# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 50 Fed. Reg. 28535 1985
Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Sep 16 11:28:55 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.

## Friday ' July 12, 1985

= -m

- =



# Part V


# Environmental 

# Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 52 State Implementation Plans for Visibility; New Source Review and Monitoring Strategy; Final Rule I

w

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 [AD-FRL-2847-8]
State Implementation Plansfor VisibilityNew Source Review and MonitoringStrategy
AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is 

### promulating Federal regulations for visibility new source review for 16 States and a visibility monitoring strategy for 19 States that have failed to submit revised State implementation plans (SIP's).Theregulations were proposed at 49FR 42670 on October 23, 1984. This action completes the first part ofa settlement agreement with the Environmental Defense Fund, et al. (EDF), described at 49 FR 20647 on May 16, 1984.

TheEPA is also taking a direct final aotion in this notice for four States that EPAhas determined do not require the visibility new source review provisions fornonattainment areas.The EPA believes that this action sastisfies the requirements for a direct final action. DATES: Thevisibility new source review provisions and the monitoring strategies will become effective August 12, 1985. The direct final action for the four States will become effective on September 10, 1985 unless notice is received within30 days thatcritical oradverse comments will be submitted. Such notice shouldbe submitted to Bruce V. Polkowsky at the address given in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. ADDRESSES: 

### Docket A-48-32 was established for this rulemaking and is located in the Central Docket Section, West Tower Lobby,U.S. EPA,401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket can be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

### Bruce V. Polkowsky, Control Programs Development Division (MD-15), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### Background

Section 169A ofthe Clean Air Act (Act),42 U.S.C. 7491, requires visibility protection for mandatory Class IFederal
areas where EPAhas determined that visibility is an important value. "Mandatory Class IFederal areas" are certain national parks, wilderness areas, and international parks, as described in section 162(a) ofthe Act,42 U.S.C. 7472(a) (40 CFR 81.400-937). Section 169A specifically requires EPA to promulgate regulations requiring certain States to amend theirSIP's to provide forvisibility protection.

On December 2,1980, EPA promulgated therequired visibility regulations at 45 FR 80084, codified at 40 CFR 51.300 et. seq. The visibility regulations required 36 States to submit revised SIP's satisfying these provisions by September 2,1981. Numerous parties soughtjudicial review ofthe visibility regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit Court stayed the litigation inMarch 1981, pending EPA action on related administrative petitions forreconsideration. Because of the litigation and petitions, few States initiated work on revised visibility SIP's.

In December 1982, EDF filed a citizen suit in the United States District Court forthe Northern District ofCalifornia alleging that EPAhad failed to perform
a nondiscretionary duty under Section 110(c) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7410(c)) to promulgate visibility SIP's for35 States that hadfailed to submit such SIP revisions to EPA (EDFv. Gorsuch, Number C82-6850 RPA). The State of Alaska had submitted a SIPwhich was approved on July 5,1983, at 48 FR30623. TheEPA and EDFnegotiated settlement agreement forthe remaining States which the court approved by order on April 20, 1984.

The settlement agreement requires EPA to promulgate visibility SIP'son a specified schedule for those States that have not submitted visibility SIP revisions to EPA. Inthe first part ofthe settlement,EPA is to promulgate Federal plane forthose States whose SIP's were found to be deficient for a monitoring strategy (§51.305) and visibility new source review (§51.307). The details and schedule for theremainder ofthe settlement agreement are described at 49FR 20647 (May16, 1984).

On October 23, 1984, at 49FR42670, EPA proposed disapproval of, and Federal plans for, 34 States whose SIP's
were preliminarily determined to be inadequate. (The EPAhad proposed approval ofa SIP submittal forthe State of Louisiana on May 15, 1984, at 49FR 20519.) The States were given an opportunity to avoid Federal promulgation ofthese regulations ifthey submitted SiP revisions to EPA that satisfy the requirements in §§51.305 and 51.307 by May 6, 1985. In today's notice, EPA is disapproving the SIP's of,and promulgating Federal regulations for, those States that failed to act by the May deadline. The EPA took public comment and held two public hearings on the proposed disapprovals and Federal regulations. Over 80 comments were received and 12 persons spoke at the public hearings. All the major issues are identified and discussed in today's notice.
SIP Disapprovals

Several commenters stated that EPA should not disapprove the SIP's forthe 34 States because (1)EPA did not provide evidence that the SIP's were "substantially inadequate," and (2) EPA

was unnecessarily interfering in State programs forrather minor deficiencies.

TheEPA did provide evidence that the SIP's were inadequate. The EPA Regional Officers reviewed each ofthe 34SIP's and compared them to the requirements of §51.305 and § 51.307. Each Regional Office prepared a summary chart detailing the deficiencies in each SIP.The charts show that each SIP contained certain deficiencies with respect to both § 51.305 and § 51.307. This information was placed in Docket A-4-32, items II-B-8, in October 1984. The information was available for public review and comment during the public comment period. The EPA did not include the actual summaries in the October Federal Register notice due to their detailed nature and volume.

The EPArealizes that the deficiencies in question are relatively small, but they

are nevertheless significant in relation to the Part 51 visibility regulations. The EPA, moreover, plainly has the power under section 110, 169A, and 301 to disapprove SIP's because ofthe deficiencies. Thus, the disapprovals are neither unwarranted nor unauthorized. Beyond that, the settlement agreement calls for them.

It should be noted that EPA is only disapproving the States' SIP's with respect to visibility protection; all other previously approved SIP programs remain valid. The EPA has also specifically designed the Federal programs to minimize interference in ongoing State programs.

In today's action, EPA is disapproving the SIP'sof, and promulgating Federal regulations for, States that have failed to submit plans by the May deadline. The EPA is reviewing the SIP revisions submitted to EPA by May 6, 1985, and will take appropriate action on them by January 6, 1986. In the event that a submittal is found to be inadequate, EPA will disapprove the submittal and simultaneously promulgate today's requirements for these States. The EPA recognizes that several States are developing plans to meet the visibility 

### 28544

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
requirements but could not submit them before the May 6 deadline. These States should be aware that EPA will revoke this promulgation as soon as it approves any future SIP submittal.

The following State SIP's are disapproved for failing to meet the requirements in § 51.305 (monitoring strategy):
Arizona California Colorado Florida Hawai Idaho Maine Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Hampshire North Dakota South Carolina Seuth Dakota Texas Vermont Virginia Virgin 131ands West Virginia

The following State SIP's are disapproved for failing to meet the requirements in §51.307 (visibility new
source review):
Arizona California Colorado Hawaii Maine Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey North Dakota South Dakota Vermont Virginia Virgin Islands West Virginia
The EPAhas determined that four States are not required to include the
new source review provisions for nonattainment areas, §51.307(b)(2), in their SIP's. This action is explained later in this notice. Visibility Monitoring Strategy Proposal

The visibility monitoring strategy 

### (§51.305) in the existing visibility regulations required the States to develop a "strategy for evaluating visibility in the mandatory Class I areas" and to provide a mechanism for using any available data in decisions required by the visibility protection program. Visibility data are needed in assessing visibility, evaluating the progress toward the national visibility goal, determining the potential impact of
new stationary sources and major modifications, determining sources to which any identified impairment can be reasonably attributed, and developing control measures for such sources. The EPA proposed that these needs could be met by gathering data on'prevailing background visibility conditions in and around the visibility protection areas and on existing impairment from a source or small group ofsources.

The EPA proposed two options for collecting background data: (1)a cooperative EPA/Federal land manager (FLM) monitoring network, or (2) a requirement for permit applicants to monitor visibility as part ofrequired preapplication monitoring. The EPA prepared a draft monitoring plan to accompany the first option. The EPA stated that visibility need not be monitored at every visibility protection
area. As few as 25 sites may be appropriate to represent background visibility conditions for all areas. The EPA proposed short term validation studies in all protection areas to verify that the number ofstations and choices for monitoring sites were indeed representative. The draft monitoring plan described the regions, data collection methods, implementation schedule, and administrative responsibilities for implementing the program.

For attributing impairment to sources, EPA praposed a program that would consist ofcase-by-case studies of identified visibility Impairment. The goal ofthe program was to attempt to trace the impairment to a given source. Although several techniques were suggested to accomplish this goal, no specific studies or examples were given in the monitoring plan. This program was not to be affected by the option chosen for background data collection. GeneralComments

One commenter stated that EPA was using an inappropriate mechanism by implementing a visibility monitoring network. According to this commenter, § 51.305 only requires States to have a mechanism forvisibility evaluation and for consideration ofexisting visibility data. This commenter contended that the preamble ofthe visibility regulations also frees the States from monitoring visibility. The commenter contended that EPA could establish a network for visibility mohitoring, but it is not required by § 51.305 to do so and therefore EPA mischaracterized the requirements ofthe visibility regulations.

The EPA recognizes that the language in the preamble and rule is not specific
as to exactly what the States, and therefore EPA in lieu ofStates, is required to do. Section 51.305 specifically states that each State plan must include a strategy for evaluating visibility "byvisual observation or other appropriate monitoring techniques." The EPA interprets this section, in lightof the structure and purposes ofthe regulations as a whole, to call for a strategy which will generate visibility data that will reasonably, ifroughly,
serve the needs of the overall State program. One ofthe clear needs ofa program is to have a sound measure of background visibility. The most costeffective and efficient way for EPA to obtain such a measure is through a 

### national monitoring network inasmuch
as EPA, by default, must now establish and implement a multi-State visibility program. Therefore EPA, in lieu of States, will collect monitoring data on a national scale.The EPA specifically realizes that States need not necessarily implement similar networks when developing their own strategies. However,EPA's policy is torequire States to provide a mechanism in their SIP's to collect adequate visibility data where none exist.Section 51.305 clearly contemplates such data collection as a component ofthe strategy to evaluate visibility. ReferenceMethods

Many commenters felt that EPA was being premature to even propose to monitor visibility without first approving
a reference method for visibility.These commenters stated that a number of technical questions remain unanswered with each ofthe available visibility monitoring techniques. Itwould be foolish and costly,they contended, to collect data now that may not be useful
once a reference method is available. Also, before a monitoring program is established, commenters suggested that EPA must establish exactly what visibility impairment is.

The EPArecognizes these concerns and is planning a program to develop a visibility monitoring reference method beginning in 1986. However, §51.305 requires State plans to include a visibility monitoring strategy now, without regard to the existence ofa reference method. States that do not wish to invest in monitoring equipment priorto establishment ofa reference method may submit SIP's containing other methods ofvisibility data collection.

The EPA concludes that given its needs for a national data collection system, the proposed network willbe the most cost effective and efficient
means ofgathering useful data despite the absence ofa reference method. The EPA believes that any data collected before a reference method is promulgated willbe useful, although these data may not be completely compatible with thereference method data.

The EPA established a definition of visibility impairment in § 51.301. The 

### monitoring strategy merely implements the existing regulations and appropriate definitions. TheEPA believes the existing definition of visibility impairment is adequate for these purposes. Should future visibility research lead EPA to believe that this 28545

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

definition is not adequate, EPA -willtake appropriate action at that time. Options forBackground Data The commenters almost unanimously supported EPA's first option ofa cooperative EPA/FLM background monitoring network. The reasons given
were similar to those given by EPA in the proposal-the cost effectiveness of operation, uniformity ofdata collection, the ability to determine long term trends, and the cooperation ofthe FLM's.

The reasons given by commenters for not favoring the alternative ofrequiring permit applicants to monitor visibility
were the extra cost and time constraints put on the applicant, the inability to determine long term trends, and the difficulty applicants may have in acquiring access to the visibility protection areas. Some commenters felt that some permit applicant monitoring should also be required. The one commenter who favored the second option did so because he felt monitoring programs sponsored by industry would provide more meaningful data.

Although there was substantial support for the cooperative background network, there were also substantial criticisms ofthe details in the monitoring plan. Commenters felt that although a regional network approach might be justified, the number of proposed visibility regions would need tobe increased dramatically. Others felt that the regions as drawn inthe monitoring plan were not representative, and they gave specific examples of selected areas that could not be adequately represented by the data from

a given region. Many citizens felt that every Class I area should have at least
one monitor. Several commenters were concerned that the presumption that visibility was consistent throughout one ofthe regions was tantamount to protecting visibility in the whole region, notjust the protection areas.They argued that visibility protection is afforded to each mandatory Class Iarea based on the conditions at the Class I
area only.

Commenters also had concerns about the validation studies. Many felt that short term studies were not sufficient and would not detect seasonal variations. The validation study techniques were also criticized. Even when identical techniques are used, one commenter suggested, the data could not bereliably compared.

The EPA recognizes that many of these comments are valid criticisms of the proposed network. A 23-station network would provide data that could be used fortrend analysis at more than the 23 areas. However, the sites may not be representative ofall of the areas, and the data collected may not be sufficiently ectailed for modeling potential impacts ofnew sources.' On the other hand, ifEPA were to promulgate the permit applicant monitoring uption, the data collected would be useful only for the specific

area monituring forthe purposes of modeling potentcial impacts. The results from the model'ng would be open to question as to whether the input data

were representative over time. The EPA would also have no mechanism for trend assessment.

Therefore, EPA has decided to promulgate a combination ofthe two options for collecting background data in States that have disapproved visibility monitoring strategies. The FPA would establish a cooperative background network to develop data that can be used for trend analysis and where appropriate, support modeling of

new source impacts. The EPA would also require permit applicants4o monitor visibility in ornear those protection areas that may not be adequately represented by the network sites and/or to collect additional sitespecific data necessary for the impact analysis. In this manner, both spatial and temporal visibility data will be available forregulatory purposes, and the applicants would be subject to less time-consuming monitoring.

The EPA is planning to select site locations that are representative ofthe greatest number ofvisibility protection

areas by using all available visibility data, such as from the National Park Service or from industrial researchsponsored studies.The EPA will carefully consider the specific comments submitted on the importance to collect data at particular areas; and EPA recognizes that the number ofstations may not completely represent all areas. The priority for establishing background network sites should be determined by 1) the lack ofavailable data for regulatory purposes, and 2) the potential for growth near protection areas where permitting activities are expected. This priority system is described in more detail in the revised monitoring plan. In the future, EPA may want to expand the cooperative network to encompass sites at all areas. However it is premature to establish stations in all areas until some of the outstanding technical questions have been answered and a reference method is available.

I AeroVironment. "Critical Assessment of the Visibility Monitoring For Class I Areas," prepared for Utility Air Regulatory Group. Available through Docket A-84-32, IV-D-63. The EPA did not intend to imply that

use ofbackground data colldcted at one area and deemed representative of background conditions at another area in any way extended the visibility protection requirements to non-Class I

areas not otherwise covered by the visibility regulations. The visibility regulations provide only for protection ofthe visibility values of Class Iareas and related integral vistas, and do not apply to any other lands located outside the boundaries of such Class I areas.

The EPA has revised the monitoring plan to describe the monitoring program and to answer some of the questions about the monitoring methods for data collection and validation raised in the public comment period. This document

can be obtained through the Central Docket Section at the address given in the beginning of this notice. The EPA also realizes that there are technical questions that remain unresolved in visibility monitoring. These questions

can only be resolved from experience with, and review of,many visibility monitoring programs. Thisregulatory network is not the only visibility monitoring work that will be conducted by EPA, States, or industry. The EPA will use the results from these other research programs, where appropriate, in making assessments required by the visibility regulations. In addition, EPA is planning to develop reference systems for visibility monitoring.
AttributionProgram

Many commenters stated that the techniques described in the draft monitoring plan were not appropriate for source-specific studies. Also,
concern was expressed over the proposed priorities for these studies. One commenter felt EPA would waste time and resources on rather minor

sources before attempting to identify and control large contributors.

The EPAdid not mean to imply that the data collection techniques for the background network were to be used in the source-specific studies. The proposed background instrumentation will be used only as appropriate for these studies. The attribution program will be implemented on a case-by-case basis with regard to both siting and equipment. The EPAhas requested that the FLM's identify impairment in each of their areas. From this identification, appropriate studies will be designed which will be unique to each identified problem. Priorities for implementation will be based on availability ofexisting data, the severity ofthe suspected impairment, and the probability ofan effective control strategy. 

### 28546

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules andRegulations

Administration

Many ofthe industrial commenters requested that they be included on the Technical Steering Committee because they have been active inmonitoring programs and have expertise that EPA could use. Commenters also stressed the importance ofa quality assurance plan for the background network, validation studies, and attribution program. They felt EPAhad not placed sufficient emphasis on this aspect ofthe monitoring program. Commenters also suggested that the proposed level of funding was insufficient to meet the goals ofthe program.

The EPA has established aTechnical Steering Committee consisting of representatives ofthe FLM's, contributing States, and EPA. IfEPA
were to invite representatives of industry tojoin the Committee, it would feel compelled, on general fairness grounds, to also invite other members of the general public tojoin the Committee. IfEPA opened membership on the Technical Steering Committee to the general public, the Committee would become too unwieldy to manage the visibility monitoring program effectively. Consequently, EPAwill hold periodic public meetings to obtain input from the general public and industry.At these meetings visibility monitoring issues will be discussed, including,but not limited to, the regulatory program. The EPA recognizes that many industries have expertise that can be helpful to EPA. and the Technical Steering Committee will be responsible for keeping abreast ofcurrent visibility research programs including those ofindustry. The public and environmental groups are also interested in ensuring that EPA recognizes the priorities for monitoring. The public meetings will be a forum for discussions on various aspects of visibility monitoring programs.

The EPA also recognizes the importance ofan effective quality

assurance program and intends to implement one. Thisbecomes essential

as EPA will be using data from other sources, as well as its own network, and must have some criteria on which to judge the quality ofvarious monitoring programs. Much ofthe first year ofthe network will be spent in developing procedures as outlined in the revised monitoring plan.

As a cooperative network. EPA is negotiating with the FLM's to provide comparable support forthe monitoring program. States are also encouraged to participate in the network to maximize the effectiveness of theprogram. RegulatoryLanguage 

### Few comments were received on the proposed regulatory language, §52.26, of theFederal monitoring strategy. One

_ 

### comnenter stated thatbefore EPAcould promulgate a requirement for permit applicant monitoring, specific regulatory language must be proposed and subject to public comment. Thislanguage was proposed in the new source review provisions, §52.21, §52.27. and §52.28, 

### which gave EPAthe authority to require permit applicants to monitor.

In today's action.EPA is promulgating §52.26 (visibilitymonitoring strategy),
as proposed, forthe States that have failed to submit SIPrevisions. These States are:
Arizona California Colorado Florida Hawaii Idaho Maine Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Hampshire NorthDakota South Carolina South Dakota Texas Vermont Virginia Virginslands West Virginia

New Source Review

States are required by f 51.307 and § 51.24 toreview new major stationary

sources and major modifications, prior to construction, to assess potential impacts on visibility in anyprotection area, regardless of the air quality status ofthe area in which the source is locating. The requirements in §51.307

ensure that [1) the FLM is notified of permit applications in atimely and consistent manner, 12 the reviewing authority considers the FLM's recommendation on adverse impact determinations, (3) applications from

sources locating in nonattainment areas are reviewed similarly to sources locating in attainment areas; and (4) the reviewing authority has the abilityto require permit applicants to monitor visibility as a pre-or post-construction co-Idition.

In October 1984, EPAproposed three separate programs to implement § 51.307 each to be applicable in separate circumstances. The first program, revised § 52.21, would be applicable in States where the prevention of significant deterioration program [PSD) was operated by EPA or by the State through delegation ofthe Federal program. The second program. new § 52.27, would be applicable in States with approved State PSD programs. The third program, new § 52.28, would be applicable in States with nonattainment areas. The EPA chose this approach to minimize Federal interference in ongoing State-operated programs. 

### GeneralComments Many commenters stated that EPA is implementing requirements without issuing adequate guidance. The commenters suggested that the definition of"adverse impact on visibility" was too vague and allowed theFLM's too much discretionary authority in permitting decisions. This lackofguidance, they asserted,makes it difficult for industries to make siting decisions, States to make permit decisions, and theFLM's to make adverse impairment determinations. The commenters recommended thatEPA issue new orrevised definitions of "adverse impact on visibility," "near" or "nearby," and "impairment." States also requested that EPA issue definitions or guidance on "may impact a Class I Federal area" and "advance notification." Commenters recommended that EPA revise "The Workbook forEstimating Visibility Impairment" 

### (EPA 450/4-80-031) as this 

### document does not include the substantial research that has been done since 1980.The commenters felt this was imperative for an effective program. One commenter recommended EPA use improved assessment techniques.

Comments were alsoreceived discussing theFLM's consultation requirements in the rules. Several comments suggested that the FLM's would be unable to conduct an adequate assessment ofa permit application in 30 days. On the other hand,one commenter stated that30days was indeed sufficient. Two FLM's stressed the importance ofbeing involved early in thepermitting process, and would very much like to be involved in any preapplication meetings between States and sources. Many citizens stressed the importance ofpublic participation in permits that affect the Class Iarea.

The EPArecognizes all ofthese
concerns. However,EPA's proposal and promulgation are meant to implement the existing new source review and consultation requirements in §51.307. This rulemaking was notintended to modify these requirements orthe definitions in §51.301 associated with them. The EPA believes that the existing definitions are adequate for implementation oftheexisting regulations. TheEPA also recognizes that the guidance documents issued with the visibility regulations may require updating, and is therefore reviewing .these documents to determine what,if any, future guidance is necessary. The EPA will also evaluate anytechniques forestimating visibility impacts that are 28547.

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

developed by industry and submitted to EPA.

Environmental groups and private citizens expressed the need for a policy

on reviewing cumulative impacts from
new sources. Rapid industrial growth is expected near some of the Class I areas. These commenters are concerned that any one source would not cause significant impairment,but the combination of sources may adversely affect air quality related values (including visibility). This would occur if the permitting authority only reviews the potential impacts ofa new source on prevailing visibility conditions without regard to the impacts ofpermitted

sources not yet completed. One commenter rebutted these comments, stating that Section 165 ofthe Act only requires the State to consider the merits ofone application, and cumulative impacts are to be considered in Section 169A ofthe Actfor existing sources.

In assessing a proposed source's impact on visibility, the reviewing authority must necessarily review that impact ihthe context ofexisting background visibility. This point does not seem debatable. The question raised by the commenters focuses on whether previously permitted sources that have not yet been constructed are part ofthe existing background. The EPA concludes that such sources are part ofexisting background. In other situations, EPA has always regarded permitted sources as part ofexisting background. For instance, in assessing impacts on the national ambient air quality standards, permit applicants must account for the air quality impacts ofpermitted, as well

as constructed, sources. This treatment should be the same for visibility assessment.The EPA does not believe that a change in the proposed language fornew source review is necessary to effect this implementation. TheEPA concludes that the proposed language on assessing whether a proposed source will cause an adverse impact on visibility requires the reviewing authority to review the new source's impact in the context ofbackground visibility impacts caused byboth existing and previously permitted

sources.

Several industrial commenters and States questioned whether the requirement forpreapplication monitoring is necessary in this rulemaking, stating that the Federal monitoring program couldbe improved to fulfill any data requirements for the applicants. Several States felt that they already had the authority to require monitoring and did not need to revise their SIP's for visibility preapplication 

### monitoring.

The EPA's review ofthe SIP's indicates that they do not contain adequate authority to require visibility monitoring and consequently need to be revised to include that authority. As stated earlier in this notice, the Federal monitoring program is unlikely to fulfill all data requirements for new source impact analyses in the near future. Therefore, EPA or a State may need to require a permit dpplicant to monitor. This requirement would be used sparingly and could be tied to the potential ofthe new source to impair visibility. For example, a source that would not cause impairment based on a Level 1 analysis from the Workbook wouldprobably not be required to monitor. A source that would require a Level 3analysis, or modeling analysis, to determine its potential impact would likely be required to monitor. States are encouraged to include the FLM's in preapplication meetings with permit applicants so exact monitoring requirements and impact analyses for the air quality related values can be determined prior to the application review.
Federal PSD Program
The EPA proposed revising the Federal PSD program, § 52.21, to include the requirements of

### § 51.307. Revised § 52.21 was to be applicable in those States where EPA was operating the PSD program orhad delegated its authority to the State. One commenter stated thatEPA'had incorrectly referenced paragraph (r)of § 52.2'1 in the proposed amendment to §52.21(p)(1) when the citation should have been to §52.21(q).

The commenter is correct-§ 52.21(r)

was redesignated paragraph (q) in 45 FR 52735 on August 7, 1980. Since EPA has not made technical or conforming amendments to § 52.21 since then, the citation in § 52.21(p)(1) has remained incorrect. The EPA has now changed the citation in §52.21(p)(1) to refer to paragraph (q) of §52.21 and is thereby correcting the inaccuracy with this action.

Revised § 52.21 is applicable in the following States: California (except for Minnesota

Mendocino County, Nevada Monterey County, New Hampshire North Coast Unified New Jersey Region, Northern South Dakota Sonoma County, and Virginia Sacramento County) Virgin Islands Michigan West Virginia 

### StatePSDProgram
The EPAproposed new §52.27 to be applicable in States with approved PSD programs. This section allows an interested party to petition EPA to take authority for issuing a visibility permit in cases where the State had failed to follow the procedures of § 51.307. The EPA would only take authority in cases where the State hadfailed to act consistently with §51.307, and would not try to reexamine a State's reasoning in issuing a permit where the appropriate procedures were followed.

Many commenters felt that this requirement would lead to confusion and unnecessary delays in permit decisions. The EPA recognizes that this provision could cause confusion and delays in permit processing. It is for these very reasons that EPA anticipates that the States will act as required by § 51.307 and not give an interested party
reason to petition EPA.The EPA will have no cause to interfere or delay permits ifthe States provide the appropriate notification procedures. The EPA believes permitting decisions are best handled by the State and does not wish to issue permits. However, §51.307 requires certain notification procedures that are not contained in the existing SIP's. The alternative forthis petition mechanism would be a separate Federal visibility permit program for these States, which is far less desirable.

An environmental group commented that § 52.27(d)(2) usurps the FLM's exclusive authority to make adverse impact determinations. One commenter stated that the EPA does not have the authority to use this mechanism.

The EPA believes that § 52.27, including paragraph (d)(2), is an appropriate mechanism for implementing § 51.307, and therefore EPA has the authority under section 110 and 301 ofthe Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7601) to promulgate it. Section 165 (d)(2)(B) gives the FLM's the affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related values (including visibility) in the Class I areas and to consider, in consultationwith the Administrator, whether aproposed facility will have an adverse impact on such values (emphasis added). Section 51.307(a)(3) and § 52.21(p)(3) require the permitting authority to consider any analysis, provided by the FLM's, showing that a proposed source would have an adverse impact on visibility in a Class I area. However, the FLM's must demonstrate, to the satisfaction ofthe permitting authority, that such an adverse impact will result-before the permitting authority is constrained to 

### 28548

### Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

deny a permit application. (SeeClean Air Act section 165(d)(2)[C)(ii) and § 52

.21(p)(4).) The reviewing authority is required by §51.307 and 

### § 52.27[d)(2) only to notify the public ifthe FLM's analysis does not demonstrate to its satisfaction that adverse impact will result from theproposed facility and to make available its explanation ofthat decision. If the permitting authority concludes, after considering the FLM's analysis, public comment,and its own analysis, that adverse impact willresult. the permit shall be denied. Thus, the statute and the regulations do not give FLM's the sole authority to determine whether an adverse impact will result from a proposed facility. The FLM's and reviewing authority share this responsibility, and the final decision rests with the reviewing authority. Of

course the reviewing authority must have a rational basis for concluding the FLMs' analysis is incorrect given the FLMs'.affirmative responsibility and expertise regarding the Class Iareas within their jurisdiction.

The EPA is promnlgating 

### § 52.27 for the following States:

Arzona Hawaii Maine Mendocino County.

California Monterey County,

California North Coast Unified

Region, California Northern Sonoma County. California North Dakota Sacramento County.

California 

### Vermont

Nonattoinment Program The EPAproposed a new Federal permit requirement (§52.28) fornew
sources or major modifications to
sources which may impact a visibility protection area and may locate or are located in anonattainment area. These requirements are similar to those for PSD sources. The reviewing authority. however, can take into account the progress toward the nationalgoal of preventing future impairment and remedying existing impairment in making permit decisions.

The EPA reviewed the requirements in response to a comment from the Bay Area Air QualityManagement District ofCalifornia and realized that a provision for allowing the Administrator to delegate the authority ofthis section to the States had notbeen included. As stated earlier, EPA does wish to delegate permitting authority, where possible, to the States.Therefore, a new paragraph, §52.28[i), has beenincluded to give the Administrator this ability.

The EPA is promulgating § 52.28 for the following States: Arizona California [except for

Monterey County, and Sacramento County) Colorado Hawaii Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey South Dakota West Virginia
Exemptions From Nonattainment Program

The States ofArkansas, New Jersey, and Texas commented that they had been incorrectly listed inthe nonattainment section ofthe proposal. Arkansas' one nonattainment areawas reclassified attainment on September 26, 1984, at 49 FR37753. Texas claimed that

sources locating inthe nonattainment

areas within Texas do nothave the potential to impact the visibility protection areas because ofthe distance between the nonattainment areas and the visibility protection areas.

New Jersey contains nonattainment
areas for carbon monoxide, ozone, and total suspended particulate matter. New Jersey claimed that carbon monoxide does not impair visibility. Consequently, any impact assessment required by §52.28 would show no adverse impact

on visibility from thispollutant in any visibility protectionarea. New Jersey statedthat control strategies for attaining the ozone standard are based

on reductions in emissions ofprecursor volatile organic hydrocarbons. Furthermore, New Jersey stated, these precursor compounds do not by themselves cause a visible plume that would adversely impact a visibility protection area. Ozone can contribute to visibility impairment from urban plumes
orregional haze, but since these arenot to be addressed in thisprogram, New Jersey claimed that ozone assessments under §52.28 should not be required at this time.

New Jersey also stated that the State contains three nonattainment areas for total suspended particulate matter.New Jersey stated that under the current regulations, any emission increase of50 tons per year or more wouldneed tobe offset. Therefore NewJersey claimed that an impact assessment required by 52.28 would showno adverse impact on visibility.

The EPAaccepts New Jersey's claim that carbon monoxide and ozone should not be considered for visibility impact assessments in this program. However, New Jersey has two nonattainment

areas for total suspended particulate matter that are within a distance to the visibility protection areas that such new
sources ormajor modifications may impact the protection area. The EPA concludes that NewJersey must still have the ability to require a visibility impact assessment for sources emitting 

### total suspended particulates and locatingin Bridgeton or Camden.The EPA, therefore, haspromulgated §52.28 for NewJersey in the previous section of today's notice. TheEPAIswilling to delegate this authority to the State to minimize Federal interference inthis program..The State may then balance any offsets with the assessment of visibility impact from thepermit applicant to ensure progress toward the national visibility goal on a case-bycase basis.

The EPA, in response to NewJersey's comment,reviewed thenonattainment
areas in all Statesrequired to develop visibility protection programs. The States ofGeorgia and Virginia have only carbon monoxide and ozone nonattainment areas.'

Intoday's action, EPAis exempting Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, andVirginia from the requirements in §551.307(b)(2) and 52.28. The EPAis allowing for 

### public comment as required by paragraph (3) ofthe settlement agreement.TheEPA doesnotexpect critical oradverse comments on this action. Ifarequest for publiccomment
on this action isreceived, EPAwill withdraw thisfinal exemption and will propose the action, thereby establishing
a comment period. Classification

TheAdministrator certifiespursuant to theprovisions of5U.S.C. 605[b) that the attached rule willnothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities. Only a few sources, that are notalready required to do so under the existing PSD program, willbe required to evaluatethe potential impact on visibility.

The rulespromulgated today do not contain anyinformation collection requirements subject to the Office of Management andBudget (0MB) review under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1980,U.S.C. 3501 et

### seq.

Today's action implements part of Subpart P 140 CFR 51.300-51.307) which


### waspromulgated onDecember 2, 1980 An economic impact assessment was done for thatrulemaking, pursuant to section,317 of the Clean AirAct.An economic assessment for these revisions is notrequired because these revisions
are not substantial.

The ruleshave been submitted to OMB for review underExecutive Order 12291. Any written comments from that

2"MapsDepicting NonattainmentAreas Pursuant to Section 107 ofthe Clean AirAct-1984." EPA-4501 2-84-006, available through Docket A-84-32, Item IV-B--. orNational Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd..Springfield. Virginia, 221eL NumberPB 85-140630. 

### .28,549

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

office have been placed in the Docket A-84-32.These rules are not major within the meaning ofExecutive Order 12291.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals forthe appropriate district by September 10, 1985. This action may notbe challenged laterin proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).) List ofSubjects

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead, Particulate matter, Hydrocarbons, Carbonmonoxide, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: July 3,1985. A.James Barnes, ActingAdministrator.


### PART 52-[AMENDED]

Part 52, Chapter 1ofTitle 40, Code of Rederal Regulations is amended as follows:

1.The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

### 2. Section 52.21 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(29), (o)(3), and (p)(3); revising paragraph (p)(l) to read as follows: and redesignating the existing paragraphs (p)(3) as (p)(4), (p)(4) as (p)(5), (p)(5) as (p)(6), (p)(6) as (p)(7), and (p)(7) as (p)(8): §52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration ofairquality.

(b) * * * (29) "Adverse impact on visibility"
means visibility impairment which interferes with the management, protection, preservation orenjoyment of the visitor's visual experience ofthe Federal Class Iarea. This determination mustbe made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the geographic extent, intensity, duration, frequency and time ofvisibility impairment, and how these factors correlate with (1) times of visitoruse of the Federal Class I area, and (2)the frequency and timing of natural conditions that reduce visibility.

• * * * 

## (o) * * * (3)Visibilitymonitoring.The Administrator may require monitoring of visibility in any Federal class Iarea near the proposed new stationary
source for major modification for such purposes and by such means as the Administrator deems necessary and appropriate.

(p) SourcesImpactingFederalClassI Areas-Additional Requirements-(1) Notice toFederal Land Managers.The Administrator shall provide written notice ofany permit application for a proposed major stationary source or major modification, the emissions from which may affect a Class I area, to the Federal land manager and theFederal official charged with direct responsibility formanagement ofany lands within any such area. Such notification shall include a copy ofall information relevant to the permit application and shall be given within 30 days ofreceipt and at least 60 days prior to any publichearing on the application for a permit to construct. Such notification shall include an analysis of the proposed source's anticipated impacts on visibility in theFederal Class Iarea. The Administrator shall also provide the Federal land manager and such Federal officials with a copy ofthe preliminary determination required under paragraph (q)ofthis section, and shall make available to them any materials used in making that determination, promptly after the Administrator makes such determination. Finally, the Administrator shall also notify all affected Federal land managers within 30 days ofreceipt of any advance notification ofany such permit application.

(3)Visibilityanalysis.The Administrator shall consider any analysis performed by theFederal land manager, provided within 30 days of the notification required by paragraph (p)(1) of this section, that shows that a proposed new major stationary source or major modification may have an adverse impact on visibility in any Federal Class Iarea. Where the Administrator finds that such an analysis does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an adverse impact on visibility willresult in the Federal Class Iarea, the Administrator must, in the notice of public hearing on the permit application, either explainhis decision or givenotice
as to where the explanation can be obtained.

* * * * * ,



### 3.Section 52.26 is added to read as follows: §52.26 Visibility monitoring strategy.

(a)PlanDisapprovals. The provisions ofthis section are applicable to any State implementation plan which has been disapproved with respect to visibility monitoring. Specific disapprovals are listed where applicable in Subparts Bthrough DD ofthis part. The provisions ofthis section have been incorporated by reference into the applicable implementation plan for various States, as provided in Subparts Bthrough DDD ofthis part.

(b)Definitions.Forthe purposes of this section:

(1)"Visibility protection area" means any area listed in 40 CFR 81.401-81.436 (1984).

(2) All other terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Clean AirAct, or in the protection ofvisibility program (40 CFR 51.301), all as in effect

on July 12, 1985.



### (c)Monitoring Requirements.(1)The Administrator, in cooperation with the appropriate Federal land manager, shall monitor visibility within each visibility protection area in any State whose State implementation plan is subject to a disapproval for failure to satisfy 40 CFR 51.305 (1984).



### (2) TheAdministrator, in monitoring visibility within each such area, shall determine both background visibility conditions and reasonably attributable visibility impairment caused by a source or small group of sources for that area. Theextent and the form ofmonitoring shall be sufficient foruse in determining the potential effects of a new stationary
source on visibility in the area, the stationary source or sources that are causing any visibility impairment, and progress toward remedying that impairment.

(3)The Administrator shall use the following as appropriate to monitor visibility within each such area: (i) photographic cameras, (ii)fine particulate matter samplers, (iii) teleradiometers (iv) nephelometers, (v) human observation, or (vi)other appropriate technology.

(4) TheAdministrator, in cooperation with theFederal land managers, shall prepare monitoring plans that describe, to the maximum extent practicable, the methods and instruments ofdata collection, the monitoring locations and frequencies, the implementation schedule, the quality assurance procedures, and the methods ofdata reporting that the Administrator will use for each area. TheAdministrator shall make these plans available to the public.

(5)The Administrator shall establish a central repository ofmonitoring data thatincludes any data on background visibility conditions and reasonably attributable impairment that the Administrator collects under this section and that the Federal land manager may collect or may have collected independently. These data shall be available to any person, subject to reasonable charges for copying. 28550

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 1 Rules and Regulations
(d)MonitoringPlanRevision.(1)The Administrator shall review the monitoring plan annually for each visibilityprotection area, revise it as necessary, and include an assessment of changes to visibility conditions since the last review. TheAdministrator shall make all plan revisions available to the public.

(2) Any person may make a request to the Administrator, at any time, for a revision to a monitoring plan. The Administrator shall respond to any such request within oneyear.

(e)Delegation. The Administrator may delegate, withrespect to a particular visibility protection area, any ofhis functions under this section to any State oflocal air pollution control agency ofany State whose boundaries encompass that area or to any Federal land manager withjurisdiction over the
area.

4.Section 52.27 is added to read as follows: §52.27 Protection ofvisibilityfrom sources In attainment areas. (a)PlanDisapproval. The provisions ofthis section are applicable to any State implementation plan which has beendisapproved with respect to protection ofvisibility,in mandatory Class IFederal areas, from sources emittingpollutants in any portion ofany State where the existing air quality is better than the national ambient air quality standards for suchpollutants, and where a StatePSD program has been approved as partof theapplicable SIPpursuant to 40 CFR 51.24. Specific disapprovals are listed where applicable in Subparts BthroughDDD ofthis part. Theprovisions ofthis sectionhave been incorporated by reference into the applicable implementation plans for various States, as provided in Subparts Bthrough DDD of this part.

(b)Definitions. For purposes ofthis section, all terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the CleanAir Act, in the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program approved
as part of the applicable SIP pursuant to 40CFR 51.24 for the State, orin the protection ofvisibility program (40 CFR 51.301), all as in effect on July 12, 1985.

(c) FederalVisibility Analysis.Any person shall have the right, in connection with any application for a permit to construct a major stationary
source or major modification, to request that the administrator take responsibility from the State for conducting the required review ofa proposed source's impact on visibility in any Fedral Class I area. Ifrequested, the Administrator shall take such responsibility and conduct such review pursuant to paragraphs (e), (f)and (g) of this section in any case where the State fails to provide all oftheprocedural steps listed in paragraph (d) ofthis section. Arequest pursuant to this paragraph mustbe made within 60 days ofthe notice soliciting public comment on a permit,unless such notice is not properly given. TheAdministrator will not entertain requests challenging the substance of any State action concerning visibility where the State has provided all oftheprocedural steps listed inparagraph (d)ofthis section.

(d)Procedural Stepsin Visibility Review. (1)The reviewing authority must provide written notification to all affected Federal land managers ofany permit applicatiorr for any proposed new major stationary source or major modification that may affect visibility in any Federal Class Iarea. Such notification shall include a copy of all information relevant to thepermit application and shall be given within 30 days ofreceipt and at least 60 days prior to any public hearing on the application for a permit to construct. Such notification shall include the proposed source's anticipated impacts on visibility in any Federal Class Iarea as provided by the applicant. Notification must also be given to all affected Federal land managers within 30 days of receipt ofany advance notification of any such permit application.

(2)Thereviewing authority must consider any analysis performed by the Federal land manager, provided within 30 days of the notification required by paragraph (d)(1) ofthis section, that shows that such proposed new major stationary source ormajor modification may have an adverse impact on visibility in any Federal Class Iarea. Where the reviewing authority finds that such an analysis doesnot demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe reviewing authority that an adverse impact on visibility willresult in the Federal Class I area, either an explanation of its decision ornotification as to where the explanation can be obtained must be included in the notice ofpublic hearing. Where thereviewing authority finds that adverse impact onvisibility will result, a permit shall not be issued.

(e) Federal Land Manager Notification.The Administrator shall provide all ofthe procedural steps listed in paragraph (d) of this section in conducting reviews pursuant to this section.

(f)Monitoring. The Administrator may require monitoring ofvisibility in any Federal Class Iarea near the proposed
new stationary source ormajor modification forsuch purposes and by such means as the Administrator deems necessary and appropriate.

(g)PublicParticipation. The Administrator shall follow the applicable procedures at40 CFR Part 124 in conducting reviews under this section.The Administrator shall follow theprocedures at 40CFR 52.21(q) as in effect on August 7,1980, to the extent that the procedures of40 CFR Part 124 do not apply.

(h)Federal Permit.In any case where the Administrator has made a finding that a State consistently fails or is unable to provide the procedural steps listed in paragraph (d) ofthis section, the Administrator shall require all prospective permit applicants in such State to apply directly to the Administrator, and the Administrator shall conduct a visibilityreview pursuant to this section for all permit applications.

5. Section 52.28 is added to read as follows: §52.28 Protection ofvisibilityfrom sources In nonattainment areas. (a) PlanDisapproval. The provisions 

### ofthis section are applicable to any State implementation plan which has been disapproved with respect to protection ofvisibility,in mandatory Class IFederal areas where visibility is considered an important value, from
sources emitting pollutants in any portion ofany State where the existing air quality is not in compliance with the national ambient air quality standards for such pollutants. Specific disapprovals are listed where applicable in Subparts Bthrough DDD of this part. The provisions ofthis section have been incorporated into the applicable implementation plans forvarious States,
as provided in Subparts Bthrough DDD of thispart.

(b)Definitons.For the purposes of this section:

(1)"Visibility protection area" means any area listed in 40 CFR 81.401-81.436 (1984).



### (2)All other terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the protection ofvisibilityprogram (40 CFR 51.301) or theprevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) program either approved as part ofthe applicable SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.24 or in effect for the applicable SIPpursuant to40 CFR 52.21, all as in effect on July 12, 1985.

(c) Reviewof MajorStationary Sourcesand MajorModificationsSourceApplicabilityandExemptions. (1)No stationary source or modification 

### to which therequirements ofthis section apply shall begin actual construction without a permit which states that the 28551

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

stationary source or modification would meet those requirements. The Administrator has sole authority to issue any such permit unless the authority has been delegated pursuant to paragraph (i) ofthis section. (2) The requirements ofthis section shall apply to construction of any new major stationary source or major modification that would both be constructed in an area classified as nonattainment under section 107(d)(1)(A), (B) or (C) ofthe Clean Air Act and potentially have an impact on visibility in any visibility proctection

area.

(3) The requirements ofthis section shall apply to any such major stationary

source and any such major modification with respect to each pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act that it would emit, except as this section otherwise provides.

(4) The requirements ofthis section shall not apply to a particular major stationary source or major modification, if:(i)The source or modification would be a nonprofit health or nonprofit educational institution, or a major modification would occur at such an institution, and the governor of the State in which the source or modification would be located requests that it be exempt from those requirements; or

(ii) The source or modification would be a major stationary source or major modification only iffugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, are considered in calculating the potential to emit ofthe stationary source or modification and the source does not belong to any of the following categories:

(A) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers);

(B) Kraft pulp mills; (C) Portland cement plants; (D) Primary zinc smelters; (E) Iron and steel mills; (F) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants;

(G) Primary copper smelters; (H)Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons ofrefuse per day; (1)

Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants; (1)Petroleum refineries (K) Lime plants; (L) Phosphate rock processing plants; (M) Coke oven batteries; (N) Sulfur recovery plants; (0) Carbon black plants (furnace process);

(P) Primary lead smelters; (Q) Fuel conversion plants; (R) Sintering plants; (S) Secondary metal production plants;

(T) Chemical process plants; (U) Fossil-fuel boiler (or combination thereof) totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input;

(V) Petroleum storage and transfer units with a total storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels;

(W)Taconite ore processing plants; (X) Glass fiber processing plants; (Y) Charcoal production plants; (Z) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants ofmore than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input;

(AA) Any other stationary source category which, as ofAugust 7, 1980, is being regulated under Section 111 or 112 of the Act; or

(iii)The source is a portable stationary source which has previously received a permit under this section, and

(A) The owner or operator proposes to relocate the source and emissions ofthe

source at the new location would be temporary; and

(B) The emissions from the source would not exceed its allowable emissions; and

(C) The emissions from the source would impact no Class I area and no
area where an applicable increment is known to be violated; and

(D) Reasonable notice is given to the Administrator, prior to the relocation, identifying the proposed new location and the probable duration ofoperation at the new location. Such notice shall be given to the Administrator not less than 10 days in advance ofthe proposed relocation, unless a different time duration is previously approved by the Administrator.

(5) The requirements ofthis section shall not apply to a major stationary

source or major modification with respect to a particular pollutant if the
owner or operator demonstrates that, as to that pollutant, the source or modification is located in an area designated as attainment under section 107 ofthe Clean Air Act.

(6) The requirements ofthis section shall not apply to a major stationary
source or major modification with respect to a particular pollutant, ifthe allowable emissions ofthat pollutant from the source, or the net emissions increase ofthat pollutant from the modification:

(i) Would impact no Class I area and

no area where an applicable increment is known to be violated, and

(ii) Would be temporary. (d) VisibilityImpactAnalyses.The
owner or operator ofa source shall provide an analysis ofthe impairment to visibility thatwould occur as a result of the source or modification and general 

### commercial, residential, industrial and othergrowth associated with the source or modification.

(e)Federal LandManager Notification.(1)The Federal land manager and theFederal official charged with direct responsibility for management ofFederal Class I areas have an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality related values (including visibility) ofsuch lands and to consider, in consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed
source or modification will have an adverse impact on such values.

(2)The Administrator shall provide written notification to all affected Federal land managers ofany permit application forany proposed new major stationary source or majormodification that may affect visibility in anyvisibility protection area. TheAdministrator shall also provide for such notification to the Federal official charged with direct responsibility for management ofany lands within any such area. Such notification shall include a copy ofall information relevant to the permit application and shall be given within 30 days ofreceipt and at least 60 days prior to any public hearing on the application for a permit to construct. Such notification shall include an analysis of the proposed source's anticipated impacts on visibility in any visibility protection area. The Administrator shall also notify all affected FLM's within 30 days ofreceipt of any advance notification of any such permit application.

(3)The Administrator shall consider any analysis performed by theFederal land manager, provided within 30 days of the notification required byparagraph (e)(2) ofthis section, that such proposed
new major stationary source or major modification may have an adverse impact on visibility in any visibility protection area. Where the Administrator finds that such an analysis does not demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe Administrator that an adverse impact on visibility will result in the visibility protection area, the Administrator must, in the notice of public hearing, either explain his decision orgive notice as to where the explanation can be obtained.

(f)PublicParticipation. The Administrator shall follow the applicable procedures of40 CFR Part 124 in processing applications under this section.The Administrator shall follow the procedures at 40 CFR 52.21(q) as in effect on August 7,1980, to the extent that the procedures of40 CFR Part 124 do not apply. 28552

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

(g) NationalVisibilityGoal.The Administrator shall only issue permits to those sources whose emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment ofvisibility in visibility protection areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution. In making the decision to issue a permit, the Administrator 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 ofthe

source.

(h) Monitoring. The Administrator may require monitoring ofvisibility in any visibility protection area near the proposed new stationary source or major modification for such purposes and by such means as the Administrator deems necessary and appropriate.

(i) Delegation of

Authority.(1) The Administrator shall have the authority to delegate the responsibility for conducting source review pursuant to this section to any agency in accordance with subparagraphs (i)(2) and (3) ofthis section.

(2) Where the Administrator delegates the responsibility for conducting source review under this section to any agency other than a Regional Office ofthe Environmental Protection Agency, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) Where the delegate agency is not
an air pollution control agency it shall consult with the appropriate State and local air pollution control agency prior to making any determination under this section. Similarly, where the delegate agency does not have continuing responsibility for managing land use, it shall consult with the appropriate State and local agency primarily responsible formanaging land use priorto making any determination under this section.

(ii) The delegate agency shall submit a copy ofany public comment notice required under paragraph (f) ofthis section to the Administrator through the appropriate Regional Office.

(3) The Administrator's authority for reviewing a source or modification located on an Indian Reservation shall not be redelegated other than to a Regional Office ofthe Environmental Protection Agency, except where the 

### State has assumed jurisdiction over such land under other laws. Where the State has assumed suchjurisdiction, the Administrator may delegate his authority to the States in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) ofthis section.

6. Sections 52.145(AZ), 52.281(CA), 52.344(CO), 52.534(FL), 52.633(HI), 52.689(ID), 52.1031(ME), 52.1183(MI). 52.1236(MN), 52.1488(NV), 52.1531(NH), 52.1605(NJ), 52.1831(ND), 52.2132(SC), 52.2179[SD), 52.2304(TX), 52.2383(VT), 52.2452(VA), 52.2533(WV), and 52.2781(VI) are added to read as follows: §52.- Visibilityprotection.



### (a) Therequirement8 ofSection 169A ofthe Clean Air Act are not met, because the plandoes notinclude approvable procedures forprotection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas.

7. Sections 52.145(AZ), and 52.633(HI)
are amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: §52.- Visibilityprotection.

* * * * *



### (b)Regulations forvisibility monitoringandnewsourcereview.The provisions ofSections 52.26, 52.27 and 52.28, are hereby incorporated and made part ofthe applicable plan for the State of8. Sections 52.344(CO), 52.1183(MI), 52.1236(MN), 52.1488(NV), 52.1531(NH), 52.2179(SD), and 52.2533(WV) are amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: §52.- Visibilityprotection.



### (b)Regulation forvisibility monitoringandnewsourcereview.The provisions of §§ 52.26 and 52.28 are 

### hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable plan for the State of

9. Sections 52.1031(ME), 52.1881(ND), 52.2382(VT), are amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: §52.- Visibilityprotection.



### (b) Regulation forvisibility monitoringandnewsourcereview.The provisions of Sections 52.26 and 52.27
are hereby incorporated and made a part ofthe applicable plan forthe State of 10. Section 52.281 is amended by adding paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows: §52.281 Visibilityprotection.

(b) Regulations forvisibility monitoring.The provisions of Section 52.26 are hereby incorporated and made part ofthe applicable plan for the State of California.

(c) Regulations for visibilitynew
sourcereview.The provisions of § 52.27

are hereby incorporated and made part ofthe applicable plan for the State of California only with respect to:

(1)Mendocino County air pollution control district,

(2) Monterey County air pollution control district,

(3)North Coast Unified air quality management district,

(4)Northern Sonoma County air pollution control district, and

(5) Sacramento County air pollution control district.

(d) The provisions of § 52.28 are hereby incorporated and made part of the applicable plan for the State of
- California, except for:

(1)Monterey County air pollution control district, and

(2) Sacramento County air pollution control district.

11. Sections 52.534(FL), 52.689(ID), 52.2132(SC), 52.2304(TX), 52.2452(VA), and 52.2781(VI) are amended by adding paragraph (b) as follows: §52.- Visibilityprotection.

(b) Regulation forvisibility monitoring.The provisions of § 52.26 are hereby incorporated and made a part of the applicable plan for the State of

12. Section 52.1605(NJ) is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: §52.1605 Visibilityprotection.

* * * *

(b) Regulations forvisibilitynew
sourcereview.The provisions of §52.28

are hereby incorporated and made part ofthe applicable plan forthe State of New Jersey. [FR Doc. 85-16596 Filed 7-11-85: 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 6560-50-M 

### 28553

# Reader Aids Federal Register
Vol. 50, No. 134 Friday, July 12, 1985

INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ORDERS Subscriptions (public)

Problems with subscriptions Subscriptions (Federal agencies) Single copies, back copies of FR Magnetic tapes of FR, CFR volumes Public laws (Slip laws) PUBUCATIONS AND SERVICES Daily Federal Register General information, index, and finding aids Public inspection desk Corrections Document drafting information Legal staff Machine readable documents, specifications Code of Federal Regulations General Information, index, and finding aids Printing schedules and pricing information Laws Indexes Law numbers and dates

Preskential Documents Executive orders and proclamations Public Papers of the President Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents United States Government Manual Other Services Library Privacy Act Compilation TDD for the deaf 202-783-3238 275-3054 523-5240 783-3238 275-2867 275-3030

523-5227 523-5215 523-5237 523-5237 523-4534 523-3408

523-5227 523-3419

523-5282 523-5282 523-5266

523-5230 523-5230 523-5230 523-5230

523-4986 523-4534 523-5229

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, JULY

26961-27212

........................ 1 27213-27408

....................... 2 27409-27570
....................... 3 27571-27812
....................... 5 27813-27926
....................... 8 27927-28092
....................... 9 28093-28190
...................... 10 28191-28362

...................... 11 28363-28554

...................... 12 CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JULY

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register publishes separately a Ust of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which lists parts and sections affected by documents published since the revision date of each title.
1CFR 305

..................................... 28363
3CFR ExecutiveOrders: 11888 (Amended by

EO 12524)

..................... 27409 12523

................................. 26963 12524

................................. 27409 Procamations: 5356

................................... 26961 5 CFR 771

..................................... 26965
7 CFR Ch. IV

................................. 27927 52
....................................... 26965 54
...................................... 27571 226

..................................... 26972 301

..................................... 28366 400

..................................... 26976 402

..................................... 28367 908

........................ 27411,27928 910

........................ 27813,28372 911

..................................... 28373 915
..................................... 28373 916
....................... 27813,28373 917
........................ 27813,28373 918
..................................... 28373 921
........................ 27411,28373 922
..................................... 28373 923
..................................... 28373 924
..................................... 28373 930
........................ 27213,28373 967
..................................... 28373 979
..................................... 26976 985
..................................... 28373 991
........................ 26977,27814 1040
................................... 27412 1427
................................... 26978 1435
................................... 27413 1941
................................... 27414 1944
................................... 27415 1945
...................... 27414,27416 Proposed Rules: Ch. IV

................................. 27971 Ch. X

.................................. 27003 29

....................................... 27288 51

....................................... 27004 417
..................................... 27601 800
..................................... 28104 910
..................................... 28105 920
.................................... 27288 967
..................................... 28210 1124
................................... 27972 1240
................................... 28404 8 CFR 316a
................................... 27816 Proposed RulI*: 103
..................................... 27289 9 CFR 91

....................................... 27929 92

....................................... 27928 318

........................ 27573.28374 Proposed Rules: 94
....................................... 27973
10 CFR
9
......................................... 27214 Proposed Rules: 50

....................................... 27006
12 CFR
403
..................................... 27215 611
..................................... 27930 617
..................................... 27931 723
..................................... 27417 Proposed Rules: 561

..................................... 27290 563
..................................... 27290 571
..................................... 27290
13 CFR
121
..................................... 27418 302

..................................... 27419 Proposed Rules: 108
..................................... 27754
14 CFR 39

............ 26979,27575,27576. 27931-27933,28093, 28094 71

.......................... 26980,27934 97

............... 27934 108
..................................... 27924 Propostd Rules: 39

............ 27009,27012,27601, 27602 71

............. 27013,27014,27528 75

....................................... 27014
15 CFR 19

....................................... 27577 376
..................................... 27420 399
..................................... 27420
16 CFR
3
......................................... 28095 4
......................................... 28095 13

............. 26981,27578,28374 453

.........28062,28081 703
..................................... 27936
17 CFR
200
..................................... 28385 239..................................... 27937 240
........... 27937,27940,28385 249
..................................... 27937 270
..................................... 27937 274
..................................... 27937 288
........................ 26981, 27947

### ii Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Reader Aids

Proposed Rules: 51

....................................... 27621 35 CFR 210

..................................... 27973 101
..................................... 26990 230

....................... 28404 27 CFR 103

............ ......................... 26990 240

.......... 27829,27976,27981, 4
......................................... 27819 121
..................................... 26990 28106,28210,28219, 28404 Proposed Rules: 250..................................... 27981 9
......................................... 28409 36 CFR
259
..................................... 27981 1200
................................... 27196 270
..................................... 27982 28 CFR 1202
................................... 27196 2
......................................... 28101 1228
................................... 27951 18CFR 18

....................................... 28199 1250
................................... 27196 157
..................................... 27816 32
....................................... 27428 37 CFR 389
..................................... 27816 Proposed Rules: 29 CFR Proposed Rules: 35

....................................... 27604 1

............................ 27030 271
..................................... 28221 7 5
.... 27336 290
..................................... 27604 1952

.............. 27233 38 CFR Proposed Rules: 3

......................................... 27584 19 CFR 33
....................................... 27298 21
....................................... 27825
4
......................................... 26981 1910
................................... 27307 Proposed Rules: 12
....................................... 27947 3

......................................... 28224 142
..................................... 27816 30 CFR 36
....................................... 27833 178

.............. 27947 700

.............. 28186 Proposed Rules 701
..................................... 28186 39 CFR 162
..................................... 27829 785
..................................... 28186 10
................................ 27827 177
..................................... 27831 827
..................................... 28186 3001
................................... 28144 943

..................................... 28186 Proposed Rules: 20 CFR 948
........................ 28316,28324 ill
..................................... 27992 200
..................................... 27222 Proposed Ruler 3001
................................... 27308 626
..................................... 27818 56
....................................... 27566 627
..................................... 27818 57
....................................... 27566 40 CFR 628
..................................... 27818 700
..................................... 28180 51

.................................. 27892 629
..................................... 27818 701
..................................... 28180 52
............. 26991,27244-27247, 630
..................................... 27818 785
..................................... 28180 28544 Proposed Rules: 817
..................................... 27910 60
....................................... 27248 404

.............. 27615 827

..............28180 61

.................... 27248 416
..................................... 27615 913
..................................... 27025 86
................................ 27250 21CFR 917
..................................... 28222 123
..................................... 28202 936

..................................... 27461 419
..................................... 28516 101
..................................... 26984 944
..................................... 28107 600

........................ ...27172 510
..................................... 28395 948
.................................. .28343 763
................................ 28530 520
..................................... 27818 Proposed Rules: 558
........................ 27421,27422 31 CFR 52
............ 27030,27462,28224, 1308
...................... 28098,28395 51

............... 26987 28415 Proposal Rules: 103
.... 27821 180

........................ 27463,28108 170
..................................... 27294 500
..................................... 27435 202
................................ 27321 201

................ 27016 505

.............. 27435 205

................... 27321 211
..................................... 27016 515
.................................... 27435 600
..................................... 27188 357
.................................... 27552 515..............27435.600..............27188 514..............27016.520

.............. 27435 4CR 514

.............. 27016 535

..............27435 41 CFR 559
..................................... 27016 540
..................................... 27435 Che.1-49
................... 26987 561
..................................... 27452 101-4
................................. 28402 1002
................................... 27024 32 CFR 101-40
............................... 27951 22 CFR Parts1-39.

.......... 26987 101-47
............................... 28402 5

. . . . . . . . .. 221 9........
.......................... 26987 105-54
............................... 28203 1

................ 27422 199.

.............26988 105-63
......................... 26992 706
........................ 28398-28400 201-1
................................. 27142 23 CR 726.

.............. 28401 201-2
.................... 27142,28208 1325
.................................. 28191 33 CFR 201-8
................................. 27142 201-11
............................... 27142 24CFR 100

.............. 27579 201-16
............................... 27142
200
..................................... 28197 110
........................ 26988,27580 201-20
............................... 27142 203
..................................... 28197 117
........................ 26989,27582 201-21
............................... 27142 885
..................................... 28197 150
..................................... 26989 201-22
............................... 28208 3282
................................... 28396 165
..................................... 27583 201-23
.............................. 27142 166
..................................... 26989 201-24
............................... 27142 25 CFR Proposed Rules: 201-26
............................... 27142 Proposed Rules: 110
........................ 27622,27623 201-30
.................. 27142,28208 61

....................................... 27456 117
.......... 27026,27029,27624, 201-31
.................. 27142,28208 6C27832,27990,27991 201-32
.................. 27142,28208 26 CFR 201-38
............................... 27142 1
............... 27222,27231,27427 34 CFR 201-39
.................. 27142,28208 602
........................ 27222,27231 19
....................................... 28101 201-40
.................. 27142,28208 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 201-45
............................... 28208 1
.............. 27297,27456,27457, 369
..................................... 28412 Proposed Rules: 28409 376
..................................... 28412 101-41
.................. 27625,27626 42 CFR 405

..................................... 27722 412

........................ 27208,27722 Proposed Rules: 23

....................................... 27465 405
..................................... 27469 412
..................................... 27469

43 CFR Public Land Orders: 5150 (Revoked in part

by PLO 6607)

................ 27827 5179 (Revoked in part

by PLO 6607)

................ 27827 5180 (Revoked in part

by PLO 6607)

................ 27827 5186 (Revoked in part

by PLO 6607)

................ 27827 6389 (Corrected

by PLO 6608)

................ 28208 6607
................................... 27827 6608
................................... 28208 Proposed Rule: 2800
................................... 27322

44 CFR
64
.......................... 26993,26994 Proposed Rules: 67

....................................... 27322 302
..................................... 27627

45 CFR
1180
...................... 27584,27586 Proposed Rules: 405
..................................... 27406 412
..................................... 27406 1620
................................... 27326
44CFR
153
..................................... 26996 Proposed Rules: 160
..................................... 27628

47 CFR
0

................ 27952 22
....................................... 27953 68

...................................... 27250 73

............. 27287,27438,27954 76

....................................... 27438 81

....................................... 27968 83

....................................... 27968 Proposed Rules: Ch.I
................ 28418 73

....................................... 27629

48 CFR
7
......................................... 27560 12
....................................... 27969 15

.......................... 27560,28103 19

....................................... 27560 33

....................................... 27969 34
................ ! ...................... 27560 52
.......................... 27560,27969 209
..................................... 28209 504
..................................... 26996 533
..................................... 26998 552
..................................... 27589 553
..................................... 27589 570
..................................... 27589 6101
................................... 27969 Proposed Rules: 208
..................................... 28227 252
..................................... 28227

### Federal Register 

## / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Reader Aids iii

49 CFR 571

............. 27451 Proposed Rules: Ch. X ................................. 27031 571

.......... 27032,27632,27633, 28426 1132
................................... 27834
50 CFR 17

....................................... 26999 215
..................................... 27914 658
..................................... 28103 674
..................................... 28103 Proposed Rules: 17

.......................... 27637, 27992 20

....................................... 27638 630
..................................... 27470 655
..................................... 28109 662

..................................... 27470

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

Last Ust July 8, 1985 This Is a continuing list of public bills from the current session of Congress which have become Federal laws. The text of laws is not published in the Federal Register but may be ordered in Individual pamphlet form (referred to as "slip laws") from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 (phone 202-275- 3030). H.R. 47/Pub. L 99-61 Statue of Uberty-Ellis Island Commemorative Coin Act. (July 9, 1985; 99 Stat. 113) Price $1.00