+(,121/,1(

Citation: 52 Fed. Reg. 45132 1987 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Sep 16 11:35:41 2013

-- 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.
No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

IAD-FRL-3282-3]

State Implementation Plans for

Visibility Long-Term Strategies,

Integral Vistas, and Control Strategies

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

disapproving the State implementation

plans (SIP's) of 29 States for failing to

comply with the provisions in EPA's

existing regulations for visibility

protection in mandatory Class I Federal areas dealing with impairment which can be reasonably attributed to a source. The EPA is incorporating

Federal plans into the SIP's of these

States to meet the general visibility plan

requirements and long-term strategies of

40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306. The EPA is

also codifying the integral vistas for the

Roosevelt Campobello International

Park into 40 CFR 81.437 and revising its

visibility new source review program for

the State of Maine to provide for the

protection of integral vistas in that

State. Today's actions were proposed on March 12, 1987, at 52 FR 7802 and are in

accordance with a settlement agreement

with the Environmental Defense Fund

(EDF) and the National Parks and

Conservation Association (NPCA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective on December 24, 1987.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking, Docket

Number A-85-26, in accordance with

section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act),

42 U.S.C. 7607(d). Materials related to

the development. of this rulemaking have

been placed in this docket. 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, South Conference

Center, Room 4, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Stonefield, Chief, Plans and

Policy Section, Standards

Implementation Branch (MD-15),

Control Programs Development Division,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (telephone

(919) 541-5350 or FTS 629-5350).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Regulatory Requirements and

Litigation Challenges

Section 169A of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7491, sets as a national goal . * * the

prevention of any future, and the

remedying of any existing, impairment

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal

areas which impairment results from

manmade air pollution." Mandatory

Class I Federal areas are certain

national parks, wildernesses, and

international parks as described in

section 162(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7472(a). Section 169A requires

reasonable progress toward meeting the

national goal for mandatory Class I

Federal areas where EPA has

determined that visibility is an important value. On November 30, 1979,

EPA identified 156 of these areas where

visibility is an important air quality

related value (see 44 FR 69122). Section

169A specifically requires EPA to

promulgate regulations requiring certain

States to amend their SIP's to provide

reasonable progress toward meeting the

national goal for these 156 areas.

On December 2, 1980, EPA

promulgated the required visibility

regulations at 45 FR 80084, codified at 40

CFR 51.300 et seq. In broad outline, the

visibility regulations require 36 States

listed in § 51.300(b) to (1) coordinate SIP

development with the appropriate

Federal land managers (FLM's), (2)

develop a program to assess and remedy

visibility impairment from new and

existing sources, (3) develop a long-term

(10 to 15 years) strategy to assure reasonable progress toward the national

goal, (4) develop a visibility monitoring

strategy to collect information on visibility conditions, and (5) consider in

all aspects of visibility protection any

"integral vistas" (important views of

landmarks or panoramas that extend

outside of the boundaries of the Class I

area) identified by the end of 1985 by

the FLM's as critical to the visitor's

enjoyment of the Class I areas.

These regulations only address a type

of visibility impairment which can be

traced to a single source or small group

of sources known as reasonably

attributable impairment or "plume

blight." The EPA deferred action on the

regulation of widespread homogeneous

haze (referred to as regional haze) and

urban plumes due to scientific and

technical limitations in visibility

monitoring techniques and modeling

methods (see 45 FR 80085 col. 3). The

regulations required the States to submit

revised SIP's satisfying those provisions

to EPA by September 2, 1981 (see 45 FR

80091, codified at 40 CFR 51.302(a)(1)).

In December 1982, environmental

groups, including EDF and NPCA, filed a

citizen's suit in the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of California alleging that EPA had

failed to perform a nondiscretionary

duty under section 110(c) of the Act to

promulgate visibility SIP's for the 35

States I that had failed to submit SIP's

to EPA (EDFv. Thomas, Number

C826850 RPA).

The EPA and the plaintiffs negotiated

a settlement agreement for the

remaining States which the Court

approved by order on April 20, 1984. For

more information on details of the

provisions of the settlement, including a

schedule of actions by EPA, see EPA's

announcement of the agreement at 49 FR

20647 (May 16, 1984).

B. Settlement Agreement

The settlement agreement required

EPA to promulgate Federal visibility

SIP's, henceforth called Federal

implementation plans (FIP's), on a

specified schedule for those States that

had not submitted visibility SIP

revisions to EPA. Specifically, the first

part of the agreement required EPA to

propose and promulgate FIP's which

cover the monitoring and new source

review (NSR) provisions under 40 CFR

51.305 and 51.307. The EPA proposed

such plan revisions for 34 States on

October 23, 1984, at 49 FR 42670. The

EPA promulgated its monitoring strategy

for 23 States and its NSR provisions for

21 States (see 50 FR 28544, 51 FR 5504,

and 51 FR 22937). In separate notices,

EPA approved the SIP's of the other

States with respect to monitoring and

NSR.

The second part of the settlement

agreement required EPA to determine

the adequacy of the SIP's to meet the

remaining provisions of the visibility

regulations. These provisions are the

general plan provisions including

implementation control strategies

(§ 51.302), integral vista protection

(§ 51.302-307), and long-term strategies

(§ 51.306). The settlement agreement

required EPA to propose and promulgate

FIP's to remedy any deficiencies on a

specified schedule.

On January 23, 1986, at 51 FR 3046,

EPA preliminarily determined the SIP's

of 32 States were deficient with respect

to the remaining visibility provisions.

The EPA and the plaintiffs negotiated

revisions to the settlement agreement

which extended the deadlines for

proposing FIP's to remedy the

deficiencies. The court approved these

I The State of Alaska had submitted a SIP which

was approved on July 5. 1983. at 48 FR 30623.

45132 Federal Register / Vol. 52,
No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 45133

revisions by its order of September 9,

1986. A copy of the settlement

agreement and revisions is available in

Docket A-85-26 at the address given at

the beginning of this notice.

Under the revised agreement, EPA

must propose and promulgate FIP's to

address the deficiencies relating to the

general plan requirements and long-term

strategies and can defer proposing and

promulgating FIP's to remedy

deficiencies related to impairment

which the FLM's have certified to EPA.

The agreement allows EPA until August

31, 1988, to propose remedies for

existing impairment.

On March 12, 1987, at 52 FR 7802, EPA

proposed to disapprove the SIP's of 32

States for failing to meet the general

plan and long-term strategy

requirements of 40 CFR 51.302 and

51.306. The EPA proposed that control

strategies to remedy existing impairment

were unnecessary in the SIP's for 28

States and deferred a decision on the

necessity of best available retrofit

technology (BART) in four States

(Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, and Utah).

The EPA also proposed to disapprove

the State of Maine's SIP for failing to

meet the integral vista provisions of 40

CFR 51.302-51.307 and proposed

revisions to the Federal visibility NSR

review program to be applicable in that

State.

The States were given the opportunity

to avoid today's promulgation if they

submitted SIP revisions to EPA by

August 31, 1987. Three States (Georgia,

Florida, and Kentucky) met this

deadline. The EPA is currently

reviewing the submittals and will take

appropriate action on them according to

its usual procedures and the provisions

of the revised settlement agreement.

Several States-Arkansas, Louisiana,

and Texas-have submitted draft or

final SIP's after the August 31 date. The

settlement agreement requires EPA to

promulgate FIP's for States which fail to

meet the submittal deadline, and

therefore EPA is promulgating FIP's for

these States today. The EPA will

continue to accept and review these and

any other visibility SIP revisions. If EPA

approves any such revisions, that action

will supersede today's action.

C. Today's Action

Today's action disapproves the

existing SIP's of 29 States and

incorporates Federal plans into the

SIP's. These States are:

Alabama

Arkansas

Arizona

California

Colorado

Hawaii

Idaho

Louisiana

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Virgin Islands

West Virginia

Wyoming

Seventeen comments were received

which directly address the issues in the

proposal. The following is a discussion

of the major elements of the Federal

plans, issues raised by commenters, and

EPA's response. The requirements and

procedures for developing visibility

protection plans were described in

detail in the March 12 proposal (52 FR

7802) and will not be restated here.

Assessment of Visibility Impairments

A. Federal Remedies for Remedying

Existing Impairments

1. BART Unnecessary in 28 States

The EPA solicited information from

the FLM's on existing visibility

impairments according to the

coordination requirements of the

visibility regulations (§ 51.302(b)). The

responses to EPA's request (summarized

both in the January 23 notice of

deficiency (51 FR 3047) and the March

12 proposal (52 FR 7802)) were used to

determine the list of States in which to

incorporate Federal control strategies or

emission limits representing BART.

In its response, the Department of the

Interior certified the existence of

uniform haze in all Class I areas in the

lower 48 States. However, the

information provided is inadequate to

enable EPA to determine that this

impairment could be traced to any

specific source and thus addressable

under the existing visibility regulations.

Therefore, EPA proposed that BART or

other control strategies were not

necessary in the FIP's for 28 States. This

includes the three States that later

submitted SIP's. The responses from the

FLM's also indicated that for ten Class I

areas in seven States, visibility

impairment existed which may be

attributed to specific sources. The

circumstances in these Class I areas and

States were discussed in detail in the

proposal and are addressed individually

below.

a. Comments. A commenter supported

EPA's determination that BART or other

control strategies were unnecessary in

the SIP's of 28 States. No comments

were received which disputed EPA's

findings here for the 28 States.

b. EPA Response. The EPA is

affirming its decision that BART or other

control strategies are unnecessary in the

FIP's for 28 States' SIP's at this time.

2. Tuxedni Wilderness, Alaska

The FLM for Tuxedni Wilderness

noted the existence of visibility

impairment which the field staff

believes may be traceable to four

specific sources. The State of Alaska

has a fully approved visibility SIP which

requires the State to address any

certifications of impairments in the

periodic review of the SIP. Thus, Alaska

must address this impairment in its next

review and there is no need for EPA to

address this impairment in this Federal

rulemaking.

a. Comments. One commenter

contended that the FLM had incorrectly

identified the sources of the visibility

impairment. This commenter asserted

that a more detailed emissions inventory

would reveal a large number of

stationary and area sources which could

be contributing to the impairment.

b. EPA Response. The EPA is allowing

the State to conduct a review of this

impairment under its own procedures

and to develop a detailed inventory as a

first step in addressing this impairment.

The commenter should communicate its

views to the appropriate Alaskan

agencies. In the meantime there is no

need to address this impairment in a

Federal rulemaking at this time.

3. Brigantine Wilderness, New Jersey

The FLM for Brigantine Wilderness

identified impairment which may be

traced to a specific source. In addition to

the source suspected by the FLM to be

causing the impairment, EPA noted the

existence of a large number of major

and minor stationary sources and

several urban areas near this Class I

area. The EPA proposed that BART or

other control strategies were

unnecessary in the FIP for New Jersey at

this time because of this fact and

because the plume from the source

suspected by the FLM had not been

documented within the wilderness area.

a. Comments. One commenter

concurred with EPA's determination

that BART was unnecessary at this time

because of the lack of sufficient

documentation. No other comments

were received.

b. EPA Response. The EPA is

affirming its decision that BART or any

other control strategy is not necessary in

the FIP for New Jersey at this time.

4. Cape Romain Wilderness, South

Carolina

The FLM for Cape Romain Wilderness

certified the existence of visibility

impairment and stated that several

specific sources may be producing the

impairment. The EPA noted the

existence of a large number of major

Federal Register / Vol. 52,
45134 Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 226 / Tuesday. November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

and minor stationary sources and two

urban areas near this Class I area. The

EPA proposed that BART or other

control strategies were unnecessary in

the FIP for South Carolina because of

the large number of urban, major, and

minor stationary sources near the

wilderness.

a. Comments. The State of South

Carolina and other commenters

supported EPA's decision not to require

a control strategy in that State. One

commenter requested an explanation of

the attainment and compliance status of

sources near the Class I area.

b. EPA Response. The EPA is

affirming its decision that BART or other

control strategies are not necessary in

the FIP for South Carolina at this time.

The attainment and compliance status

of major sources near the wilderness are

discussed in comments from the State of

South Carolina and a survey conducted

by EPA's Regional Office staff. These

materials are available through Docket

A-85-26, Items 11-B-16 and IV-D-2, at

the address given above.

5. EPA Defers Action On Impairments

The FLM's certified the existence of

visibility impairment in seven Class I

areas in four States which EPA believes

may be attributable, in part, to certain

local sources. These Class I areas are:

Grand Canyon National Park Arizona

Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona

Saguaro Wilderness, Arizona

Moosehorn Wilderness, Maine

Roosevelt Campobello International

Park, New Brunswick. Canada

Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota

Canyonlands National Park, Utah

Because neither the FLM's nor EPA

had sufficient documentation or

technical support to positively identify

any specific source or to complete a

BART analysis in time for this

rulemaking, EPA proposed to defer a

decision regarding the necessity for

BART or other control strategy in the

FIP's for these States.

a. Comments. Commenters uniformly

supported EPA's deferral regarding

control strategies in these four States.

One commenter noted that the Federal

plans would not be complete until EPA

took action on the impairments in these

States. Several commenters questioned

the appropriateness of the EPA/FLM

monitoring efforts in Petrified Forest

National Park, Grand Canyon National

Park, and Moosehorn Wilderness. The

State of Minnesota submitted a

modeling screening analysis that

indicated that the emissions from the

nearest source to Voyageurs National

Park could not be impairing visibility

within the park. One commenter noted

that the proposal was consistent with

statements in the 1980 visibility

rulemaking that few, if any, existing

stationary sources would be subject to

BART analyses (see 45 FR 80088 col.31.

b. EPA Response. The commenter is

correct in that the FIP's are not complete

until EPA takes action on the

impairments in the four States.

The EPA will defer a decision

regarding the necessity of BART or other

control strategies in the FIP's for these

four States-Arizona, Minnesota, Maine,

and Utah. The EPA will respond to the

appropriateness of its technical efforts

to attribute impairment to specific

sources and on the analyses submitted

by commenters when it takes action on

the necessity of control strategies. The

EPA intends to propose a decision

regarding BART in these four States no

later than August 31, 1988, as permitted

under the revised settlement agreement.

Long-Term Strategy

A. SIP Disapproval

The EPA, in today's action, is

disapproving the SIP's of the following

29 States for failing to incorporate the

visibility long-term strategy

requirements of 40 CFR 51.306 into their

SIP's and is incorporating § 52.29 into

the SIP's for these States:

Alabama New Jersey

Arkansas New Mexico

Arizona North Carolina

California North Dakota

Colorado Oklahoma

Hawaii South Carolina

Idaho South Dakota

Louisiana Tennessee

Maine Texas

Michigan Utah

Minnesota Virginia

Missouri Virgin Islands

Montana West Virginia

Nevada Wyoming

New Hampshire

1. Comments

The State of South Carolina

commented that It believed its existing

visibility SIP, submitted and approved in

response to the first part of the visibility

settlement, was adequate to address the

long-term strategy requirements.

2. EPA Response

In Its action on South Carolina's

visibility SIP (51 FR 2698, January 21,

1986), EPA noted that South Carolina

had some of the provisions required by

§ 51.306 under the first part of the

settlement agreement. The EPA further

stated that these revisions may not meet

all the requirements of § 51.300 et seq.,

but they did not conflict with them.

South Carolina's SIP may need to be

revised later to incorporate all the

requirements of §§ 51.302, 51.304, and

51.306. As part of the development of

EPA's notice of deficiency, EPA's

Regional Office reviewed South

Carolina's SIP and noted several

deficiencies in the long-term strategy.

This information is available in Docket

A-85-26 and was used to determine the

deficient SIP's in both the January 23,

1986, notice of deficiency and the March

12,1987, proposal. The EPA again

notified the State in a letter dated July

27, 1987, that its visibility SIP did not

meet all the requirements of § 51.306

(see docket A-85--26).

In today's action, EPA is affirming its

decision to disapprove South Carolina's

SIP for failing to incorporate adequate

provisions to meet the long-term

strategy requirements of § 51.306.

B. Federal Remedies

The long-term strategy of § 51.306 of

the visibility regulations is a 10- to 15-

year plan for making reasonable

progress toward the national goal.

Section 51.306 requires each State to (1)

develop a long-term strategy, (2) review

its strategy no less frequently than every

3 years, (3) report to EPA and the public

on progress achieved toward the

national goal, and (4) consider adopting

control strategies to remedy impairment

from sources not covered by the BART

requirements. As discussed in the

proposal, EPA's visibility regulations

address impairment that can be traced

to specific sources and EPA is deferring

action on such existing impairment.

Thus, the Federal long-term strategy

promulgated today is limited to the

prevention of future impairment and the

establishment of a framework to

address any additional existing

impairment that may be certified in the

future. The March 12 proposal contained

several narrative sections intended to

meet the long-term strategy

requirements. Those sections, which are

adopted today, and relevant comments

are discussed below.

1. Periodic Review

The EPA proposed a new § 52.29 to be

incorporated into the SIP's of the

deficient States. This new section

commits the Administrator to periodic

reviews of the long-term strategy and

reporting required by § 51.306(c).

a. Comments. Commenters supported

EPA's approach for meeting this

requirement. One commenter stated that

EPA should rewrite the 1980 regulations

into the SIP's of the deficient States and

that the action proposed by EPA was

reasonable.

b. EPA Response. The EPA is

promulgating a new § 52.29, as

proposed, and incorporating it into the

SIP's of the States listed above. This

45134 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations
No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 45135

section incorporates the requirements of

§ 51.306(c) into the SIP's of the States

listed above.

2. Smoke Management Practices

Section 51.306(e) requires the States to

consider six factors including smoke

management techniques in the

development of their long-term

strategies. As noted in the March 12,

1987, proposal, the FLM's did not

specifically identify smoke from

prescribed fires as a cause of

impairment in the mandatory Class I

areas. However, EPA recognized that

smoke from prescription burning and

wildfires can impair visibility in

mandatory Class I areas, but also

recognized that many State, local, and

Federal agencies are responsible for the

management of burning activities. The

EPA proposed that, before it can

develop a Federal smoke management

program to be incorporated into SIP's, it

must gain an understanding of the

extent of these problems and coordinate

the development of a control program

with the appropriate agencies.

a. Comments. Several commenters

expressed concern that EPA may

oversimplify the "prescription burning

issue." One commenter stated that a

careful and thorough balancing of land

management and air quality goals must

be made and advised EPA to work

closely with the land managing agencies

before proceeding with a regulatory

program.

b. EPA Response. As discussed in the

proposal, the FLM's have not identified

smoke from prescribed fires as a cause

of existing visibility impairment. Thus,

although EPA believes it may be a

significant cause of impairment in

certain Class I areas, EPA is not

including smoke management

techniques in today's Federal program

or for the SIP's of deficient States. In

addition, as stated above, EPA is aware

of the complexities associated with the

balancing of land management and air

quality goals. Thus, EPA is working with

other Federal agencies to study possible

smoke management programs.

3. Ongoing Air Pollution Control

Programs

The EPA proposed that its ongoing

efforts to implement the visibility NSR

and prevention of significant

deterioration programs meet the longterm strategy requirements for

preventing future impairments from

major stationary sources or major

modifications.

a. Comments. One commenter noted

that although EPA intends to address

regional haze impairments by

promulgating regulations in the future, it

is not premature to begin addressing this

issue in the long-term strategy of the

existing regulations. Furthermore, the

commenter contended that advances in

science warrant reexamining the

feasibility of addressing regional haze

impairment in the context of today's

long-term strategy.

b. EPA Response. The purpose of

today's rulemaking is only to implement

the existing requirements for visibility

protection. The EPA limited the 1980

visibility regulations to plume blight

type impairments. The EPA believes that

under section 169A of the Act, it must

propose and promulgate regulations at

the national level to address regional

haze impairments before it can require

such programs in the SIP's. In addition,

the EPA believes the technical to'ols to

address regional haze impairments are

not fully available. (See related actions

at 51 FR 43389 on December 2, 1986, and

52 FR 26973 on July 17, 1987.) For this

reason, EPA does not intend to

promulgate into the long-term strategy

for deficient SIP's requirements or

control programs which would address

regional haze impairments. However,

EPA is actively addressing regional haze

impairment issues in other contexts. An

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

was published on July 1, 1987 (see 52 FR

24670), which solicited comment

regarding the development of a

secondary (welfare-based) national

ambient air quality standard for fine

particles (those particles with an

aerodynamic diameter equal to or less

than 2.5 micrometers). The principal

welfare effect that would be addressed

by such a standard is impairment of

visibility. At this time, EPA is reviewing

public comments submitted in response

to that notice. In addition, EPA has

recently formed a new Visibility

Research Subcommittee (VRS) under the

Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee program. The charge of the

VRS will include a review of the state of

technical knowledge on visibility

impairment. The review will encompass

research work performed by the entire

scientific community, both public and

private, and will not be limited to EPA

activities. The comments and reports of

the VRS will be considered in the

development of the scientific and

technical basis for any regulatory

programs to address regional haze

impairment.

The EPA is also engaged in several

research activities that directly relate to

visibility impairment, including regional

haze. These activities include

monitoring programs as well as

laboratory research and analysis. A

brief description of these activities

follows:

Monitoring Activities

(1] The Subregional Cooperative

Electric Utility, Department of Defense,

National Park Service, Environrental

Protection Agency, Study on Visibility

(SCENES) is a western visibility

impairment characterization effort. It is

run by a consortium of Federal agencies

and industry. The EPA coordinates with

the steering committee on this

monitoring/analysis effort.

(2) The Research on Operations

Limiting Visual Extinction (RESOLVE) is

a special study coordinated with

SCENES. RESOLVE is a joint effort

between EPA's Environmental

Monitoring Support Laboratory (EMSL)-

Las Vegas, and the Department of

Defense. The study implemented a

monitoring program for the California

Mohave Desert in 1983-85. The final

report on impairment is due by February

1988. New technologies have been

developed in RESOLVE for monitoring

and source apportionment techniques.

This work may lead to better techniques

for addressing Western regional haze

impairment problems.

(3) Interagency Monitoring of

Protected Visual Environments

(IMPROVE) is an ongoing interagency

monitoring effort to meet the

requirements of the visibility FIP's. The

IMPROVE program measures visibility

impairment in certain Class I areas for

both plume blight and regional haze.

The U.S. National Park Service (NPS)

Air Quality Office had a monitoring

system in a number of its Class I areas.

The IMPROVE program incorporates

most of the sites established and

operated by the NPS. In addition, the

IMPROVE program uses EPA funding to

expand the monitoring. In the future, as

more States adopt SIP's and take over

monitoring authority, they either will

continue funding of the NPS monitoring

or must make other arrangements for

visibility monitoring.

(4) The Eastern Fine Particle Visibility

Research Monitoring Network (EFPVN)

is an effort to refine visibility and fine

particle relationships and determine

trends of visibility indicators in different

regions in the East. Most sites are colocated with those established by the

Dry Deposition Network to utilize some

of their meteorological data. The study

will collect 24-hour data on fine particle

mass, sulfate, nitrate, trace elements,

total carbon, and elemental carbon, in

addition to light extinction by scattering

and visual range by contrast. A pilot

EFPVN station is in operation and at

least three of a planned nine stations

will be deployed by the end of this

calendar year.

Federal Register / Vol. 52,
4513 Feera 228Reiste / Tuesday. / ol.52,No. November 24. 1.lR7 I Thilpq and Rao,,latinne ----------------------------------------------------- , -.--......

(5) The EPA's Atmospheric Sciences

Research Laboratory (ASRL) has

planned a detailed characterization of

aerosol at several monitoring sites to

establish aerosol-visibility relationships

and to determine aerosol sources. This

study will include measurements of size

distribution of various aerosols

components, composition of the organic

aerosol, impact of sampling artifacts,

and effects of relative humidity and

temperature changes. In addition, the

study will include 1-hour measurements

of the above parameters for correlation

with instantaneous visibility

measurements. This study will use some of the same sites as the EFPVN.

6. The EPA is developing performance

specifications for visibility monitoring

(visual range and particulate loading).

This work will lead to a uniform

reference methodology for comparing all

visibility monitoring studies.

Laboratory Research andAnalysis

Work

(1) The ASRL is adding visibility

aspects of a regional transport model to

the acid rain transport research. This

work should result in a personal

computer model for predicting regional

visibility impacts that can be readily

utilized by States.

(2) The ASRL is planning to conduct

several minor studies on aerosols to

determine the importance of organics,

relative humidity, and the relationship

of sulfates and nitrates on visibility

impairment characteristics.

(3) The ASRL is continuing to review

and analyze relationships between

visibility trends and emission trends.

Work will shift emphasis from the

National Weather Service (NWS),

human observer visibility data set, to

data from EPA and NPS monitoring

networks and the upcoming NWS

automated visibility network. The

EMSL-Las Vegas, will continue

interpretive analysis of RESOLVE and

IMPROVE data. This work will

incorporate EFPVN data when

available.

(4) The EMSL-Las Vegas, will be

developing studies for visibility

perception and value of visibility for

urban areas to complement the work

already done for rural/scenic vista

areas.

All of these activities will contribute to

EPA's continuing effort to develop the

knowledge on the causes and

mechanisms of regional haze

impairment and transport. This

knowledge is necessary to develop

regulatory control programs.

4. Future Certification of Impairments

The EPA noted in the March 12

proposal (52 FR 7808) that the visibility regulations allow the FLM's to certify the existence of visibility impairment at

any time. Any certifications of

impairment made to a State, or to EPA

in lieu of a State, would then be

addressed in the periodic review of the

visibility SIP or FIP.

a. Comments. Several commenters

called for EPA to propose for public

review a set of criteria for the FLM's to

use in making certifications of

impairment. The commenters contend

that general observations of

impairments are inadequate for use in a

regulatory format.

b. EPA Response. The visibility regulations do not specify methods by which the FLM's are to make

certifications of visibility impairments, and given that the purpose of today's rulemaking is only to implement the

existing requirements, EPA is not

proposing criteria for certifications of

impairment as part of this rulemaking.

However, as discussed in the proposal,

EPA recognizes the difficulties

associated with developing control

strategies based on general information.

Thus, in the proposal (52 FR 7884) EPA

provided guidance to the FLM's

regarding the need to provide more

specific documentation of visibility conditions when making future

certifications under § 51.302(c)(1).

Integral Vistas

A. Federal Remedies

An integral vista is defined as "a view

perceived from within a Class I Federal

area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the

mandatory Class I Federal area." The

only FLM to identify integral vistas was

the Roosevelt Campobello International

Park Commission for its one Class I area

(see 46 FR 22707).2 Therefore, EPA

proposed to disapprove only the State of

Maine's SIP for failing to provide for the

protection of these vistas. The EPA

proposed to incorporate the vistas into

the 40 CFR Part 81 which lists Roosevelt

Campobello International Park as a

mandatory Class I area where visibility is an important value, and to revise its

Federal NSR program (§ 52.27) to

provide for the review of major new

sources or major modifications which

may affect visibility in the integral vistas. The EPA proposed to defer

action on the necessity of a control

2 Although the regulations allow the PlM's to

identify integral vistas pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304.

the States may also identify and protect vistas

under their own authority (see 49 FR 80095 col. 1).

strategy to remedy existing impairment

in the integral vistas within Maine until no later than August 31, 1988.

1. Comments

Commenters generally supported

EPA's decision to protect only the

integral vistas in Maine. One commenter

noted that EPA should make clear that

there is no Federal requirement for

integral-vista protection in any State

other than Maine. One commenter

stated the references to integral vistas in

new § 52.29 which are to be applicable

in all deficient SIP's should be deleted

because this provision only applies in

Maine.

2. EPA Response

The commenter is correct that the

only Federal requirement for integral

vista protection is for the vistas

associated with the Roosevelt

Campobello International Park. The EPA

does not believe that references to

integral vistas in new § 52.29 are

misleading and confusing. The EPA

believes the provisions promulgated

today correctly apply to the State of

Maine's SIP. The EPA is affirming its

decision to disapprove the State of

Maine's SIP for failing to provide for the

protection of the integral vistas for the

Roosevelt Campobello International

Park and is incorporating revised § 52.27

into Maine's SIP.

Summary

In today's action, the EPA is

disapproving the SIP's of 29 States for

failing to revise their SIP's to comply

with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302 and

51.306.

The EPA is affirming its decision that

control strategies are not necessary in

the SIP's for 28 States to remedy existing

impairments because visibility

impairment in those States cannot be

reasonably attributed to any specific

sources. The EPA is promulgating a

uniform program to be applicable in 29

States to meet the periodic review

requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c).

The EPA is also:

(1) Codifying the integral vistas which

have been identified for the Roosevelt

Campobello International Park into the

40 CFR Part 81 listing for that Class I

area,

(2) Disapproving the SIP for the State

of Maine for failing to provide for the

protection of the integral vistas which

extend into Maine, and

(3) Revising the Federal visibility NSR

program for the State of Maine to

provide for the protection of these vistas

from the impact from new or modified

45136 Federal Register / Vol. 52,
No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 45137

major stationary sources in the State of

Maine.

Classification

The Administrator certifies pursuant

to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that

the attached rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The rules promulgated today do not

contain any information collection

requirements subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The rules have been submitted to

OMB for review under Executive Order

12291. Any comments from that office

have been placed in Docket A-85-26.

These rules are not major within the

meaning of Executive Order 12291.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and

81

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur

oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,

Particulate matter, Hydrocarbons,

Carbon monoxide.

Date: November 10, 1987.

Lee M. Thomas,

Administrator.

Part 52, Chapter I of Title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 52--AMENDED]

1. The authority for Part 52 continues

to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.

2. Section 52.29 is added to Subpart A

to read as follows:

§ 52.29 Visibility long-term strategies

(a) Plan Disapprovals. The provisions

of this section are applicable to any

State implementation plan which has

been disapproved for not meeting the

requirements.of 40 CFR 51.306 regarding

the development, periodic review, and

revision of visibility long-term

strategies. Specific disapprovals are

listed where applicable in Subparts B

through DDD of this part. The provisions

of this section have been incorporated

into the applicable implementation plan

for various States, as provided in

Subparts B through DDD of this part.

(b) Definitions. For the purposes of

this section, all terms shall have the

meaning as ascribed to them in the

Clean Air Act, or in the protection of

visibility program (40 CFR 51.301).

(c) Long-Term Strategy. (1) A longterm strategy is a 10- to 15-year plan for

making reasonable progress toward the

national goal specified in § 51.300(a).

This strategy will cover any existing

impairment certified by the Federal land

manager and any integral vista which

has been identified according to

§ 51.304.

(2) The Administrator shall review,

and revise if appropriate, the long-term

strategies developed for each visibility

protection area. The review and

revisions will be completed no less

frequently than every 3 years from

November 24, 1987.

(3) During the long-term strategy

review process, the Administrator shall

consult with the Federal land managers

responsible for the appropriate

mandatory Class I Federal areas, and

will coordinate long-term strategy

development foran area with existing

plans and goals, including those

provided by the Federal land managers.

(4) The Administrator shall prepare a

report on any progress made toward the

national visibility goal since the last

long-term strategy revisions. A report

will be made available to the public not

less frequently than 3 years from

November 24, 1987. This report must

include an assessment of:

(i) The progress achieved in

remedying existing impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area;

(ii) The ability of the long-term

strategy to prevent future impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area;

(iii) Any change in visibility since the

last such report, or in the case of the

first report, since plan approval;

(iv) Additional measures, including

the need for SIP revisions, that may be

necessary to assure reasonable progress

toward the national visibility goal;

(v) The progress achieved in

implementing best available retrofit

technology (BART) and meeting other

schedules set forth in the long-term

strategy;

(vi) The impact of any exemption

granted under § 51.303;

(vii) The need for BART to remedy

existing visibility impairment of any

integral vista identified pursuant to

§ 51.304.

(d) Delegation of Authority. The

Administrator may delegate with

respect to a particular visibility

protection area any of his functions

under this section, except the making of

regulations, to any State or local air

pollution control agency of any State

whose boundaries encompass that area. 3. In § 52.27 paragraph (d)(2) is revised

and paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5)

are added to read as follows:

§ 52.27 Protection of visibility from

sources in attainment areas.

(d}* * *

(2) The reviewing authority must

consider any analysis performed by the

Federal land managers, provided within

30 days of the notification required by

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, that

shows that such proposed new major

stationary source or major modification

may. have:

(i) An adverse impact on visibility in

any Federal Class I area, or

(ii) An adverse impact on visibility in

an integral vista codified in Part 81 of

this title.

(3) Where the reviewing authority

finds that such an analysis does not

demonstrate that the effect in

paragraphs (d)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section

will occur, either an explanation of its

decision or notification as to where the

explanation can be obtained must be

included in the.notice of public hearing.

(4) Where the reviewing authority

finds that such an analysis does

demonstrate that the effect in paragraph

(d}(2)[i) of this section will occur, the

permit shall not be issued.

(5) Where the reviewing authority

finds that such an analysis does

demonstrate that the effect in paragraph

(d)(2)(ii) of this section will occur, the

reviewing authority may issue a permit

if the emissions from the source or

modification will be consistent with

reasonable progress toward the national

goal. In making this decision, the

reviewing authority may take into

account the costs of compliance, the

time necessary for compliance, the

energy and nonair quality

environmental impacts of compliance,

and the useful life of the source.

§§ 52.145, 52.344, 52.633, 52.690, 52.1183,

52.1236, 52.1488, 52.1531, 52.1606, 52.1636,

52.1831, 52.1933, 52.2132, 52.2179, 52.2234,

52.2304, 52.2452, 52.2533, 52.2632, 52.2781

[Amended]

4. Sections 52.145(AZ), 52.344(CO),

52.633(HI), 52.690(ID), 52.1183(MI),

52.1236(MN), 52.1488(NV), 52.1531(NH),

52.1606(NJ), 52.1636(NM), 52.1831(ND),

52.1933(OK), 52.2132(SC), 52.2179(SD),

52.2234(TN), 52.2304(TX), 52.2452(VA),

52.2533(WV), 52.2632(WY) and 52.2781

(VI) are amended by adding paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

(c) Long-term strategy. The provisions

of § 52.29 are hereby incorporated and

made part of the applicable plan for the

State of__ .

5. Section 52.281(CA) is amended by

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 52.281 Visibility Protection

Federal Register / Vol. 52,
45138 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

(e) Long-term strategy. The provisions

of § 52.29 are hereby incorporated and

made part of the applicable plan for the

State of California.

§§ 52.61, 52.183, 52.989, 52.1339, 52.1387,

52.1782, 52.3247 [Added]

6. Sections 52.61(AL), 52.183(AR),

52.989(LA), 52.1339(MO), 52.1387(MT},

52.1782(NC), 52.2347(UT) are added to

read as follows:

§ 52. -Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A

of the Clean Air Act are not met

because the plan does not include

approvable procedures for protection of

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal

areas.

(b) Long-term strategy. The provisions

of § 52.29 are hereby incorporated into

the applicable plan for the State of

7. The second § 52.1031 entitled

"Visibility protection" is redesignated as § 52.1033 and revised to read as follows:

§ 52.1033 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A

of the Clean Air Act are not met

because the plan does not include

approvable procedures for protection of

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal

areas and the integral vistas identified

in 40 CFR 81.437.

(b) Regulations for visibility

monitoring and new source review. The

provisions of §§ 52.26 and 52.27,

including the provisions for protection of

integral vistas, are hereby incorporated

and made a part of the applicable plan

for the State of Maine.

(c) Long-term strategy. The provisions

of § 52.29 are hereby incorporated into

the applicable plan for the State of

Maine.

PART 81-[AMENDED]

Part 81, Chapter 1 of Title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

1. The authority for Part 81 continues

to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 101(b)(1), 110, 169(a)(2),

and 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended (42

U.S.C. 7401(b), 7410, 7491(a)(2), 7601(a)).

2. Section 81.437 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 81.437 New Brunswick, Canada.

TABLE 1

Public Federal

law land Area name Acreage estab- managlishing er

Roosevelt Campobello

International Park ................. 2,721 88-363

I Not applicable.

TABLE 2.-INTEGRAL VISTAS ASSOCIATED WITH MANDATORY CLASS I AREAS

Park Observation point View angle Key features Also viewed from

Roosevelt Campobello International Park . Roosevelt Cottage and Beach Area ..................

Friar's Head .....................................................

244°-56.

154°-94 °

Estes H ead .............................................

Eastport

North Lubec

Cobscook Bay

Shackford Head

St. Andrews

Friar's Head

Treat's Island

Passamaquoddy Bay

Deer Island

Indian Island

Rouen Island

Cherry Island

Thrumcap Island

Owen House

Welshpool

Roosevelt Cottage .................................

Campobello Island

Weir

Friar's Bay

Welshpool

Wilson's Beach

North Road

Head Harbour Passage

Casco Island

Green Island

Pope Island

Thrumcap Island

Cherry Island

Rouen Island

Indian Island

Deer Island

Passamaquoddy Bay

Old Sow Whirlpool

St. Andrews

Eastport

Friar Roads

Estes Head

Perry

Shackford Head

Pembroke

Cobscook Bay

Treat's Island

Major's Island

North Lubec

Passamaquoddy Dam portion of

Roger's Island

Dudley Island

Johnson's Bay

Pope's Folly

Cutler Naval Radio Station

Lubec

Mulholland Point Lighthouse

FOR Memorial Bridge

South Lubec

Grand Manan Island

Portions from Friar's Head.

Portions Viewed From Roosevelt Cottage

and Beach Area.
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 45139

TABLE 2.-INTEGRAL VISTAS ASSOCIATED WITH MANDATORY CLASS I AREAS-Continued

Park Observation point View angle Key features Also viewed from

Con Robinson's Point .................. 308'-150" Herring Cove Beach ............ Portions Viewed From Liberty Point.

Provincial Park

Eastern Head

Herring Cove

Mainland New Brunswick

Point La Preau

Wolf Islands

Atlantic Ocean

Liberty Point ......................................................... 34'-236* Ragged Point ................. Portions Viewed From Con Robinson'

Mainland New Brunswick Point.

Atlantic Ocean

Wolf Islands

South Lubec

Grand Manan Island

Sail Rock

West Quoddy Head Lighthouse

South Lubec

[FR Doc. 87-26556 Filed 11-23-87; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M