P. 1



# OAR Box 1123 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 139 ) F.R.February28 , 198 6
Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 4/16/20082:49:54 PM

Sheet 139of 178P. 2



### 709 0 

# A - 8*4--3 >

Federal

. Registe r

/Vol

. 51 , No
. 4 0 /

Friday , Februar y 28 , 198 6 /Propose dRule s denta l trauma . Denta l trauma , in orde rt o b e covered , mus

tb e related to , and a

n integra l par to f medica l trauma ; oraresulto

f medicall y necessary treatmen to f a ninjur y o r disease . (6 ) Denta l car e require d i n preparatio n fo rmedica l treatmen to f a diseas e o rdisorde ro rrequire d a s th e resul to f denia l traum acause d b y th e medicall y necessar y treatmen to f a n injur y o rdiseas e (iatrogenic) . [1) Necessar y denta l car e includin g prophylaxi s an d extraction s whe n performe d i n preparatio n fo ro ra s a resul tb f in-lin e radiatio n therap y fo r ora l o rfacia l cancer. , (2 ) Treatmen tp f

gingiva l hyperplasia , wit h o rwithou tperiodonta l disease , a s adirec tresul to f

prolonge d therap y wit h Dilanti n (diphenylhydantoin ) o rrelate d compounds . (c ) Denta l car e i s limite d t o th e abov e an d simila rcondition s specificall y prescribe d b y th e Director , OCHAMPUS , a s meetin g th e requirement s fo rcoverag e unde rth e provision s o f

thi s section . (ii ) General

Exclusions. [a] Denta l car e whic h i s routine , preventative , restorative , prosthodontic , periodonti c o remergenc y doe s no t qualif y a s adjunctiv e denta l car e fo rth e purpose s o f

CHAMPU S excep twhe n performe d i n preparatio n fo ro ra s a resul to f denta l traum acause d b y medicall y necessar y treatmen to f a n injur y o rdisease . (6 ) Th e addin g o rmodifyin g o f bridgewor kan d dentures . (c ) Orthodontia , excep twhe n directl y relate d t o an d a n integra l par to f th e medica l o rsurgica l correctio n o f aclef t palat e o rwhe n require d i n preparatio n for , o ra s aresul tof

, traum at o th e teet h an d supportin g structure s cause d b y medicall y necessar y treatmen to f a n injur y o rdisease . (e) #? * \ (10) * (iv) * * * . : (A) * * * ' Note.—Extraction of

unerupte d o rpartially erupted , malposed o

rimpacted teeth , wit

h or withoutthe attache d follicularor developmenttissues , i s notacovere d ora l surger y procedur

e excep twhe n the car

e i s

. indicate d i n preparation formedica l

. treatmen to f adiseas e ordisordero rrequire d a s aresultp

f denta l traum acause d by th e .

. necesar y medical , treatmen

to f an injur y or illness . Surgica

l preparatio

n ofth e mout

h fo r dentures i s notcovered b y CHAMPUS. Dated : Februar y 24,1986 . - .PatriciaH. Means , '"

- OSD Federal

RegisterLiaison Officer, Department

of Defense. [F RDoc . 86-4329 Filed 2-27-66 ; 8:4 5 am] BILLING COD E 3810-01- W ' Departmen t o f th e Navy 3 2 CF R Par t 70 1 Availabilit y o f Departmen t o f Nav y Record s an d Publication s o f th e Nav y Document s Affectin g th e Publi c AGENCY : Departmen to f

th e Navy,-DOD . ACTION : Amendmen tt o propose d rule . SUMMARY

: Th e Departmen to f

th e Nav y propose s t o establis h aspecifi c exemptio n fro m certai n provision s o f th e Privac y Ac tfo rasyste m o f records . DATES : Comment s mus tb e receive d o n o rbefor e Marc h 31,1986 . ADDRESS : Sen d an y comment s t o Mrs . Gwendoly n R. Aitken , Privac y Ac t Coordinator , Offic e o f

th e Chie f

o f Nava l Operation s (OP-09B30) , Departmen to f

th e Navy , Th e Pentagon , Washington , D C 20350 . FO RFURTHE

RINFORMATIO

N CONTACT: Mrs . Aitke n a tth e abov e addres s o r telephone : 202/697-1459 . SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATION

: Th e Departmen to f

th e Nav y propose s t o exemp tcertai n provision s o f syste m o f record s N0530O-T3 , "Facult y Professiona l Files " unde rth e provision s o f 5 U.S.C . 552 a(k)(5) . Lis to f Subject s i n 3 2 CF RPar t70 1 Privacy , Exemption , Investigativ e information , Records . Accordingly , i ti s propose d t o amen d Subpar tG o f

3 2 CF RPar t70 1 a s follows : 1 . Th e authorit y citatio n fo rPar t70 1 continue s t o rea d a s follows : Authority : 5 U.S.C . 552 , a s amended b y Pub . L . 93-502,3 2 CF

RPar t28 6 (4 0 F R8190) . Subpar tE als o issue d unde

r3 2 CF RPar t296 (4 0 F R4911) , unles s otherwis e noted . 2 . Ad d paragrap h (n ^ t o § 701.117 . PAR T 701—[AMENDED ] Subpar t G—Privac y Ac t Exemption s § 701.11 7 Exemption s fo r specifi c Nav y recor d systems . **** * (n ) Nava l Postgraduat e School—(1 ) ID-N05300-3 . System name/Facult y Professiona l File s

. Exemption: Portion s o f thi s syste m o f record s ar e exemp tfro m th e followin g subsection s o f Titl e 5 U.S.C . 552a : (c)(3) , (d) , e(4 ) (G ) an d (H) . an d (f) . Authority: 5 U.S.C . 552 a(k)(5) . Reason: Exempte d portion s o f thi s syste m contai n informatio n considere d relevan tan d necessar y t o mak e a determinatio n a s t o th e qualifications , eligibility , o rsuitabilit y fo rFedera l employment , an d wa s obtaine d b y providin g a n express.o rimplie d promis e t o th e sourc e tha this/he ridentit y woul d no tb e reveale d t o th e subjec to f th e record . PatriciaH . Means , OSD Federal

RegisterLiaison Off

icer. Department

of Defense. Februar y 21,1986 . (F RDoc . 88-418 6 Filed 2-27-86 ; 8:4 5 am ] BILLING COD E 381(M>1- M
ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF R Part s 5 1 an d 5 2 [AD-FRL-29038 ] Requirement s fo r Implementatio n Plans : Surfac e Coa l Mine s an d Fugitiv e Emissions ; Reopenin g o f Commen t Perio d AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) . ACTION : Reopenin g o f

publi c commen t period . SUMMARY

: O n Octobe r26,1984 , EPA propose d rulemakin g whic h woul d caus e th e fugitiv e emission s fro m • surfac e coa l mine s t o b e considere d i n determination s o f

whethe rconstructio n involvin g thos e entitie s woul d b e require d t o obtai n majo rsourc e ne w sourc e revie w (NSR ) permit s (4 9 F R 43211) . I n tha tnotice , EPA announce d tha ti twa s preparin g aRegulator y Impac tAnalysis.(RIA ) o f th e subjec t proposa l an d woul d mak e tha t documen tavailabl e fo rpubli c comment . B y thi s notice , EP A announce s tha tth e RI A i s availabl e fo rrevie w an d tha tth e publi c commen tperio d i s reopened . Th e previou s notic e als o prompte d specia l concern s o n th e par to f th e minin g industr y wit h respec tt o certai n generi c issue s arisin g fro m th e revie w o f fugitiv e emissions . Th e commen tperio d i s hereb y reopene d t o receiv e furthe r commen to n thos e specifi c issues . DATES : Th e commen tperio d wil l remai n ope n unti l Apri l 29,1986 . Th e publi c hearin g wil l b e hel d o n Apri l 9,1986 , a t 10:0 0 a.m . ADDRESSES : Comment s shoul d b e submitte d (triplicate , i f possible ) to : . Centra l Docke tSectio n (LE-131A) , EPA ,P. 4

Federa l Registe r

/Vol

. 51, , No
. 4 0 /Friday , Februar y 28 , 198 6 /Propose dRules

. ,"709 1 401 M Street , SW. , Washington,-D.C

. 20460 , Attention : Docke t

No
. A-84-33

. Publi c hearing : Roo m239 , Federa l Building , Corne r

of 20t hStou t St. ; Denver,Colorado

. •,.'.'i < . • •'- • , Docket : Th e EP

A establishe dadocke t for thi s rulemaking , Docke t

No : A-84-33 , i n accordanc e withSectio n 307(d ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (Act) , 4 2 U.S.C

. 7607(d) , an dit s content s wil l serv e a s th e recor d i n cas e of judicia l revie w unde r

tha t section

. Th e docke t

i s availabl e fo

r publi c inspectio n an dcopyin g betwee n 8:0 0 a.m . an d4:0

0 p.m. , Monda y throug h Friday , a t EPA' s Centra l Docke t

Section , Wes t Towe r Lobby , Galler y 1,401 M Street , SW. , Washington , D. C A reasonabl e fe e may b e charge dfo r copying

. FO H RJUBTOE

RINFORMATIO N CONTACT : Mr
. Kir t Cox , Ne w Sourc e Revie w Section , Offic e of

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandards , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a2771 1 (telephon e 919

- 541-5591

. FTS-629-559 % SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION : LBackgroun d Pursuan t t o sectio n 302(j ) ofth e Act , fugitiv e emission s ar e include di n determinin g whethe r

asourc e i s "major, " fo r

NS Rpurposes , "a s determine db y rul e b y th e Administrato r

" O n Octobe r

26,1984 , EP A propose dtha t

surfac e coa l mine s

~ b e adde dto
. th e lis t

o f 3 0 sourc e categorie s for

whic hfugitiv e emission s ar e include di n determinin g whethe r a sourc e i s "major " (49 F

R43211)

. Th e EP A base dit s proposa l o n th e interpretatio n tha t

Congres s intende d tha t th e Agenc y mak e onl y tw o determination s before requirin g tha t fugitiv e emission s b e include di n applicabilit y determination s pursuan t t o Sectio n 302(j ) of

th e Act

. Th e first

o f thes e i s tha t

th e source s hav e th e potentia l t o degrad e ai r

qualit y ' significantly ; th e secon di s tha t n o unreasonabl e socioeconomi c impact s relativ e t o benefit s woul dresul t fro m subjectin g th e source s t o NSR

. Th e first finding i s adequat e t o suppor t a proposa l t o list

. TheIEP A will promulgat e apropose dlistin g unles s publi c commen t

affirmativel y demonstrate s tha t

unreasonabl e socioeconomi c impact s woul dresult

. It wa s pursuan t

t o thi s mode l tha t

EP A mad e th e subjec t

proposa l withrespec t t o mines

. Th e EP

A ha s bee n collectin g th e rulemakin g recor drelevan t t o th e secon dfinding

. : - : I n th e proposal , EPA reporte dtha t i t wa s preparin g a n RIA , a s describe di n Executiv e Orde r

12291 , i n orde r

t o ai di n th e evaluatio n of

specia l issue s relate d t o th e propose daction

. Th e EP A - indicate dtha t i t woul dmak e th e result s of th e analysi s availabl e toth e publi c for commen t befor e takin g final actio n

- o n th e proposa l (4 9 F

Ra t 43212)

. Thi s procedur e wa s furthe r

describe di n EPA' s notic e o

f Decembe r

17,198 4 (49 F R48948)

. I n tha t

notic e EP

A reporte d that , upo n completio n o

f th e analysis , i t woul dannounc e th e RIA' s availabilit y b y aFedera l Registe r

notic e an dreope n th e publi c commen t

period

. L'KBopsmin

g o f ic e Publi c Comment

. - B y thi s notice , EP

A announce s th e availabilit y of

th e RI A an dth e . reopenin g of

th e publi c commen t

perio d fo r commen t o n it

. Copie s of

th e stud y may b e obtained , subjec t

t o availabl e supplies , fromEPA' s Offic e of Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandard s b y contactin g Mr
. Co x a t

th e addres s note d above

. Th e analysi s ha s als o bee n place di n th e officia

l rulemakin g docke t (Docke t No
. A-84-33 ) an di s availabl e fo r inspectio n an dcopyin g a t th e tim e an dplac e indicate dabove

. Althoug hth e focu s o f thi s reopenin g o

f th e commen t perio di s o n th e RIA , further commen t o n th e proposa l withrespec t t o surfac e coa l mine s an dth e generi c fugitiv e emission s issue s discusse dbelo w i n Par t IV , wil l b e accepted

. Th e publi c '

. commen t

perio dwithrespec t

t o th e existin g lis t

of 3 0 sourc e categorie s an d t o th e relevanc e o f

sectio n 302(j ) t o revie w o f modification s ha s close dan d i s no t bein g reopened

. EO

. Th e Regulatory Impac t Analysi s . A. Summary,
. . - Th e analysi s evaluate s th e projected consequence s o

f alternativ e approache s t o regulatin g ne w an dmodifie dsurfac e coa l mine s a s majo r

constructio n project s unde r

ne w sourc e review

. I t consider s benefits , costs , an dgenera l environmenta l an deconomi c impacts

. Fou r regulator y alternative s ar e examined:

. . •'—',.•.

- 1

. D o no t lis t surfac e coa l mine s (th e statu s quo)

. . . ~ *•-..:.'

- 2

. Lis t al l ne w surfac e coa l mines , grandfathe r

incremen t

consumption

.

. 3

. Lis t al l ne w surfac e coa l mines , d o no t grandfathe r

incremen t

consumption

. 4

. IV
. Lis t onl y surfac e coa l mine s impactin g Clas s I an dMandator y Clas s II areas . Fiv e importan t

coa l basin s ar e investigate dfor

Alternativ e II : Powde r River , Sa n Juan , Fort

Union , Illinois , an d Appalachian

. Powde r

River serve s a s a cas e stud y fo

r Alternativ e III ; Brye e Canyo n Nationa l Par

k an dChac o Cultur e Nationa l Histori c Park ar e reviewe drelativ e t o Alternativ e IV
. Thes e area s ar e evaluate dfor th e yea r 1995. ' Th e Obst s evaluate daris e from applicatio n of

bes t availabl e contro l

.. . technolog y and , mor e importantly , fro m siz e limitation s i n surfac e coa l mine s becaus e of

ambien t constraints

. Benefit categorie s includ e mortality , morbidity , an dsoilin g for

Alternative s I I an dIII , an dvisibiUt

y for Alternativ e IV
. Th e stud y als o examine s nationa l impact s involvin g coa l pric e an dproduction , an d th e cos t o f electricit y \, Th e cost s determine dunde r Alternativ e II an dIII , considerabl y excee dth e benefits

. Th e reaso n fo r thi s i s tha t th e modelin g technique s . employe dindicat e varying , bu t ofte n significant , constraint s o n min e siz e a s a resul t o f preventio n bf

significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) increment^ » limitations

. B y contrast , relativel y few peopl e liv e i n mos t

minin g basins ; thus th e benefit s of

cleane r ai r i n thos e place s ar e extremel y limited

. Th e result s regardin g Alternativ e I

V ar e significantl y different

. Sinc e les s tha n 1 percen t o f th e nation' s coa l reserve s li e nea r Clas s I, an dMandator y Clas s II areas , societa l cost s of

regulatio n ar e expecte dt o b e relativel y small

. Benefit s fro mprotectin g thes e area s of specia l sceni c an decologi c importanc e can , however , b e appreciable , althoug h difficult t o quantify

. I t shoul db e note dtha t

th e analysi s of cost s an dbenefit s fo r

Alternativ e I

V i s conducte dwitha n assumptio n tha t n o othe r regulatory programwoul dprotes t Clas s I an dMandator y Clas s I I area s fro msurfac e coa l mines

. I t

i s possible , however , tha t

othe r programs , notabl y th e on e operate db y th e Departmen t o f

_ th e Interio r

(DOl ) pursuan t

t o th e Surfac e Minin g Contro l an dReclamation , Act , 3 0 U.S.C

. 120 1 et

seg. coul daddres s ' similar problems

. EPA therefor e seek s commen t o hth e effectivenes s of

suc h program s i n protectin g Clas s I an d Mandator y Clas s II areas . EP A ha s requeste da n analysi s p

f thi s issu e fro

m DO LResponse s will b e place di n th e rulemakin g docket

. B. Role of the Study Thi s RI A ha s bee n prepare dfor

tw o reasons . First , i t

satisfie s th e -Executive Orde r 1229 1 requiremen t

tha t majo r rulemaking s conside r

economi o consequences . Second , i t

wa s prepare d for us e i n assistin g th e Administrato r i n makin g hi s decisio n o n th e final actio n o n th e Octobe r

26,1984 , proposa l t o lis t surfac e coa l mines

.

1 For.Alternativ e IV . Chac o Cultur e Nationa l Histori c Parki s evaluate d fo r198 9 an d Brye e Canyo n i s evaluate d fo r1996 .



## UiMkiP. 5

709 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 51, g N4.;l4i ^ /Propose dRule s - S
Legally , EP

A ha s broa ddiscretio n i n it s us e of th e study

. Th e Ac t

allow s economic s t o b e take n int o accoun t i n makin g thi s decisio n bu t

doe s no t mandat e an y specifi c tes t o r standard

. Th e EP A see s thi s stud y a s a n importan t sourc e o f informatio n fo

r thi s decision-makin g process . Nonetheless , 'th e Administratorwil l rel y o n th e entir e "rulemakin g recor di n makin g hi s final decisio n o n thi s matter ; n o singl e documen t ha s adeterminativ e role

. Th e inheren t imprecisio n i n an y suc h economi c analysi s makes i t unwis e t o giv e conclusiv e weigh t

t o an y finding tha t aparticula r

alternativ e i s simpl y economicall y more desirabl e tha n another

. Also , astud y canno t quantif y i n monetar y term s al l factor s german e t o th e final decision

. Thes e mor e subjectiv e concern s ar e explaine dbriefl y below

. Severa l factor s limi t

th e precisio n o f th e RIA

. First , mine s ar e unconventiona l source s tha t

ar e no t a s readil y evaluate d a s traditiona l industria l sources . The y ca n appropriatel y b e describe da s havin g aserie s o

f temporary , relocatin g emission s activities a t

on e large , fixe d location

. Controvers y als o surround s th e applicatio n o

f man y technica l aspect s o f th e revie w process . Modelin g procedure s ar e highl y contested , a s ar e certai n emission s facto r

issue s suc ha s pi t retention

. Becaus e th e Ac t doe s no t directl y addres s th e particular problem s whic hmine s may hav e bu t whic har e no t experience db y mos t

othe r source s o f fugitiv e emissions , EP

A ha dt o mak e difficult polic y assumption s whic h significantl y affec t

th e revie w o

f certai n fugitiv e emission s points

. Similarly , certain'simplifyin g assumptions , suc ha s basing th e analysi s o n revie w o f prototypica l mines , ar e use di n th e analysis

. Al l o

f th e abov e factor s hav e mad e preparatio n o

f th e RI A more difficult , limi t

th e precisio n o

f th e analysis , an dmilitat e agains t relyin g solel y o n it

. A decisio n o n arulemakin g involvin g importan t nationa l issue s shoul dals o conside r issue s beyon dth e scop e o f a n economi c study

. Fo r

example , on e o r mor e o f th e regulatory option s might hav e apronounce deffec t

upo n nationa l coa l pric e o r

supply

. Suc ha n impac t

o n th e nation' s energ y suppl y coul dhav e ramification s t o nationa l security , trad e balances , o r

internationa l relations

. Suc hfactor s ar e beyon dth e scop e o f regulatory analysis , an dcoul db e addresse dwithonl y limite dprecisio n i n Nan y case . Additionally , certai n othe r factors , eve n thoug hmor e traditionall y economi c i n nature , ar e no t evaluate d b y th e study

. Fo r

example , th e stud y doe s no t quantif y cost s of additiona l rai l line s an dothe r

transportatio n system s require dbecaus e th e propose d

. . regulation s woul dpotentially , creat e more , smaller , surfac e mines

. . / Nonetheless , suc hfactor s woul dad dt o th e cos t estimate s an dshoul db e considere di n th e final decision

. Selectio n o

f th e mos t reasonable^ ^ optio n i s thus no t

asimpl e process . Th e ne t oenefi t figures projecte dfor

variou s regulatory strategie s b y th e RI A d o no t conclusivel y determin e the i relativ e values o f thes e strategies , instead , th e fina l decisio n of

whethe r t o lis t wil l fake int o accoun t

man y mor e factor s tha n th e numerica l result s of

th e study , mos t notabl y th e recor destablishe db y th e - commenters
. IV
. Othe r Fugitiv e Emission s Issue s Th e Octobe r

26,1984 , proposa l als o reopene dth e publi c commen t perio do n th e existin g lis t

o f 3 0 sourc e categorie s for whic hfugitiv e emission s ar e include di n determination'o f majo r sourcestatus
. Further , th e notic e solicite dcommen t

o n a n interpretiv e rulin g involvin g sectio n 302(j ) of th e Ac t i n relatio n t o therevie w o f modification s involvin g fugitiv e emission s a t

source s tha t

ar e alread y "major. " Publi c commen t

o n thes e matter s wa s generall y limited

. However , representative s o

f th e minin g industr y hav e expresse dspecia l additiona l concern s involving , generally , th e definitio n of

"source " whic hEP

A use s i n NS Rapplicability determinations

. Th e essenc e o f

thei r argumen t i s tha t som e mine s coul db e mad e subjec t t o majo r preconstructio n revie w eve n if EP A doe s no t promulgat e th e propose dlistin g of surfac e coa l mines

. Th e EP A hereb y solicit s further

commen t o n thes e matters
. A t first look , th e issu e appear s straightforward : i

f EP A lis t mines , fugitiv e emission s wil l b e counte di n futur e applicability determinations ; i f mine s ar e no t

listed , fugitiv e emission s woul dno t b e counted

. Since.ihine s emi t predominantl y fugitiv e particulat e matter , mine s woul dno t

b e subjec t

t o NS Rbecause , withou t

bein g liste d -pursuan t t o sectio n 302(j ) rulemaking , thei r potentia l t o emi t

doe s no t reac h• - "major " status
. Tha t

is , indeed , th e cas e for isolate doperation s tha t

engag e solel y i n mining

. However , mining

associate dwit hmor e conventiona l industria l activity may trigger NS Reve n if mine s ar e no t

listed

. Thi s ca n aris e fro mth e definitio n o

f "source, " a s i t pertain s t o standar dindustria l classificatio n (SIC ) groupings , t o th e concep t o f "suppor t facility, " o r

t o EPA' s requirement s fo

r modification s a t source s alread y "major. " Thes e matters , • describe dbelow , ar e vigorousl y .. . addresse db y som e industr y commenters , notabl y th e America n Minin g Congres s an dNationa l Coal Association

. .••.-• ' Th e NS Rregulation s us e th e SIC cod e a s th e fundamenta l definitiona l too l for identifyin g th e type s o

f activitie s tha i ar e groupe dtogethe r

a s a"source."-Thi s approac hgenerall y work s wel l bu t pose s apotentia l proble mt o th e minin g industry

. Fo r

example , SIC 12 , "bituminou s coa l an dlignite mining, " include s no t

onl y th e min e prope r

bu t als o coa l preparatio n plants

. Coal preparatio n plant s ar e sometime s subjec t t o NSR , especiall y sinc e the y ar e alread y liste dwithrespec t t o th e inclusio n of

fugitiv e emissions

. "Coal cleanin g plant s (wit

htherma l dryers),' ! a subse t of coa l preparatio n plants , i s o n th e lis t o f 3 0 fo r whic hfugitiv e emission s ar e counte di n applicabilit y determinations , h i addition , ther e i s a ne w sourc e performanc e standar dfo r coa l preparatio n plant s (40 CF RPart 60 , Subpart Y)

. Thi s standar dwa s create d prio r t o Augus t

7,1980 , thereb y renderin g thes e source s a s liste d(see e.g., 4 0 CF

R52.21{8)(4)(vii)(aa))

. Thes e fact s hav e tw o ramifications

. First , stac k

an dfugitiv e emission s a t th e coa l cleanin g plan t

would , o f course , b e summe di n determinin g whethe r i t woul db e amajo r

stationar y source . I

f th e coa l cleanin g plan t

wer e "major, " the n th e min e woul dals o b e brough t int o NSR , regardles s o

f whethe r mine s ar e listed

. Th e reaso n fo

r thi s i s tha t thes e operation s ar e typically ' aggregate da s on e source , sinc e the y belon g t o th e sam e SIC , ar e adjacen t an dcontiguous , an dar e unde r commo n control

. Partie s suc ha s th e Nationa l Coal Associatio n indicat e tha t coa l cleanin g plant s ar e often no t 10 0 tons
per-year sources , and , therefore , woul d no t brin g affiliate dmine s int o revie w unles s th e fugitiv e emission s of th e affecte dmine s ar e take n int o account
. A n additiona l issu e arises , however , fromth e fac t

tha t stric t constructio n o f th e regulation s withrespec t t o th e SIC coul dresul t

i n th e entir e operatio n bein g a"listed " source . I

f thi s wer e th e case , th e fugitive emission s fro

mth e mine woul db e include di n applicabilit y determinations

. Thi s woul dresul t i n PS D revie w i n man y suc hsituations

. Th e sam e issue s ca n appl y i n case s involvin g othe r

liste dactivitie s tha t

may b e operate dwit hmines

. Second , a"suppor t

facility " fo

r a sourc e i s considere da s par t o f th e primary source , eve n i

f i t belong s t o a differen t two-digi t SI C code

. "Support facilities " ar e define db y th e 198 0 preambl e a s "typicall y thos e whic h convey , stor e o r

otherwis e assis t

i n th e •P. 6

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51,/No

. ,4 0 /

Friday , Februar y (28 , 198 8 / Propose dRule s 7093

. productio n o

f th e principa l product " (4 5 F R52695)

. Physica l proximity i s X generall y ake y par t

of suc ha determination

. It

i s possibl e t o conclud e tha t operation s suc ha s min e mout h powe r plant s ar e asingl e source , thu s bringin g th e min e int o PS D review

. Minin g industr y commenter s als o expresse dconcern abou t

th e Operatio n o f th e interpretatio n se t

fort hfo r commen t i n th e Octobe r

26,1984 , Federa l Register

. Thi s interpretatio n i s tha t sectio n 302(j ) o

f th e Act , th e definitio n o

f "majo r stationar y source, " focuse s it s rulemakin g requiremen t with respec t t o fugitiv e emission s o n whethe r asource i s "major, " no t

o n th e revie w of modification s involvin g fugitiv e emission s a t

source s alread y "major. " Generall y thi s woul dhav e n o effect o n mines

. Sinc e mine s ar e no t liste dan d sinc e the y d o no t

hav e sufficient

stac k emission s t o qualif

y a s "major, " thi s interpretiv e rulin g woul dno t affect them

. (I f mine s wer e listed , thi s interpretiv e rulin g woul dhav e n o ' bearin g o n thei r

review. ) Onc e again , however , th e aggregatio n o f mine s with industria l facilitie s coul dproduc e result s whic hth e miqin g industr y contend s ar e unreasonabl e unles s EP

A ha s first complete dalistin g unde r sectio n 302(j)

. Modification s a t

amin e associate dwith acoa l preparatio n plant , fo r example , coul dtrigger

NS Rof th e modification , eve n i f it s emission s increas e consiste d totall y o f fugitiv e emissions

. O f

course , if on e of th e approache s t o sourc e definitio n enunciate dabov e i s adopted , fugitive s fro

mmine s a t

suc haggregate d source s woul db e reviewe ddirectly

. Th e interpretiv e rulin g woul dno t com e int o play

. Thus , th e definitio n o f "source " i s expecte dt o remai n th e primary issue

. Thes e issue s presen t

essentiall y th e sam e concern a s th e mor e prominen t issu e o f listing : ho w t o provid e an y appropriat e relie f

fro mrevie w t o tiie minin g industr y whil e no t jeopardizin g th e mor e importan t

genera l revie w of fugitiv e emission s fro

mal l othe r sources . Thi s i s a n especiall y challengin g tas k

i n vie w o f tiie fac t that , th e Ac t doe s no t expressl y provid e fo

r . specia l treatmen t

o f thi s somewha t unconventiona l sourc e category
. Becaus e thi s rulemakin g addresse s minin g issue s broadly , an dals o include s response s t o th e reopenin g of th e publi c commen t perio do n th e lis t

o f 3 0 sourc e categories, 2 EP

A i s addressin g thes e ne w concern s i n thi s rulemaking

. • Th e America n Minin g Congres s an d, _ othe r minin g groups , afte r

presentin g commen t o h thes e specifi c matters ,
* Industr y commenter

s have requested tha

tcoa l cleaning plant

s b e delisted . conclud e b y arguin g tha t surfac e coa l mine s "simpl y ar e no t

th e kinds " of

- source s an demission s whic hCongres s intende dt o b e subjec t

t o NSR

. Thei r recommende dsolutio n i s t o chang e th e definition'o f

"building , structure , facility , o r installation " i n al l NS Rregulations — e.g. , 40 CF R52.21(b)(6)—s o a s t o creat e a n exemptio n fromth e standar d aggregatio n of

pollutant-emittin g activitie s base do n proximity , ownership , an dSIC code

. Thi s exemptio n woul db e create d"wher e th e agenc y ha s designate daseparat e sourc e category o r

grouping. " Th e EP A conclude s tha t

th e curren t approachi o "source " definitio n appear s reasonabl e for

virtually al l sources . I t

i s posssible , however , tha t

i t ma y produc e a n untowar deffect

i n th e cas e of

mines ,

. fo r reason s argue db y industry , i f mine s ar e foun dt o b e inappropriat e fo r listing

. Th e EPA , therefore , seek s commen t o n whethe r suc ha n exemption , o r

an y craftin g o f th e sectio n 302(j ) rulemakin g havin g similar

effect , i s justifie dfor surfac e coa l mines

. Th e EP A anticipate s tha t an y suc hexemptio n woul db e grante donl y after

adetaile d examinatio n o f

th e natur e of

aparticula r sourc e categor y an dafinding tha t unusua l circumstance s justif y thi s specia l treatment
. I t

i s als o importan t tha t an y suc hprocedur e for

exemption s b e crafte di n awa y s o a s no t b e jeopardiz e revie w of

fugitiv e emission s fromth e grea t

majority o

f source s for whic ha n exemptio n woul dno t b e appropriate

. Th e EPA , therefore , als o solicit s commen t

o n wha t administrativ e procedure s an dsafeguard s might b e appropriat e for

creatin g suc ha n exemption

. V
. Miscellaneou s A. Public

Hearing Th e EP A wil l hol dapubli c hearin g o n Apri l 9,198 8 a t

10:0 0 a.m . i n Room239 , Federa l Building , Corne r

o f 20t han d Stou t St. , Denver , Colorado

. Th e hearin g wil l b e informal

. A pane l o f EP A staf f wil l hea r th e ora l presentations

. Ther e wil l b e n o cross-examinatio n an dn o requiremen t

tha t an y perso n b e unde r oath

. Eac hmembe r

o f th e pane l ma y see k clarificatio n o r

amplificatio n o

f an y presentation

. Th e presidin g office r o f th e pane l may se t

atim e limi t

for eac h presentatio n an dma y restric t an y presentatio n tha t

woul db e irrelevan t

o r repetitious

. A transcrip t

of th e hearin g wil l b e mad e an dplace di n th e rulemakin g docket ; An y perso n wh o wishe s t o spea k a t th e hearin g shoul da s soo n a s possibl e sen dwritte n notic e of

thi s t o EPA , giv e name , address , telephon e number , an d th e lengt ho f th e presentation

. Anyon e statin g tha t thi s hi s o r

he r presentatio n woul db e longe r

tha n 20 minute s shoul d als o stat e wh y i t

nee db e longer

. Eac h notic e shoul db e sen t

t o Mr
. Kir

t Co x a t th e addres s give n a t

th e beginnin g o

f thi s notice

. Th e EP

A wil l develo p a• schedul e for

presentations,base do n th e notice s i t receives

. Eac hspeake r

shoul d brin g extr acopies o

f hi s o r he r •• • •- • presentatio n for

the

. convenienc e o

f th e hearin g panel , th e hearin g reporter , th e press , an dothe r

participants

. Th e hearing s wil l b e ope n t o th e public

. B. Economic Impact

Assessment Sectio n 30

7 o f th e Clean Ai r

Act , 42 U.S.C

. 7607 , requires EP

A t o prepar e a n economi c impac t

assessmen t

i n connectio n wit hproposa l o f an y substantia l revision s t o existin g regulations

. Thi s notic e announce s th e availabilit y of

th e economi c analysi s tha t EP A prepare di n orde r

t o compl y withExecutiv e Orde r

1229 1 an dwhic h als o satisfie s th e requiremen t fo r preparatio n o

f a n economi c impac t assessmen t

o n th e proposa l t o lis t

stri p mines

. Th e EP

A di dno t prepar e a n economi c analysi s o

f th e ne w interpretatio n o f

sectio n 302(j ) a s i t relate s t o modification s becaus e thi s i s no t asubstantia l revision ; A s discusse d above , thi s interpretatio n wil l no t brin g man y additiona l modification s unde r review

. Dated : Februar y 18,1986 . , Charle s L . Elklns , Acting Assistant

Administrator

for Air.and Radiation. [FRDoc . 86-435 7 File d 2-27-66 ; 8:4 5 am ] BILLIN G COO E 85SO-SO-E1 . GENERA L SERVO'CE

S Qffllco of f Acquisitio n Policy 4 1 CF R Pairt ! 101-2 0 Management ! @?

Suilding s en d Ground s MQEMCV : Offic e o f Acquisitio n Policy , GSA

. ACTION : Notic e of

propose drulemakin g an davailabilit y o f

draft

. SUdtaAKV : Thi s notic e announce s th e availabilit y o f

adraf t propose drevisio n o f Federa l Propert y Managemen t Regulatio n (FPMR

) 101-20 , Managemen t of Building s an dGrounds

. OATE : An y comment s o n th e propose d revisio n shoul db e submitte di n writin g t o th e addres s show n belo w withi n 6 0 day s fromthe-publicatio n dat e o f thi s notic e i n th e Federa l IRegister

. N o

i,.^i.^i.i n