P.1 

OAR Box 1123 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

139) F.R.February 28, 1986 

Docket Number: 

A-84-33 

Printed 4/16/2008 2:49:54 PM Sheet 139 of 178 
P.2 

7090 

A - 8*4--3> 

Federal. Register /Vol. 51, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1986 /Proposed Rules 

dental trauma. Dental trauma, in order to be 

covered, must be related to, and an integral 

part of medical trauma; or a result of 

medically necessary treatment of an injury or 

disease. 

(6) Dental care required in 

preparation for medical treatment of a 

disease or disorder or required as the 

result of denial trauma caused by the 

medically necessary treatment of an 

injury or disease (iatrogenic). 

[1) Necessary dental care including 

prophylaxis and extractions when 

performed in preparation for or as a 

result bf in-line radiation therapy for 

oral or facial cancer., 

(2) Treatment pf gingival hyperplasia, 

with or without periodontal disease, as 

a direct result of prolonged therapy with 

Dilantin (diphenylhydantoin) or related 

compounds. 

(c) Dental care is limited to the above 

and similar conditions specifically 

prescribed by the Director, 

OCHAMPUS, as meeting the 

requirements for coverage under the 

provisions of this section. 

(ii) General Exclusions. 

[a] Dental care which is routine, 

preventative, restorative, prosthodontic, 

periodontic or emergency does not 

qualify as adjunctive dental care for the 

purposes of CHAMPUS except when 

performed in preparation for or as a 

result of dental trauma caused by 

medically necessary treatment of an 

injury or disease. 

(6) The adding or modifying of 

bridgework and dentures. 

(c) Orthodontia, except when directly 

related to and an integral part of the 

medical or surgical correction of a cleft 

palate or when required in preparation 

for, or as a result of, trauma to the teeth 

and supporting structures caused by 

medically necessary treatment of an 

injury or disease. 

(e) # ? * \ 

(10)* 

(iv)* * * . : 

(A)* * * 

' Note.—Extraction of unerupted or partially 

erupted, malposed or impacted teeth, with or 

without the attached follicular or 

development tissues, is not a covered oral 

surgery procedure except when the care is 

. indicated in preparation for medical 

. treatment of a disease or disorder or required 

as a result pf dental trauma caused by the . 

. necesary medical, treatment of an injury or 

illness. Surgical preparation ofthe mouth for 

dentures is not covered by CHAMPUS. 

Dated: February 24,1986. -

.Patricia H. Means, '"-

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 86-4329 Filed 2-27-66; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-01-W ' 

Department of the Navy 

32 CFR Part 701 

Availability of Department of Navy 

Records and Publications of the Navy 

Documents Affecting the Public 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy,-DOD. 

ACTION: Amendment to proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

proposes to establish a specific 

exemption from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act for a system of records. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 31,1986. 

ADDRESS: Send any comments to Mrs. 

Gwendolyn R. Aitken, Privacy Act 

Coordinator, Office of the Chief of 

Naval Operations (OP-09B30), 

Department of the Navy, The Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20350. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mrs. Aitken at the above address or 

telephone: 202/697-1459. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of the Navy proposes to 

exempt certain provisions of system of 

records N0530O-T3, "Faculty Professional 

Files" under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

552a (k)(5). 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 701 

Privacy, Exemption, Investigative 

information, Records. 

Accordingly, it is proposed to amend 

Subpart G of 32 CFR Part 701 as follows: 

1. The authority citation for Part 701 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended by 

Pub. L. 93-502,32 CFR Part 286 (40 FR 8190). 

Subpart E also issued under 32 CFR Part 296 

(40 FR 4911), unless otherwise noted. 

2. Add paragraph (n^ to § 701.117. 

PART 701—[AMENDED] 

Subpart G—Privacy Act Exemptions 

§ 701.117 Exemptions for specific Navy 

record systems. 

**** * 

(n) Naval Postgraduate School—(1) 

ID-N05300-3. 

System name/Faculty Professional 

Files 

. Exemption: Portions of this system of 

records are exempt from the following 

subsections of Title 5 U.S.C. 552a: (c)(3), 

(d), e(4) (G) and (H). and (f). 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(5). 

Reason: Exempted portions of this 

system contain information considered 

relevant and necessary to make a 

determination as to the qualifications, 

eligibility, or suitability for Federal 

employment, and was obtained by 

providing an express.or implied promise 

to the source that his/her identity would 

not be revealed to the subject of the 

record. 

Patricia H. Means, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Off icer. 

Department of Defense. 

February 21,1986. 

(FR Doc. 88-4186 Filed 2-27-86; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 381(M>1-M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[AD-FRL-29038] 

Requirements for Implementation 

Plans: Surface Coal Mines and Fugitive 

Emissions; Reopening of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Reopening of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On October 26,1984, EPA 

proposed rulemaking which would 

cause the fugitive emissions from • 

surface coal mines to be considered in 

determinations of whether construction 

involving those entities would be 

required to obtain major source new 

source review (NSR) permits (49 FR 

43211). In that notice, EPA announced 

that it was preparing a Regulatory 

Impact Analysis.(RIA) of the subject 

proposal and would make that 

document available for public comment. 

By this notice, EPA announces that the 

RIA is available for review and that the 

public comment period is reopened. 

The previous notice also prompted 

special concerns on the part of the 

mining industry with respect to certain 

generic issues arising from the review of 

fugitive emissions. The comment period 

is hereby reopened to receive further 

comment on those specific issues. 

DATES: The comment period will remain 

open until April 29,1986. The public 

hearing will be held on April 9,1986, at 

10:00 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

submitted (triplicate, if possible) to: . 

Central Docket Section (LE-131A), EPA, 
P.4 

Federal Register /Vol. 51,, No. 40 /Friday, February 28, 1986 /Proposed Rules. ,"7091 

401M Street, SW., Washington,-D.C. 

20460, Attention: Docket No. A-84-33. 

Public hearing: Room 239, Federal 

Building, Corner of 20th Stout St.; 

Denver,Colorado. •,.'.'i < . • •'- • , 

Docket: The EPA established a docket 

for this rulemaking, Docket No: A-84-33, 

in accordance with Section 307(d) of the 

Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d), 

and its contents will serve as the record 

in case of judicial review under that 

section. The docket is available for 

public inspection and copying between 

8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section, 

West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1,401M 

Street, SW., Washington, D.C A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

FOH RJUBTOER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Kirt Cox, New Source Review 

Section, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711 (telephone 919-

541-5591. FTS-629-559% 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

L Background 

Pursuant to section 302(j) ofthe Act, 

fugitive emissions are included in 

determining whether a source is 

"major," for NSR purposes, "as 

determined by rule by the 

Administrator " On October 26,1984, 

EPA proposed that surface coal mines 

~ be added to. the list of 30 source 

categories for which fugitive emissions 

are included in determining whether a 

source is "major" (49 FR 43211). 

The EPA based its proposal on the 

interpretation that Congress intended 

that the Agency make only two 

determinations before requiring that 

fugitive emissions be included in 

applicability determinations pursuant to 

Section 302(j) of the Act. The first of 

these is that the sources have the 

potential to degrade air quality ' 

significantly; the second is that no 

unreasonable socioeconomic impacts 

relative to benefits would result from 

subjecting the sources to NSR. The first 

finding is adequate to support a 

proposal to list. TheIEPA will 

promulgate a proposed listing unless 

public comment affirmatively 

demonstrates that unreasonable 

socioeconomic impacts would result. It 

was pursuant to this model that EPA 

made the subject proposal with respect 

to mines. The EPA has been collecting 

the rulemaking record relevant to the 

second finding. : - : 

In the proposal, EPA reported that it 

was preparing an RIA, as described in 

Executive Order 12291, in order to aid in 

the evaluation of special issues related 

to the proposed action. The EPA -

indicated that it would make the results 

of the analysis available tothe public 

for comment before taking final action 

- on the proposal (49 FR at 43212). This 

procedure was further described in 

EPA's notice of December 17,1984 (49 

FR 48948). In that notice EPA reported 

that, upon completion of the analysis, it 

would announce the RIA's availability 

by a Federal Register notice and reopen 

the public comment period. 

L'KBopsming of ice Public Comment. -

By this notice, EPA announces the 

availability of the RIA and the . 

reopening of the public comment period 

for comment on it. Copies of the study 

may be obtained, subject to available 

supplies, from EPA's Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards by 

contacting Mr. Cox at the address noted 

above. The analysis has also been 

placed in the official rulemaking docket 

(Docket No. A-84-33) and is available 

for inspection and copying at the time 

and place indicated above. Although the 

focus of this reopening of the comment 

period is on the RIA, further comment 

on the proposal with respect to surface 

coal mines and the generic fugitive 

emissions issues discussed below in 

Part IV, will be accepted. The public 

'. comment period with respect to the 

existing list of 30 source categories and 

to the relevance of section 302(j) to 

review of modifications has closed and 

is not being reopened. 

EO. The Regulatory Impact Analysis . 

A. Summary, . . -

The analysis evaluates the projected 

consequences of alternative approaches 

to regulating new and modified surface 

coal mines as major construction 

projects under new source review. It 

considers benefits, costs, and general 

environmental and economic impacts. 

Four regulatory alternatives are 

examined:. . •'—',.•.-

1. Do not list surface coal mines (the 

status quo). .. ~ *•-..:.'-

2. List all new surface coal mines, 

grandfather increment consumption. 

. 3. List all new surface coal mines, do 

not grandfather increment consumption. 

4. IV. List only surface coal mines 

impacting Class I and Mandatory Class 

II areas. 

Five important coal basins are 

investigated for Alternative II: Powder 

River, San Juan, Fort Union, Illinois, and 

Appalachian. Powder River serves as a 

case study for Alternative III; Bryee 

Canyon National Park and Chaco 

Culture National Historic Park are 

reviewed relative to Alternative IV. 

These areas are evaluated for the year 

1995.' The Obsts evaluated arise from 

application of best available control .. . 

technology and, more importantly, from 

size limitations in surface coal mines 

because of ambient constraints. Benefit 

categories include mortality, morbidity, 

and soiling for Alternatives II and III, 

and visibiUty for Alternative IV. The 

study also examines national impacts 

involving coal price and production, and 

the cost of electricity \ , 

The costs determined under 

Alternative II and III, considerably 

exceed the benefits. The reason for this 

is that the modeling techniques . 

employed indicate varying, but often 

significant, constraints on mine size as a 

result of prevention bf significant 

deterioration (PSD) increment^ » 

limitations. By contrast, relatively few 

people live in most mining basins; thus 

the benefits of cleaner air in those 

places are extremely limited. The results 

regarding Alternative IV are 

significantly different. Since less than 1 

percent of the nation's coal reserves lie 

near Class I, and Mandatory Class II 

areas, societal costs of regulation are 

expected to be relatively small. Benefits 

from protecting these areas of special 

scenic and ecologic importance can, 

however, be appreciable, although 

difficult to quantify. 

It should be noted that the analysis of 

costs and benefits for Alternative IV is 

conducted with an assumption that no 

other regulatory program would protest 

Class I and Mandatory Class II areas 

from surface coal mines. It is possible, 

however, that other programs, notably 

the one operated by the Department of _ 

the Interior (DOl) pursuant to the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation, 

Act, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seg. could address ' 

similar problems. EPA therefore seeks 

comment oh the effectiveness of such 

programs in protecting Class I and 

Mandatory Class II areas. EPA has 

requested an analysis pf this issue from 

DOL Responses will be placed in the 

rulemaking docket. 

B. Role of the Study 

This RIA has been prepared for two 

reasons. First, it satisfies the -Executive 

Order 12291 requirement that major 

rulemakings consider economio 

consequences. Second, it was prepared 

for use in assisting the Administrator in 

making his decision on the final action 

on the October 26,1984, proposal to list 

surface coal mines. 

1

 For.Alternative IV. Chaco Culture National 

Historic Park is evaluated for 1989 and Bryee 

Canyon is evaluated for 1996. 

UiMki 
P.5 

7092 Federal Register / Vol. 51,gN4.;l4i^ /Proposed Rules 

- S 

Legally, EPA has broad discretion in 

its use of the study. The Act allows 

economics to be taken into account in 

making this decision but does not 

mandate any specific test or standard. 

The EPA sees this study as an 

important source of information for this 

decision-making process. Nonetheless, 

'the Administratorwill rely on the entire 

"rulemaking record in making his final 

decision on this matter; no single 

document has a determinative role. The 

inherent imprecision in any such 

economic analysis makes it unwise to 

give conclusive weight to any finding 

that a particular alternative is simply 

economically more desirable than 

another. Also, a study cannot quantify 

in monetary terms all factors germane to 

the final decision. These more subjective 

concerns are explained briefly below. 

Several factors limit the precision of 

the RIA. First, mines are unconventional 

sources that are not as readily evaluated 

as traditional industrial sources. They 

can appropriately be described as 

having a series of temporary, relocating 

emissions activities at one large, fixed 

location. Controversy also surrounds the 

application of many technical aspects of 

the review process. Modeling 

procedures are highly contested, as are 

certain emissions factor issues such as 

pit retention. Because the Act does not 

directly address the particular problems 

which mines may have but which are 

not experienced by most other sources 

of fugitive emissions, EPA had to make 

difficult policy assumptions which 

significantly affect the review of certain 

fugitive emissions points. Similarly, 

certain'simplifying assumptions, such as 

basing the analysis on review of 

prototypical mines, are used in the 

analysis. All of the above factors have 

made preparation of the RIA more 

difficult, limit the precision of the 

analysis, and militate against relying 

solely on it. 

A decision on a rulemaking involving 

important national issues should also 

consider issues beyond the scope of an 

economic study. For example, one or 

more of the regulatory options might 

have a pronounced effect upon national 

coal price or supply. Such an impact on 

the nation's energy supply could have 

ramifications to national security, trade 

balances, or international relations. 

Such factors are beyond the scope of 

regulatory analysis, and could be 

addressed with only limited precision in 

N any case. Additionally, certain other 

factors, even though more traditionally 

economic in nature, are not evaluated 

by the study. For example, the study 

does not quantify costs of additional rail 

lines and other transportation systems 

required because the proposed .. 

regulations would potentially, create 

more, smaller, surface mines. ./ 

Nonetheless, such factors would add to 

the cost estimates and should be 

considered in the final decision. 

Selection of the most reasonable^ ^ 

option is thus not a simple process. The 

net oenefit figures projected for various 

regulatory strategies by the RIA do not 

conclusively determine thei relative 

values of these strategies, instead, the 

final decision of whether to list will fake 

into account many more factors than the 

numerical results of the study, most 

notably the record established by the -

commenters. 

IV. Other Fugitive Emissions Issues 

The October 26,1984, proposal also 

reopened the public comment period on 

the existing list of 30 source categories 

for which fugitive emissions are 

included in determination'of major 

sourcestatus. Further, the notice 

solicited comment on an interpretive 

ruling involving section 302(j) of the Act 

in relation to thereview of 

modifications involving fugitive 

emissions at sources that are already 

"major." 

Public comment on these matters was 

generally limited. However, 

representatives of the mining industry 

have expressed special additional 

concerns involving, generally, the 

definition of "source" which EPA uses in 

NSR applicability determinations. The 

essence of their argument is that some 

mines could be made subject to major 

preconstruction review even if EPA does 

not promulgate the proposed listing of 

surface coal mines. The EPA hereby 

solicits further comment on these 

matters. 

At first look, the issue appears 

straightforward: if EPA list mines, 

fugitive emissions will be counted in 

future applicability determinations; if 

mines are not listed, fugitive emissions 

would not be counted. Since.ihines emit 

predominantly fugitive particulate 

matter, mines would not be subject to 

NSR because, without being listed 

-pursuant to section 302(j) rulemaking, 

their potential to emit does not reach •-

"major" status. That is, indeed, the case 

for isolated operations that engage 

solely in mining. However, miningassociated with more conventional 

industrial activity may trigger NSR even 

if mines are not listed. This can arise 

from the definition of "source," as it 

pertains to standard industrial 

classification (SIC) groupings, to the 

concept of "support facility," or to EPA's 

requirements for modifications at 

sources already "major." These matters, 

• described below, are vigorously ... 

addressed by some industry 

commenters, notably the American 

Mining Congress and National Coal 

Association. .••.-•' 

The NSR regulations use the SIC code 

as the fundamental definitional tool for 

identifying the types of activities thai 

are grouped together as a "source."-This 

approach generally works well but 

poses a potential problem to the mining 

industry. For example, SIC 12, 

"bituminous coal and lignite mining," 

includes not only the mine proper but 

also coal preparation plants. Coal 

preparation plants are sometimes 

subject to NSR, especially since they are 

already listed with respect to the 

inclusion of fugitive emissions. "Coal 

cleaning plants (with thermal dryers),'! a 

subset of coal preparation plants, is on 

the list of 30 for which fugitive emissions 

are counted in applicability 

determinations, hi addition, there is a 

new source performance standard for 

coal preparation plants (40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart Y). This standard was created 

prior to August 7,1980, thereby 

rendering these sources as listed (see 

e.g., 40 CFR 52.21{8)(4)(vii)(aa)). 

These facts have two ramifications. 

First, stack and fugitive emissions at the 

coal cleaning plant would, of course, be 

summed in determining whether it 

would be a major stationary source. If 

the coal cleaning plant were "major," 

then the mine would also be brought 

into NSR, regardless of whether mines 

are listed. The reason for this is that 

these operations are typically' 

aggregated as one source, since they 

belong to the same SIC, are adjacent 

and contiguous, and are under common 

control. Parties such as the National 

Coal Association indicate that coal 

cleaning plants are often not 100 tonsper-year sources, and, therefore, would 

not bring affiliated mines into review 

unless the fugitive emissions of the 

affected mines are taken into account. 

An additional issue arises, however, 

from the fact that strict construction of 

the regulations with respect to the SIC 

could result in the entire operation being 

a "listed" source. If this were the case, 

the fugitive emissions from the mine 

would be included in applicability 

determinations. This would result in 

PSD review in many such situations. 

The same issues can apply in cases 

involving other listed activities that may 

be operated with mines. 

Second, a "support facility" for a 

source is considered as part of the 

primary source, even if it belongs to a 

different two-digit SIC code. "Support 

facilities" are defined by the 1980 

preamble as "typically those which 

convey, store or otherwise assist in the • 
P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 51,/No. ,40 / Friday, February (28, 1988 / Proposed Rules 7093. 

production of the principal product" (45 

FR 52695). Physical proximity is X 

generally a key part of such a 

determination. It is possible to conclude 

that operations such as mine mouth 

power plants are a single source, thus 

bringing the mine into PSD review. 

Mining industry commenters also 

expressed concern about the Operation 

of the interpretation set forth for 

comment in the October 26,1984, 

Federal Register. This interpretation is 

that section 302(j) of the Act, the 

definition of "major stationary source," 

focuses its rulemaking requirement with 

respect to fugitive emissions on whether 

a source is "major," not on the review of 

modifications involving fugitive 

emissions at sources already "major." 

Generally this would have no effect on 

mines. Since mines are not listed and 

since they do not have sufficient stack 

emissions to qualify as "major," this 

interpretive ruling would not affect 

them. (If mines were listed, this 

interpretive ruling would have no ' 

bearing on their review.) Once again, 

however, the aggregation of mines with 

industrial facilities could produce results 

which the miqing industry contends are 

unreasonable unless EPA has first 

completed a listing under section 302(j). 

Modifications at a mine associated with 

a coal preparation plant, for example, 

could trigger NSR of the modification, 

even if its emissions increase consisted 

totally of fugitive emissions. Of course, 

if one of the approaches to source 

definition enunciated above is adopted, 

fugitives from mines at such aggregated 

sources would be reviewed directly. The 

interpretive ruling would not come into 

play. Thus, the definition of "source" is 

expected to remain the primary issue. 

These issues present essentially the 

same concern as the more prominent 

issue of listing: how to provide any 

appropriate relief from review to tiie 

mining industry while not jeopardizing 

the more important general review of 

fugitive emissions from all other 

sources. This is an especially 

challenging task in view of tiie fact that, 

the Act does not expressly provide for . 

special treatment of this somewhat 

unconventional source category. 

Because this rulemaking addresses 

mining issues broadly, and also includes 

responses to the reopening of the public 

comment period on the list of 30 source 

categories,2 EPA is addressing these 

new concerns in this rulemaking. 

• The American Mining Congress and ,_ 

other mining groups, after presenting 

comment oh these specific matters, 

* Industry commenters have requested that coal 

cleaning plants be delisted. 

conclude by arguing that surface coal 

mines "simply are not the kinds" of -

sources and emissions which Congress 

intended to be subject to NSR. Their 

recommended solution is to change the 

definition'of "building, structure, facility, 

or installation" in all NSR regulations— 

e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(6)—so as to create 

an exemption from the standard 

aggregation of pollutant-emitting 

activities based on proximity, 

ownership, and SIC code. This 

exemption would be created "where the 

agency has designated a separate source 

category or grouping." 

The EPA concludes that the current 

approachio "source" definition appears 

reasonable for virtually all sources. It is 

posssible, however, that it may produce 

an untoward effect in the case of mines, 

. for reasons argued by industry, if mines 

are found to be inappropriate for listing. 

The EPA, therefore, seeks comment on 

whether such an exemption, or any 

crafting of the section 302(j) rulemaking 

having similar effect, is justified for 

surface coal mines. The EPA anticipates 

that any such exemption would be 

granted only after a detailed 

examination of the nature of a particular 

source category and a finding that 

unusual circumstances justify this 

special treatment. It is also important 

that any such procedure for exemptions 

be crafted in a way so as not be 

jeopardize review of fugitive emissions 

from the great majority of sources for 

which an exemption would not be 

appropriate. The EPA, therefore, also 

solicits comment on what administrative 

procedures and safeguards might be 

appropriate for creating such an 

exemption. 

V. Miscellaneous 

A. Public Hearing 

The EPA will hold a public hearing on 

April 9,1988 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 239, 

Federal Building, Corner of 20th and 

Stout St., Denver, Colorado. The hearing 

will be informal. A panel of EPA staff 

will hear the oral presentations. There 

will be no cross-examination and no 

requirement that any person be under 

oath. Each member of the panel may 

seek clarification or amplification of any 

presentation. The presiding officer of the 

panel may set a time limit for each 

presentation and may restrict any 

presentation that would be irrelevant or 

repetitious. A transcript of the hearing 

will be made and placed in the 

rulemaking docket; 

Any person who wishes to speak at 

the hearing should as soon as possible 

send written notice of this to EPA, give 

name, address, telephone number, and 

the length of the presentation. Anyone 

stating that this his or her presentation 

would be longer than 20 minutes should 

also state why it need be longer. Each 

notice should be sent to Mr. Kirt Cox at 

the address given at the beginning of 

this notice. The EPA will develop a • 

schedule for presentations,based on the 

notices it receives. Each speaker should 

bring extra copies of his or her ••• •-• 

presentation for the. convenience of the 

hearing panel, the hearing reporter, the 

press, and other participants. The 

hearings will be open to the public. 

B. Economic Impact Assessment 

Section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7607, requires EPA to prepare an 

economic impact assessment in 

connection with proposal of any 

substantial revisions to existing 

regulations. This notice announces the 

availability of the economic analysis 

that EPA prepared in order to comply 

with Executive Order 12291 and which 

also satisfies the requirement for 

preparation of an economic impact 

assessment on the proposal to list strip 

mines. The EPA did not prepare an 

economic analysis of the new 

interpretation of section 302(j) as it 

relates to modifications because this is 

not a substantial revision; As discussed 

above, this interpretation will not bring 

many additional modifications under 

review. 

Dated: February 18,1986. , 

Charles L. Elklns, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air.and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 86-4357 Filed 2-27-66; 8:45 am] 

BILLING COOE 85SO-SO-E1. 

GENERAL SERVO'CES 

Qffllco off Acquisition Policy 

41 CFR Pairt! 101-20 

Management! @? Suildings end Grounds 

MQEMCV: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

GSA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and availability of draft. 

SUdtaAKV: This notice announces the 

availability of a draft proposed revision 

of Federal Property Management 

Regulation (FPMR) 101-20, Management 

of Buildings and Grounds. 

OATE: Any comments on the proposed 

revision should be submitted in writing 

to the address shown below within 60 

days from the-publication date of this 

notice in the Federal IRegister. No 

i,.^i.^i.i n