# + 2

(,1 1/,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 Plansfor VisibilityLong-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) of29 States for failing to comply with the provisions in EPA's existing regulations forvisibility protection in mandatory Class IFederal

areas dealing with impairment which

can be reasonably attributed to a
source. The EPA is incorporating Federal plans into the SIP's ofthese States to meet the general visibility plan requirements and long-term strategies of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306. TheEPA 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 ofMaine toprovide for the protection ofintegral 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 EPAhas established a docket for this rulemaking, Docket Number A-85-26, in accordance with section 307(d) ofthe 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 orFTS 629-5350). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background
A. RegulatoryRequirementsand LitigationChallenges

Section 169A ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. 7491, sets as a national goal

. * * the prevention ofany future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment ofvisibility in mandatory class I Federal

areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution." Mandatory ClassI Federal areas are certain national parks, wildernesses, and international parks as described in section 162(a) ofthe 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 ofthese 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 toprovide reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal for these 156 areas.

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated the required visibility regulations at45 FR 80084, codified at 40 CFR 51.300 etseq. 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 (10to 15 years) strategy to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal, (4) develop avisibility 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 ofthe boundaries ofthe Class I area) identified by the end of 1985 by the FLM's as critical to the visitor's enjoyment ofthe Class I areas.

These regulations only address a type ofvisibility impairment which can be traced to a single source or small group ofsources known as reasonably attributable impairment or "plume blight." The EPA deferred action on the regulation ofwidespread 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 toEPA 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 forthe Northern District ofCalifornia alleging that EPA had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under section 110(c) ofthe 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 forthe remaining States which the Court approved by order on April 20, 1984. For

more information on details of the provisions ofthe settlement, including a schedule of actions by EPA, see EPA's
announcement ofthe agreement at 49 FR 20647 (May 16, 1984).

B.SettlementAgreement

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 toEPA. Specifically, the first part ofthe 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 tomonitoring and NSR.

The second part of the settlement agreement required EPA to determine the adequacy ofthe SIP'sto meet the remaining provisions ofthe 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 of32 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

IThe State ofAlaska 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 ofSeptember 9, 1986. A copy ofthe settlement agreement and revisions is available in Docket A-85-26 at the address given at the beginning ofthis notice.

Under the revised agreement, EPA
mustpropose 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'sto 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 of32 States for failing tomeet the general plan and long-term strategy requirements of40 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 ofbest available retrofit technology (BART) in four States (Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, and Utah).

The EPA also proposed to disapprove the State ofMaine's SIP forfailing to meet the integral vista provisions of40 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 ifthey submitted SIPrevisions to EPAby 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 ofthe 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. TheEPA will continue to accept and review these and
any other visibility SIPrevisions. IfEPA
approves any such revisions, that action will supersede today's action.

C. Today'sAction

Today's action disapproves the existing SIP's of29 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 ofthe major elements of theFederal plans, issues raised bycommenters, and EPA's response. The requirements and procedures fordeveloping visibility protection plans were described in detail in the March 12 proposal (52 FR 

### 7802) and willnot be restated here.
Assessment ofVisibility Impairments
A. Federal Remedies forRemedying ExistingImpairments

1. BART Unnecessary in 28 States



### TheEPA solicited information from the FLM's onexisting visibility impairments according to the coordination requirements ofthe visibilityregulations 

### (§51.302(b)). The responses to EPA's request (summarized both in theJanuary 23 notice of deficiency (51FR 3047) and the March 12proposal (52FR 7802)) were used to 

### determine thelist ofStates in which to incorporate Federal control strategies or emission limitsrepresenting BART.

In itsresponse, theDepartment ofthe Interior certified the existence of uniform haze in allClass I areas in the lower 48 States. However, the information provided is inadequate to enableEPA to determine that this impairment could be traced to any specific source andthus addressable under the existingvisibilityregulations. Therefore, EPAproposed that BARTor other control strategies were not necessary in the FIP'sfor 28 States. This includes the three States that later submitted SIP's.The responses from the FLM's alsoindicated that for ten ClassI

areas in seven States,visibility impairment existed whichmay be attributed to specific sources. The circumstances in these Class Iareas and States were discussed in detail inthe proposal and are addressed individually below.

a.Comments.Acommenter supported EPA's determination that BART orother control strategies were unnecessary in the SIP's of28 States. No comments

were received which disputed EPA's findings here for the 28 States.

b.EPAResponse.TheEPA is affirming its decision that BART orother control strategies are unnecessary in the FIP'sfor 28 States' SIP's at this time. 2. Tuxedni Wilderness, Alaska

The FLM for Tuxedni Wilderness noted the existence ofvisibility impairment which the field staff believes may be traceable to four specific sources. The State ofAlaska has a fully approved visibility SIP which requires the State to address any certifications ofimpairments in the periodic review ofthe 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, EPAnoted the existence of a large number ofmajor 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 FIPfor New Jersey at this time because ofthis 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 ofthe lack ofsufficient documentation. No other comments

were received.

b.EPAResponse.The EPAis affirming its decision thatBART orany other control strategy is not necessary in the FIP forNew Jersey at this time.

4. Cape Romain Wilderness, South Carolina

The FLM for Cape Romain Wilderness certified the existence ofvisibility impairment and stated that several specific sources may be producing the impairment. TheEPA noted the existence ofa large number ofmajor 

### 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 Iarea. The EPA proposed that BART or other control strategies were unnecessary in the FIP for South Carolina because of the large number ofurban, major, and minor stationary sources near the wilderness.

a. Comments.The State ofSouth 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 Iarea.

b.EPA Response.TheEPA is affirming its decision that BART orother control strategies are not necessary in the FIP forSouth Carolina at this time. The attainment and compliance status ofmajor 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. EPADefers Action OnImpairments

TheFLM'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 CanyonNational 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 norEPA had sufficient documentation or technical support to positively identify
any specific source orto 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'sfor 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 notbe complete until EPA took action on the impairments in these States. Several commenters questioned the appropriateness of theEPA/FLM monitoring efforts inPetrified Forest National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, and Moosehorn Wilderness. The State ofMinnesota submitted a modeling screening analysis that indicated that the emissions from the
nearest source toVoyageurs National Parkcould not beimpairing visibility within thepark. One commenter noted that the proposal was consistent with
statements in the 1980 visibility rulemaking that few, ifany, 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 notcomplete until EPA takes action on the impairments in the four States.

TheEPA will defera decision regarding the necessity ofBART orother control strategies in the FIP's forthese four States-Arizona, Minnesota, Maine, and Utah. TheEPA willrespond to the appropriateness ofits 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 Statesno 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 thefollowing 29 States forfailingto incorporate the visibility long-term strategy requirements of40CFR 51.306 into their SIP's and is incorporating §52.29 into the SIP'sfor these States:

Alabama New Jersey Arkansas New Mexico Arizona North Carolina California NorthDakota Colorado Oklahoma Hawaii South Carolina Idaho South Dakota Louisiana Tennessee Maine Texas Michigan Utah Minnesota Virginia Missouri Virgin Islands Montana WestVirginia Nevada Wyoming New Hampshire

1. Comments

The State ofSouth 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. EPAResponse

In Its action on South Carolina's visibility SIP (51 FR 2698, January 21, 1986), EPA noted that SouthCarolina had some oftheprovisions required by §51.306 under the first part ofthe settlement agreement. The EPA further stated thatthese revisions maynot meet all the requirements of §51.300 etseq., but they did not conflict with them. South Carolina's SIPmay need to be revised later to incorporate allthe requirements of §§ 51.302, 51.304, and 51.306. Aspart ofthe development of EPA's notice ofdeficiency, 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 theJanuary 23, 1986, notice ofdeficiency and the March 12,1987, proposal. The EPA again notified the State in a letter dated July 27, 1987, that its visibility SIPdid not
meet all therequirements of §51.306 (see docket A-85--26).

In today's action, EPA is affirming its decision to disapprove South Carolina's SIPfor 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 noless frequently than every 3 years, (3) report to EPA and thepublic

on progress achieved toward the national goal, and (4) consider adopting control strategies toremedy 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 offuture impairment and the establishment ofa framework to address any additional existing impairment that may be certified in the future. TheMarch 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. PeriodicReview

The EPA proposed a new §52.29 to be incorporated into the SIP's of the deficient States. This new section commits the Administratorto periodic reviews ofthe 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 1980regulations into the SIP's ofthe deficient States and that the actionproposed by EPA was reasonable.

b.EPA Response.The EPA is promulgating a new § 52.29, as proposed, and incorporating it into the SIP's ofthe 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 ofthe 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 oftheir 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 fromprescription burning and wildfires can impair visibility in mandatory Class Iareas, but also recognized that many State, local, and Federal agencies are responsible for the management ofburning 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 ofthe
extent ofthese problems and coordinate the development ofa control program with the appropriate agencies.



### a. Comments. Several commenters expressed concern that EPAmay oversimplify the "prescription burning issue." One commenter stated that a careful and thorough balancing ofland management and air qualitygoals 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 fromprescribed fires as a cause of existing visibility impairment. Thus, although EPA believes it may be a significant cause ofimpairment in certain Class Iareas, EPAis not including smoke management techniques in today's Federal program

or forthe SIP's ofdeficient States. In addition, as stated above, EPAis aware ofthe complexities associated with the balancing of landmanagement and air quality goals. Thus, EPAis working with other Federal agencies to studypossible smoke management programs. 3. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs

TheEPA proposed that its ongoing efforts to implement the visibility NSR and prevention ofsignificant deterioration programs meet the longterm strategy requirements for preventing future impairments from major stationary sources ormajor 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 ofthe existing regulations. Furthermore, the
commenter contended that advances in science warrant reexamining the feasibility of addressing regional haze impairment in the context oftoday's long-term strategy.

b.EPAResponse.The purpose of today's rulemaking is only to implement the existing requirements forvisibility protection. The EPA limited the 1980 visibility regulations to plume blight type impairments. The EPAbelieves that under section 169A ofthe 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 fordeficient 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 ofproposed 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 (thoseparticles 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, EPAhas recently formed a new Visibility Research Subcommittee (VRS)under the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee program. The charge ofthe VRS will include a review ofthe state of technical knowledge on visibility impairment. The review will encompass research work performed by the entire scientific community, both public and private, and willnotbe limited to EPA activities. The comments and reports of the VRS willbe 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 ofDefense, 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 VisualExtinction (RESOLVE) is

a special study coordinated with SCENES. RESOLVE is ajoint 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 VisualEnvironments (IMPROVE) is an ongoing interagency monitoring effort to meet the requirements ofthe visibility FIP's. The IMPROVE program measures visibility impairment in certain Class Iareas for both plume blight and regional haze. The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) Air Quality Office had a monitoring system in a number ofits Class Iareas. TheIMPROVE program incorporates
most ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofvisibility 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-hourdata 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 ofa planned nine stations willbe deployed by the end of this calendar year. 

### Federal Register / Vol. 52,4513 Feera Reiste

## / ol.52,No. 228 

### / Tuesday. 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 ofsize distribution ofvarious aerosols components, composition ofthe organic aerosol, impact ofsampling artifacts, and effects ofrelative humidity and temperature changes. In addition, the study will include 1-hour measurements ofthe above parameters for correlation with instantaneous visibility measurements. This study willuse some ofthe same sites as the EFPVN.

6. The EPA is developing performance specifications for visibility monitoring (visualrange and particulate loading). This work will leadto a uniform reference methodology forcomparing all visibility monitoring studies. Laboratory ResearchandAnalysis Work

(1) TheASRL is addingvisibility aspects ofa 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 oforganics, relative humidity, and the relationship ofsulfates 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 EPAand NPS monitoring networks and the upcoming NWS automated visibility network. The EMSL-Las Vegas, will continue interpretive analysis ofRESOLVE 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 ofvisibility for urban areas to complement the work already done for rural/scenic vista

areas. All ofthese activities will contribute to EPA's continuing effort to develop the knowledge on the causes and mechanisms ofregional haze impairment and transport.This knowledge is necessary to develop regulatory control programs. 

### 4.Future Certification ofImpairments The EPA notedin the March 12 proposal (52

### FR 7808) that the visibility regulations allow the FLM's to certify the existence ofvisibility impairment at any time.Any certifications of impairment made to a State, or to EPA in lieu ofa State,would thenbe addressed in the periodicreview ofthe visibility SIP orFIP.

a.Comments.Several commenters called for EPA topropose forpublic review a set ofcriteriafor the FLM'sto

use in making certifications of impairment. The commenters contend thatgeneral observations of impairments are inadequate foruse in a regulatory format.

b.EPAResponse.The visibility regulations do not specify methodsby which theFLM's are to make certifications ofvisibility impairments, and given that the purpose oftoday's rulemakingis only to implement the existing requirements, EPA is not proposing criteria for certifications of impairment aspart ofthis rulemaking. However, as discussed intheproposal, EPA recognizes the difficulties associated with developing control strategies based ongeneral information. Thus, in the proposal (52

### FR7884) EPA provided guidance tothe FLM's regarding theneed toprovide more specific documentation ofvisibility conditionswhen making future certifications under §51.302(c)(1). IntegralVistas
A. Federal Remedies
An integral vista is defined as "a view perceived from within a Class IFederal

area ofa specific landmark orpanorama located outside the boundary ofthe mandatory Class IFederal area." The onlyFLM to identify integral vistas was the Roosevelt Campobello International ParkCommission for its one Class Iarea (see 46FR 22707).2 Therefore, EPA 

### proposed to disapprove only the Stateof Maine's SIPfor failing toprovide for the protection ofthese vistas.The EPA proposed toincorporate the vistas into the40CFR Part 81 which listsRoosevelt Campobello International Park as a mandatory Class Iarea where visibility is an important value, and to revise its Federal NSR program 

## (§52.27) to provide for the reviewofmajor new sources or major modifications which may affect visibility in the integral vistas.The EPA proposed to defer action on the necessity ofa control

2 Although the regulations allow thePlM's to identify integral vistas pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. the Statesmay alsoidentify andprotect vistas undertheir own authority (see 49 FR80095 col. 1). 

### strategy toremedy 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 thereferences to integral vistas in

new §52.29 which are tobe applicable in alldeficient SIP's should be deleted because this provision only applies in Maine.

2.EPA Response

The commenter iscorrect that the only Federal requirement for integral vista protection isforthevistas associated withthe Roosevelt Campobello International Park. TheEPA does notbelieve that references to integral vistas innew §52.29 are misleading and confusing. The EPA believes theprovisions promulgated today correctly apply to the State of Maine's SIP.The EPA is affirming its decision to disapprove the State of Maine's SIPfor failingto provideforthe protection ofthe integral vistas forthe Roosevelt Campobello International Park and isincorporating revised §52.27 into Maine's SIP. Summary

In today's action, the EPA is disapproving the SIP'sof29 States for failing to revise theirSIP's to comply with theprovisions of40 CFR51.302 and 51.306.



### The EPA isaffirming its decision that control strategies are notnecessary in the SIP's for28 

### States to remedy existing impairments because visibility impairment in those States cannot be reasonably attributed to any specific

sources. The EPA ispromulgating a uniform program to be applicable in 29 States to meetthe periodic review requirements of40CFR51.306(c).

TheEPA is also: (1)

### Codifying the integral vistaswhich have been identified for the Roosevelt Campobello International Park into the 40 CFRPart 81 listing forthat Class I
area,

(2)Disapproving the SIPfor theState ofMaine for failing toprovide for the protection ofthe integralvistas which extend into Maine, and

(3)Revising the Federal visibility NSR program for the State ofMaine to provide for the protection ofthese vistas from the impact from new ormodified 

### 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 of5 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 beenplaced in Docket A-85-26. These rules are not major within the meaning ofExecutive Order 12291.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52and 81

Airpollution control, Ozone, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead, Particulate matter, Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide.

Date: November 10,1987. Lee M.Thomas, Administrator.

Part 52, Chapter IofTitle 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 Visibilitylong-term strategies

(a) PlanDisapprovals. The provisions ofthis section are applicable to any State implementation plan which has been disapproved for not meeting the requirements.of40 CFR 51.306 regarding the development, periodic review, and revision ofvisibility long-term strategies. Specific disapprovals are listed where applicable in Subparts B through DDD of thispart. The provisions ofthis section have been incorporated into the applicable implementation plan for various States, as provided in Subparts B through DDD ofthis 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-TermStrategy.(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 ifappropriate, the long-term strategies developed for each visibility protection area. Thereview and revisions willbe 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 IFederal 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. Areport willbe made available to the public not less frequently than 3 years from November 24, 1987. Thisreport 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 ofthe long-term strategy toprevent 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 ofthe first report, since plan approval;

(iv)Additional measures, including the need forSIP 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) Theimpact ofany exemption granted under § 51.303;

(vii) The need forBART to remedy existing visibility impairment ofany integral vista identified pursuant to § 51.304.

(d)Delegationof Authority.The Administrator may delegate with respect to a particular visibility protection area any ofhis functions under this section, except the making of regulations, to any State orlocal 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 Protectionof visibilityfrom
sources inattainment areas. 

### (d}* * * (2)The reviewing authority must consider any analysis performed by the Federal land managers, provided within 30 days ofthe notification required by paragraph (d)(1) ofthis section, that shows that such proposed new major stationary source ormajor 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 inPart 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) ofthis section will occur, either an explanation ofits decision or notification as to where the explanation can be obtained must be included in the.notice ofpublic hearing.

(4) Where the reviewing authority finds that such an analysis does demonstrate that the effect in paragraph (d}(2)[i) ofthis 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) ofthis section will occur, the reviewing authority may issue a permit ifthe 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 ofcompliance, the time necessary forcompliance, 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-termstrategy.The provisions of § 52.29 are hereby incorporated and made part ofthe applicable plan for the State of__

.

5. Section 52.281(CA) is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§52.281 VisibilityProtection 

### 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 ofthe applicable plan forthe State ofCalifornia.
§§ 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 ofthe 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 Visibilityprotection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A ofthe Clean Air Act are not met because the plan does not include approvable procedures for protection of visibility in mandatory Class IFederal

areas and the integral vistas identified in40 CFR 81.437.

(b) Regulations for visibility monitoring and new source review. The provisions of §§ 52.26 and 52.27, including the provisions forprotection of integral vistas, are hereby incorporated and made a part ofthe applicable plan forthe State ofMaine.

(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 1ofTitle 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 isrevised 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

INot 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 CutlerNaval 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 IAREAS-Continued

Park Observation point View angle Key features Alsoviewed 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