins. - 50. Polymers and resins: Phenolic

resins.

62. Polymers and resins: Polyester

resins.

30. Polymers and resins: Polyethylene. 55. Polymers and resins: Polypropylene.

53. Polymers and resins: Polystyrene.

51. Polymers and resins: Urea-melamine resins.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL

68. Alfalfa dehydrating.

44. Ammonium sulfate.

59. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

69. Animal feed defluorination.

63. Starch.

70. Urea (for fertilizer and polymers).

27. Vegetable oil.

WASTE INCINERATION

11. Incineration: Industrial-commercial.

-BASIC CEEMICAL MANUFACTURE

1. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing.

61. Borax and boric acid.

47. Hydrofluoric acid.

65. Phosphoric acid: Thermal proc- ess. 40. Potash.

46. /Sodium carbonate.

CH CAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE

52. Ammonia.

2. Carbon black.

31. Charcoal.

71. Detergent.

17. Explosives.

7. Fuel conversion.

34. Printing ink. -

35. SynthetiE fibers.

28. Synthetic rubber. - 29- Varnish.

EVAPORATIVE Loss SOURCES

6. Dry cleaning.

9. Graphic arts.

15. Indugtrial surface coating: Automobiles.

3. Industrial surface coating: Cans.

8. Industrial surface coating: Fabric.

PROPOSED RULES

37. Industrial surface coating: Large appliances.

32. Industrial surface coating: Metal

coil.

5. Industrial surface coating: Paper.

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

25. Crude oil and natural gas production.

72. Gasoline additives.

4. Petroleum refinery: Fugitive

_sources.

33. Transportation and marketing.

WOOD PROCESSING

24. Chemical wood pulping: Acid sulfite.

22. Chemical wood pulping: Neutral

sulfite (NSSC).

36. Plywood manufacture.

CONSUMER PRODUCTS

56.. Textile processing.

MINOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

Lead acid battery manufacture. I

Solvent metal cleaning (degreasing).'

Industrial surface coating: metal furniture. I

Aumopxr. Section 111 and 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411.

7601).

[FR Doc. 78-24441 Filed 8-30-78; 8:45 am]

[4110-35]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Health Care Financing Administration

(42 CFR Part 4501

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Reimbursement far Eyeglassos and Hearing

Aids

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HEW.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to regulate.

SUMMARY: This notice asks for suggestions on how to lolver the cost and

improve the quality of eyeglases and

hearing aids paid for under State medicaid programs (medical assistance,

title XIX of the Social Security Act).

Current regulations establish "customary charges which are reasonable" as the upper limit for payment for eye- glasses and hearing aids. The Department is considering whether to require use of volume purchasing or maximum

allowable cost.

DATES: Closing date for receipt of

comments October 16, 1978. Please

refer to MMB-217-NI. Agencies and

organizations are requested to submit

comments in duplicate.

ADDRESS: Comments in writing to:

Administrator, Health Care Financing

'Not prioritized, but included on list. See

explanation In preamble.

38877

Administration, Department of

Health. Education, and ,Welfare, P.O.

Box 2366, Washington, D.C. 20013. Beginning 2 weeks from today, the public

may review the comments on Monday through Friday of each week, from

8:30 am. to 5 p.m. in room 5225 of the

Department's offices at 330 C Street

SW., Washington. D.C. 202-245-0950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Henry Splegelblatt, 202-245-0398.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BACKGROUND

During the past decade the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Federal Trade Commission,

the U.S. Congress, and several con--

sumer groups have investigated the

production and delivery systems for

eyeglasses and hearing aids. All have

concluded that prices are often unreasonably high, which makes it difficult

for many people who need these devices to get them. A comprehensive

discussiod of the history and problems

surrounding the production and distribution of eyeglasses and hearing aids

may be obtained by writing to the

Medicaid Bureau, Health Care Fixncing Administration, 330 C Street SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20201. Following is a . brief discussion of State experience

and of studies of reimbursement practices.

PREsENT COVERAGE ANDREniMuRSEnENT PoLiciEs

Provision of eyeglasses and hearing aids for medicaid recipient is optional, except that these devices, as well as

other vision and hearing services, must

be provided by all States to eligible

children under the early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment

(EPSDT) program. Most States also

provide special eyeglasses or contact

lenses to medicaid patients following

cataract surgery. Currently 33 States, Guam, and the

Virgin Islands provide eyeglasses, and

27 States, Guam, and the Virgin Islands provide hearing aids. However,

increasing State medicaid budgets have recently forced a few States to

drop these optional services. Unless

costs can-be reduced, other States may also be forced to drop them.

Current regulations at 42 CER

450.30(b)(4) define customary charges which are reasonable as "the prevailing charges in the locality for compa- rable services under comparable circumstances". Since medicare and most

third-party insurers do not pay for

hearing aids, and medicare pays only for special eyeglasses, there are insufficient data about prices available for

comparison.

Based on investigations of the eye- glasses and hearing aid production and

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 170-THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978

HeinOnline -- 43 Fed. Reg. 38877 1978