+(,121/,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 Plans for

Visibility New Source Review and

Monitoring Strategy

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). The regulations were

proposed at 49 FR 42670 on October 23,

1984. This action completes the first part

of a settlement agreement with the

Environmental Defense Fund, et al.

(EDF), described at 49 FR 20647 on May

16, 1984.

The EPA is also taking a direct final

aotion in this notice for four States that

EPA has determined do not require the

visibility new source review provisions

for nonattainment areas. The EPA

believes that this action sastisfies the

requirements for a direct final action.

DATES: The visibility 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 within 30

days that critical or adverse comments

will be submitted. Such notice should be

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 of the Clean Air Act

(Act), 42 U.S.C. 7491, requires visibility

protection for mandatory Class I Federal

areas where EPA has determined that

visibility is an important value.

"Mandatory Class I Federal areas" are

certain national parks, wilderness areas,

and international parks, as described in

section 162(a) of the 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 their SIP's to provide

for visibility protection.

On December 2, 1980, EPA

promulgated the required 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

sought judicial review of the visibility

regulations in the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit. The D.C. Circuit Court stayed

the litigation in March 1981, pending

EPA action on related administrative

petitions for reconsideration. 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

for the Northern District of California

alleging that EPA had failed to perform

a nondiscretionary duty under Section

110(c) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7410(c)) to

promulgate visibility SIP's for 35 States

that had failed to submit such SIP

revisions to EPA (EDF v. Gorsuch,

Number C82-6850 RPA). The State of

Alaska had submitted a SIP which was

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

The EPA and EDF negotiated settlement

agreement for the remaining States

which the court approved by order on

April 20, 1984.

The settlement agreement requires

EPA to promulgate visibility SIP's on a

specified schedule for those States that

have not submitted visibility SIP

revisions to EPA. In the first part of the

settlement, EPA is to promulgate Federal

plane for those 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 the remainder of the

settlement agreement are described at

49 FR 20647 (May 16, 1984).

On October 23, 1984, at 49 FR 42670,

EPA proposed disapproval of, and

Federal plans for, 34 States whose SIP's

were preliminarily determined to be

inadequate. (The EPA had proposed

approval of a SIP submittal for the State

of Louisiana on May 15, 1984, at 49 FR

20519.) The States were given an

opportunity to avoid Federal

promulgation of these regulations if they

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 for the

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 for rather minor deficiencies.

The EPA did provide evidence that

the SIP's were inadequate. The EPA

Regional Officers reviewed each of the

34 SIP'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 EPA realizes 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 of the

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's of, 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 EPA has 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 of sources.

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 of required

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 of stations 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 of case-by-case studies of

identified visibility Impairment. The goal

of the 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.

General Comments

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 for visibility evaluation and

for consideration of existing visibility

data. This commenter contended that

the preamble of the 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 of the 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 of States, is

required to do. Section 51.305

specifically states that each State plan

must include a strategy for evaluating

visibility "by visual observation or other

appropriate monitoring techniques." The

EPA interprets this section, in light of

the structure and purposes of the

regulations as a whole, to call for a

strategy which will generate visibility

data that will reasonably, if roughly,

serve the needs of the overall State

program. One of the clear needs of a 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 to require

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 of the strategy to evaluate

visibility.

Reference Methods

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 of the available visibility

monitoring techniques. It would 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 EPA recognizes 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 of a

reference method. States that do not

wish to invest in monitoring equipment

prior to establishment of a reference

method may submit SIP's containing

other methods of visibility data

collection.

The EPA concludes that given its

needs for a national data collection

system, the proposed network will be

the most cost effective and efficient

means of gathering useful data despite

the absence of a reference method. The

EPA believes that any data collected

before a reference method is

promulgated will be useful, although

these data may not be completely

compatible with the reference method

data.

The EPA established a definition of

visibility impairment in § 51.301. The

monitoring strategy merely implements

the existing regulations and appropriate

definitions. The EPA 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 -will take

appropriate action at that time.

Options for Background Data

The commenters almost unanimously

supported EPA's first option of a

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 of data collection,

the ability to determine long term

trends, and the cooperation of the

FLM's.

The reasons given by commenters for

not favoring the alternative of requiring

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 of the details in the

monitoring plan. Commenters felt that

although a regional network approach

might be justified, the number of

proposed visibility regions would need

to be increased dramatically. Others felt

that the regions as drawn in the

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

of the regions was tantamount to

protecting visibility in the whole region,

not just the protection areas. They

argued that visibility protection is

afforded to each mandatory Class I area

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

be reliably 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 for trend analysis at more than

the 23 areas. However, the sites may not

be representative of all of the areas, and

the data collected may not be

sufficiently ectailed for modeling

potential impacts of new sources.' On

the other hand, if EPA were to

promulgate the permit applicant

monitoring uption, the data collected

would be useful only for the specific

area monituring for the 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 of the 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 or near 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 for regulatory purposes, and

the applicants would be subject to less

time-consuming monitoring.

The EPA is planning to select site

locations that are representative of the

greatest number of visibility 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 of stations

may not completely represent all areas.

The priority for establishing background

network sites should be determined by

1) the lack of available 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 of background 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

of the visibility values of Class I areas

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. This regulatory

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.

Attribution Program

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 EPA did 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 EPA has 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 of existing

data, the severity of the suspected

impairment, and the probability of an

effective control strategy.

28546
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules andRegulations

Administration

Many of the industrial commenters

requested that they be included on the

Technical Steering Committee because

they have been active in monitoring

programs and have expertise that EPA

could use. Commenters also stressed the

importance of a quality assurance plan

for the background network, validation

studies, and attribution program. They

felt EPA had not placed sufficient

emphasis on this aspect of the

monitoring program. Commenters also

suggested that the proposed level of

funding was insufficient to meet the

goals of the program.

The EPA has established a Technical

Steering Committee consisting of

representatives of the FLM's,

contributing States, and EPA. If EPA

were to invite representatives of

industry to join the Committee, it would

feel compelled, on general fairness

grounds, to also invite other members of

the general public to join the Committee.

If EPA 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, EPA will 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

of current visibility research programs

including those of industry. 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 of an effective quality

assurance program and intends to

implement one. This becomes 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 of various monitoring

programs. Much of the first year of the

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 for the monitoring

program. States are also encouraged to

participate in the network to maximize

the effectiveness of the program.

Regulatory Language

Few comments were received on the

proposed regulatory language, § 52.26, of

the Federal monitoring strategy. One _

comnenter stated that before EPA could

promulgate a requirement for permit

applicant monitoring, specific regulatory

language must be proposed and subject

to public comment. This language was

proposed in the new source review

provisions, § 52.21, §52.27. and § 52.28,

which gave EPA the authority to require

permit applicants to monitor.

In today's action. EPA is promulgating

§ 52.26 (visibility monitoring strategy),

as proposed, for the States that have

failed to submit SIP revisions. These

States are:

Arizona

California

Colorado

Florida

Hawaii

Idaho

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Dakota

South Carolina

South Dakota

Texas

Vermont

Virginia

Virginslands

West Virginia

New Source Review

States are required by f 51.307 and

§ 51.24 to review new major stationary

sources and major modifications, prior

to construction, to assess potential

impacts on visibility in any protection

area, regardless of the air quality status

of the area in which the source is

locating. The requirements in § 51.307

ensure that [1) the FLM is notified of

permit applications in a timely 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 ability to

require permit applicants to monitor

visibility as a pre- or post-construction

co-Idition.

In October 1984, EPA proposed 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 of the

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.

General Comments

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

the FLM's too much discretionary

authority in permitting decisions. This

lack of guidance, they asserted, makes it

difficult for industries to make siting

decisions, States to make permit

decisions, and the FLM's to make

adverse impairment determinations. The

commenters recommended that EPA

issue new or revised 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 for Estimating 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 also received

discussing the FLM's consultation

requirements in the rules. Several

comments suggested that the FLM's

would be unable to conduct an adequate

assessment of a permit application in 30

days. On the other hand, one commenter

stated that 30 days was indeed

sufficient. Two FLM's stressed the

importance of being involved early in

the permitting process, and would very

much like to be involved in any

preapplication meetings between States

and sources. Many citizens stressed the

importance of public participation in

permits that affect the Class I area.

The EPA recognizes all of these

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 not intended to

modify these requirements or the

definitions in § 51.301 associated with

them. The EPA believes that the existing

definitions are adequate for

implementation of the existing

regulations. The EPA 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 any techniques

for estimating 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 of a new source on

prevailing visibility conditions without

regard to the impacts of permitted

sources not yet completed. One

commenter rebutted these comments,

stating that Section 165 of the Act only

requires the State to consider the merits

of one application, and cumulative

impacts are to be considered in Section

169A of the Act for existing sources.

In assessing a proposed source's

impact on visibility, the reviewing

authority must necessarily review that

impact ih the context of existing

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 of the

existing background. The EPA concludes

that such sources are part of existing

background. In other situations, EPA has

always regarded permitted sources as

part of existing background. For

instance, in assessing impacts on the

national ambient air quality standards,

permit applicants must account for the

air quality impacts of permitted, 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

for new source review is necessary to

effect this implementation. The EPA

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 of background

visibility impacts caused by both

existing and previously permitted

sources.

Several industrial commenters and

States questioned whether the

requirement for preapplication

monitoring is necessary in this

rulemaking, stating that the Federal

monitoring program could be 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 of the 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 of the new source to impair

visibility. For example, a source that

would not cause impairment based on a

Level 1 analysis from the Workbook

would probably not be required to

monitor. A source that would require a

Level 3 analysis, 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 or had delegated its

authority to the State. One commenter

stated that EPA'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 § 52.2 1(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

State PSD Program

The EPA proposed 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 had failed 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 if the 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 for this 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 of the 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 consultation with the

Administrator, whether a proposed

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 of the

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. (See Clean

Air Act section 165(d)(2)[C)(ii) and

§ 52.

2 1(p)(4).) The reviewing authority is

required by § 51.307 and § 52.27[d)(2)

only to notify the public if the FLM's

analysis does not demonstrate to its

satisfaction that adverse impact will

result from the proposed facility and to

make available its explanation of that

decision. If the permitting authority

concludes, after considering the FLM's

analysis, public comment, and its own

analysis, that adverse impact will result.

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 I areas

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 EPA proposed a new Federal

permit requirement (§ 52.28) for new

sources or major modifications to

sources which may impact a visibility

protection area and may locate or are

located in a nonattainment area. These

requirements are similar to those for

PSD sources. The reviewing authority.

however, can take into account the

progress toward the national goal 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 Quality Management District

of California and realized that a

provision for allowing the Administrator

to delegate the authority of this section

to the States had not been included. As

stated earlier, EPA does wish to

delegate permitting authority, where

possible, to the States. Therefore, a new

paragraph, § 52.28[i), has been included

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 of Arkansas, New Jersey,

and Texas commented that they had

been incorrectly listed in the

nonattainment section of the proposal.

Arkansas' one nonattainment area was

reclassified attainment on September 26,

1984, at 49 FR 37753. Texas claimed that

sources locating in the nonattainment

areas within Texas do not have the

potential to impact the visibility

protection areas because of the 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 this pollutant in any

visibility protection area. New Jersey

stated that control strategies for

attaining the ozone standard are based

on reductions in emissions of precursor

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

or regional haze, but since these are not

to be addressed in this program, 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 of 50

tons per year or more would need to be

offset. Therefore New Jersey claimed

that an impact assessment required by

52.28 would show no adverse impact on

visibility.

The EPA accepts 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 or major modifications may

impact the protection area. The EPA

concludes that New Jersey must still

have the ability to require a visibility

impact assessment for sources emitting

total suspended particulates and

locating in Bridgeton or Camden. The

EPA, therefore, has promulgated § 52.28

for New Jersey in the previous section of

today's notice. The EPA Is willing to

delegate this authority to the State to

minimize Federal interference in this

program.. The State may then balance

any offsets with the assessment of

visibility impact from the permit

applicant to ensure progress toward the

national visibility goal on a case-bycase basis.

The EPA, in response to New Jersey's

comment, reviewed the nonattainment

areas in all States required to develop

visibility protection programs. The

States of Georgia and Virginia have only

carbon monoxide and ozone

nonattainment areas.'

In today's action, EPA is exempting

Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia

from the requirements in § 551.307(b)(2)

and 52.28. The EPA is allowing for

public comment as required by

paragraph (3) of the settlement

agreement. The EPA does not expect

critical or adverse comments on this

action. If a request for public comment

on this action is received, EPA will

withdraw this final exemption and will

propose the action, thereby establishing

a comment period.

Classification

The Administrator certifies pursuant

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

the attached rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Only a few sources, that are not already

required to do so under the existing PSD

program, will be required to evaluate the

potential impact on visibility.

The rules promulgated today do not

contain any information collection

requirements subject to the Office of

Management and Budget (0MB) review

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

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

Today's action implements part of

Subpart P 140 CFR 51.300-51.307) which

was promulgated on December 2, 1980

An economic impact assessment was

done for that rulemaking, pursuant to

section,317 of the Clean Air Act. An

economic assessment for these revisions

is not required because these revisions

are not substantial.

The rules have been submitted to

OMB for review under Executive Order

12291. Any written comments from that

2 "Maps Depicting Nonattainment Areas Pursuant

to Section 107 of the Clean Air Act-1984." EPA-4501

2-84-006, available through Docket A-84-32, Item

IV-B--. or National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Rd.. Springfield. Virginia, 221eL

Number PB 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 of Executive Order

12291.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

district by September 10, 1985. This

action may not be challenged later in

proceedings to enforce its requirements.

(See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

Air pollution control, Ozone, Sulfur

oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,

Particulate matter, Hydrocarbons,

Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by

reference.

Dated: July 3, 1985.

A. James Barnes,

Acting Administrator.

PART 52-[AMENDED]

Part 52, Chapter 1 of Title 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 of air quality.

(b) * * * (29) "Adverse impact on visibility"

means visibility impairment which

interferes with the management,

protection, preservation or enjoyment of

the visitor's visual experience of the

Federal Class I area. This determination

must be made on a case-by-case basis

taking into account the geographic

extent, intensity, duration, frequency

and time of visibility impairment, and

how these factors correlate with (1)

times of visitor use of the Federal Class I

area, and (2) the frequency and timing of

natural conditions that reduce visibility. • * * *

(o) * * *

(3) Visibility monitoring. The

Administrator may require monitoring of

visibility in any Federal class I area

near the proposed new stationary

source for major modification for such

purposes and by such means as the

Administrator deems necessary and

appropriate.

(p) Sources Impacting Federal Class I

Areas-Additional Requirements-(1)

Notice to Federal Land Managers. The

Administrator shall provide written

notice of any 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 the Federal

official charged with direct

responsibility for management of any

lands within any such area. Such

notification shall include a copy of all

information relevant to the permit

application and shall be given within 30

days of receipt 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 the Federal Class

I area. The Administrator shall also

provide the Federal land manager and

such Federal officials with a copy of the

preliminary determination required

under paragraph (q) of this 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 of receipt of any advance

notification of any such permit

application.

(3) Visibility analysis. The

Administrator shall consider any

analysis performed by the Federal 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 I area. Where the

Administrator finds that such an

analysis does not demonstrate to the

satisfaction of the Administrator that an

adverse impact on visibility will result

in the Federal Class I area, the

Administrator must, in the notice of

public hearing on the permit application,

either explain his decision or give notice

as to where the explanation can be

obtained.

* * * * * ,

3. Section 52.26 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.26 Visibility monitoring strategy.

(a) Plan Disapprovals. The provisions

of this 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 B through DD of this part.

The provisions of this section have been

incorporated by reference into the

applicable implementation plan for

various States, as provided in Subparts

B through DDD of this part.

(b) Definitions. For the purposes of

this section:

(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

Air Act, or in the protection of visibility

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) The Administrator, 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.

The extent and the form of monitoring

shall be sufficient for use 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) The Administrator, in cooperation

with the Federal land managers, shall

prepare monitoring plans that describe,

to the maximum extent practicable, the

methods and instruments of data

collection, the monitoring locations and

frequencies, the implementation

schedule, the quality assurance

procedures, and the methods of data

reporting that the Administrator will use

for each area. The Administrator shall

make these plans available to the

public.

(5) The Administrator shall establish a

central repository of monitoring data

that includes 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) Monitoring Plan Revision. (1) The

Administrator shall review the

monitoring plan annually for each

visibility protection area, revise it as

necessary, and include an assessment of

changes to visibility conditions since the

last review. The Administrator 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 one year.

(e) Delegation. The Administrator

may delegate, with respect to a

particular visibility protection area, any

of his functions under this section to any

State of local air pollution control

agency of any State whose boundaries

encompass that area or to any Federal

land manager with jurisdiction over the

area.

4. Section 52.27 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.27 Protection of visibility from

sources In attainment areas.

(a) Plan Disapproval. The provisions

of this section are applicable to any

State implementation plan which has

been disapproved with respect to

protection of visibility, in mandatory

Class I Federal areas, from sources

emitting pollutants in any portion of any

State where the existing air quality is

better than the national ambient air

quality standards for such pollutants,

and where a State PSD program has

been approved as part of the applicable

SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.24. Specific

disapprovals are listed where applicable

in Subparts B through DDD of this part.

The provisions of this section have been

incorporated by reference into the

applicable implementation plans for

various States, as provided in Subparts

B through DDD of this part.

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this

section, all terms shall have the meaning

ascribed to them in the Clean Air Act, in

the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) program approved

as part of the applicable SIP pursuant to

40 CFR 51.24 for the State, or in the

protection of visibility program (40 CFR

51.301), all as in effect on July 12, 1985.

(c) Federal Visibility 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 of a

proposed source's impact on visibility in

any Fedral Class I area. If requested, 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 of the procedural

steps listed in paragraph (d) of this

section. A request pursuant to this

paragraph must be made within 60 days

of the notice soliciting public comment

on a permit, unless such notice is not

properly given. The Administrator will

not entertain requests challenging the

substance of any State action

concerning visibility where the State has

provided all of the procedural steps

listed in paragraph (d) of this section.

(d) Procedural Steps in Visibility

Review. (1) The reviewing authority

must provide written notification to all

affected Federal land managers of any

permit applicatiorr for any proposed new

major stationary source or major

modification that may affect visibility in

any Federal Class I area. Such

notification shall include a copy of all

information relevant to the permit

application and shall be given within 30

days of receipt 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 I area as

provided by the applicant. Notification

must also be given to all affected

Federal land managers within 30 days of

receipt of any advance notification of

any such permit application.

(2) The reviewing authority must

consider any analysis performed by the

Federal land manager, provided within

30 days of the notification required by

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

shows that such proposed new major

stationary source or major modification

may have an adverse impact on

visibility in any Federal Class I area.

Where the reviewing authority finds that

such an analysis does not demonstrate

to the satisfaction of the reviewing

authority that an adverse impact on

visibility will result in the Federal Class

I area, either an explanation of its

decision or notification as to where the

explanation can be obtained must be

included in the notice of public hearing.

Where the reviewing authority finds that

adverse impact on visibility will result, a

permit shall not be issued.

(e) Federal Land Manager

Notification. The Administrator shall

provide all of the procedural steps listed

in paragraph (d) of this section in

conducting reviews pursuant to this

section.

(f) Monitoring. The Administrator may

require monitoring of visibility in any

Federal Class I area near the proposed

new stationary source or major

modification for such purposes and by

such means as the Administrator deems

necessary and appropriate.

(g) Public Participation. The

Administrator shall follow the

applicable procedures at 40 CFR Part

124 in conducting reviews 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 of 40 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) of this section,

the Administrator shall require all

prospective permit applicants in such

State to apply directly to the

Administrator, and the Administrator

shall conduct a visibility review

pursuant to this section for all permit

applications.

5. Section 52.28 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.28 Protection of visibility from

sources In nonattainment areas.

(a) Plan Disapproval. The provisions

of this section are applicable to any

State implementation plan which has

been disapproved with respect to

protection of visibility, in mandatory

Class I Federal areas where visibility is

considered an important value, from

sources emitting pollutants in any

portion of any 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 B through DDD of this part.

The provisions of this section have been

incorporated into the applicable

implementation plans for various States,

as provided in Subparts B through DDD

of this part.

(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 of visibility program (40 CFR

51.301) or the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) program either

approved as part of the applicable SIP

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.24 or in effect for

the applicable SIP pursuant to 40 CFR

52.21, all as in effect on July 12, 1985.

(c) Review of Major Stationary

Sources and Major ModificationsSource Applicability and Exemptions.

(1) No stationary source or modification

to which the requirements of this 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) of this section.

(2) The requirements of this 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) of the Clean Air

Act and potentially have an impact on

visibility in any visibility proctection

area.

(3) The requirements of this 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 of this 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 if fugitive emissions,

to the extent quantifiable, are

considered in calculating the potential to

emit of the 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 of refuse

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 of more than 250 million British

thermal units per hour heat input;

(AA) Any other stationary source

category which, as of August 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 of the

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 of operation

at the new location. Such notice shall be

given to the Administrator not less than

10 days in advance of the proposed

relocation, unless a different time

duration is previously approved by the

Administrator.

(5) The requirements of this 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 of the Clean Air Act.

(6) The requirements of this section

shall not apply to a major stationary

source or major modification with

respect to a particular pollutant, if the

allowable emissions of that pollutant

from the source, or the net emissions

increase of that 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) Visibility Impact Analyses. The

owner or operator of a source shall

provide an analysis of the impairment to

visibility that would occur as a result of

the source or modification and general

commercial, residential, industrial and

other growth associated with the source

or modification.

(e) Federal Land Manager

Notification. (1) The Federal land

manager and the Federal official

charged with direct responsibility for

management of Federal Class I areas

have an affirmative responsibility to

protect the air quality related values

(including visibility) of such 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 of any permit

application for any proposed new major

stationary source or major modification

that may affect visibility in any visibility

protection area. The Administrator shall

also provide for such notification to the

Federal official charged with direct

responsibility for management of any

lands within any such area. Such

notification shall include a copy of all

information relevant to the permit

application and shall be given within 30

days of receipt 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 of receipt of any advance

notification of any such permit

application.

(3) The Administrator shall consider

any analysis performed by the Federal

land manager, provided within 30 days

of the notification required by paragraph

(e)(2) of this 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 of the 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 or give notice as to where the

explanation can be obtained.

(f) Public Participation. The

Administrator shall follow the

applicable procedures of 40 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 of 40 CFR Part 124

do not apply.

28552
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

(g) National Visibility Goal. 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 of visibility 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 of the

source.

(h) Monitoring. The Administrator

may require monitoring of visibility 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) of this

section.

(2) Where the Administrator delegates

the responsibility for conducting source review under this section to any agency

other than a Regional Office of the

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

for managing land use prior to making

any determination under this section.

(ii) The delegate agency shall submit a copy of any public comment notice

required under paragraph (f) of this

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 of the Environmental

Protection Agency, except where the

State has assumed jurisdiction over such

land under other laws. Where the State

has assumed such jurisdiction, the

Administrator may delegate his

authority to the States in accordance

with paragraph (i)(2) of this 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.- Visibility protection.

(a) The requirement8 of Section 169A

of the Clean Air Act are not met,

because the plan does not include

approvable procedures for protection of

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal

areas.

7. Sections 52.145(AZ), and 52.633(HI)

are amended by adding paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 52.- Visibility protection. * * * * *

(b) Regulations for visibility

monitoring and new source review. The

provisions of Sections 52.26, 52.27 and

52.28, are hereby incorporated and made

part of the applicable plan for the State

of

8. 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.- Visibility protection.

(b) Regulation for visibility

monitoring and new source review. 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.- Visibility protection.

(b) Regulation for visibility

monitoring and new source review. The

provisions of Sections 52.26 and 52.27

are hereby incorporated and made a

part of the applicable plan for the State

of

10. Section 52.281 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to

read as follows:

§ 52.281 Visibility protection.

(b) Regulations for visibility

monitoring. The provisions of Section

52.26 are hereby incorporated and made

part of the applicable plan for the State

of California.

(c) Regulations for visibility new

source review. The provisions of § 52.27

are hereby incorporated and made part

of the 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.- Visibility protection.

(b) Regulation for visibility

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 Visibility protection. * * * *

(b) Regulations for visibility new

source review. The provisions of § 52.28

are hereby incorporated and made part

of the applicable plan for the 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

3 CFR

Executive Orders:

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 ..................................... 283 73

916 ....................... 27813,28373

917 ........................ 27813,28373

918 ..................................... 28373

921 ........................ 27411, 28373

922 ..................................... 283 73

923 ..................................... 28373

924 ..................................... 28373

930 ........................ 27213, 28373

967 ..................................... 283 73

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