41138 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[Docket No A–95–38; FRL–5862–7]

RIN 2060–AF34

Regional Haze Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On July 18, 1997 EPA

published revisions to the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

for ozone and particulate matter (PM).

In the final action revising the PM

NAAQS, EPA recognized that visibility

impairment is an important effect of PM

on public welfare and concluded that

the most appropriate approach for

addressing visibility impairment is to

establish secondary standards for PM

identical to the suite of primary

standards in conjunction with a revised

visibility protection program to address

regional haze in mandatory Class I

Federal areas (certain large national

parks and wilderness areas). Section

169A of the Clean Air Act (Act) sets

forth a national goal for visibility which

is the ‘‘prevention of any future, and the

remedying of any existing, impairment

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal

areas which impairment results from

manmade air pollution.’’ This section

calls for regulations to assure reasonable

progress toward meeting the national

goal.

Today’s proposal sets forth a program

to address regional haze visibility

impairment in the nation’s most

treasured national parks and wilderness

areas. Because much of the pollution

affecting haze in these generally rural

areas is transported long distances,

measures to protect these areas should

also reduce air pollution and improve

visibility outside of these areas as well.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received by October

20, 1997. The EPA will hold a public

hearing on the proposed rules on

September 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,

Attention Docket Number A–95–38.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by following

the instructions under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION of this document. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Public hearing. The regional haze rule

is subject to the requirements of section

307(d)(5) of the Act that the Agency

provide opportunity for public hearing.

The EPA will hold a public hearing on

the proposed rules at the Adam’s Mark

Hotel, 1550 Court Place, Denver,

Colorado beginning at 10:00 AM on the

date noted above. The EPA will hold the

public comment period open for 30 days

after completion of the public hearing to

provide an opportunity for submission

of rebuttal and supplemental

information. Persons wishing to speak at

the public hearing should contact

Barbara Miles at (919) 541–5531.

Docket. The public docket for this

action is available for public inspection

and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention Docket A–95–

38, South Conference Center, Room 4,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. A reasonable fee for copying may

be charged. The regional haze

regulations are subject to the rulemaking

procedures under section 307(d) of the

Act. The documents relied on to

develop the proposed regional haze

regulations have been placed in the

docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general questions regarding this action,

contact Bruce Polkowsky, U.S. EPA,

MD–15, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711, telephone (919) 541–5532.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability—The official

record for this rulemaking, as well as

the public version, has been established

under docket number A–95–38

(including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to

4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The official

rulemaking record is located at the

address in ADDRESSES at the beginning

of this document. Electronic comments

can be sent directly to EPA at: A-andR-Docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

A–95–38. Electronic comments on this

proposal may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries. In

addition, the following communications

and outreach mechanisms have been

established regarding implementation of

the ozone and PM NAAQS and regional

haze programs:

Overview information—World Wide

Web (WWW) sites have been developed

for overview information on visibility

issues, the NAAQS, and discussions of

implementation issues by the Clean Air

Act Advisory Committee, Subcommittee

on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and

Regional Haze Implementation

Programs. These web sites can be

accessed from Uniform Resource

Locator (URL): http://www.epa.gov/

airlinks/.

Detailed and technical information—

Information related to implementation

issues under discussion by the above

Subcommittee, established under the

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA), is available on the Ozone,

Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze

(O3/PM/RH) Bulletin Board on the

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) Technology

Transfer Network (TTN), which is a

collection of electronic bulletin board

systems operated by OAQPS containing

information about a wide variety of air

pollution topics. The O3/PM/RH

Bulletin Board contains separate areas

for each of the five work groups of the

FACA Subcommittee, with information

on issue papers currently under

discussion, materials for upcoming

meetings, summaries of past meetings,

general information about the process,

lists of Subcommittee and work group

members, and so on. The TTN can be

accessed by any of the following three

methods:

—By modem; the dial-in number is

(919) 541–5742. Communications

software should be set with the

following parameters: 8 Data Bits, No

Parity, 1 Stop Bit (8-N–1) 14,400 bps

(or less).

—Full Duplex.

—ANSI or VT–100 Terminal Emulation.

The TTN is also available on the WWW

site at the following URL: http://

ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov. The TTN can

also be accessed on the Internet using

File Transfer Protocol (FTP); the FTP

address is ttnftp.rtpnc.epa.gov. The TTN

Helpline is (919) 541–5384.

Table of Contents

I. Regional Haze Program

A. Introduction

B. Background

C. Key Organizations Addressing Regional

Haze Issues

1. National Academy of Sciences

2. Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and

Its Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate

Matter, and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41139

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal

areas are those national parks exceeding 6000 acres,

wilderness areas and national memorial parks

exceeding 5000 areas, and all international parks

which were in existence on August 7, 1977.

Visibility has been identified as an important value

in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart

D. The extent of a mandatory Class I Federal area

includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as

park expansions. CAA section 162(a).

2H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205

(1977).

3 ‘‘Reasonably attributable’’ visibility impairment,

as defined in 40 CFR 51.301(s), means ‘‘attributable

by visual observation or any other technique the

State deems appropriate.’’ It includes impacts to

mandatory Federal Class I areas caused by plumes

or layered hazes from a single source or small group

of sources.

4H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 204 (1977).

5H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 204 (1977).

6See Table 24–6, Long-Term Visibility and

Aerosol Data Bases, in ‘‘Acidic Deposition, State of

Science and Technology, Volume III, Terrestrial,

Materials, and Health and Visibility Effects, Report

24, Visibility Existing and Historical Conditions,

Causes and Effects. p. 24–51, 1991, and Chapter 8,

‘‘Effects on Visibility and Climate’’ in ‘‘Air Quality

Criteria for Particulate Matter’’, U.S. EPA, EPA 600/

P–95/001bF, April 1996.

7See Clean Air Act Advisory Committee,

Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and

Regional Haze Implementation Programs, Initial

Report on Subcommittee Discussions, April 1997.

See also Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission, Recommendations for Improving

Western Vistas, June 1996.

8See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and 40 CFR

51.300–51.307.

9See 45 FR 80086.

10State of Maine v. Thomas, 874 F. 2d 883, 885

(1st Cir. 1989) (‘‘EPA’s mandate to control the

Continued

3. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission (GCVTC)

a. Reasonable Progress

b. Clean Air Corridors

c. Stationary Sources

d. Mobile Sources

e. Prescribed Fire

f. Air Pollution Prevention, Future

Regional Coordinating Entity, and Areas

in Need of Additional Research

g. Conclusions

D. Overview of Proposed Revisions to

Visibility Regulations

E. Applicability

F. Definitions

1. Deciview

2. Reasonable Progress Target

a. Protection for Most Impaired and Least

Impaired Days

b. Determining Baseline Conditions

c. Protecting Vistas Seen From Within

Class I Areas

d. Calculating Changes in Deciviews

G. Implementation Plan Revisions

1. SIPs Due 12 Months After Promulgation

2. Plan Revisions to Address Best Available

Retrofit Technology (BART)

3. Plan Revisions for Section 110(a)(2)

Requirements

H. Visibility Monitoring

I. Long-term Strategy

II. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Impact on Reporting Requirements

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Environmental Justice

I. Regional Haze Program

A. Introduction

The visibility protection program

under sections 110(a)(2)(J), 169A, and

169B of the Act is designed to protect

mandatory Federal Class I areas 1 from

impairment due to manmade air

pollution. Congress adopted the

visibility provisions in the Clean Air

Act to protect visibility in these ‘‘areas

of great scenic importance.’’ 2 The

current regulatory program addresses

visibility impairment in these areas that

is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ 3 to a

specific source or small group of

sources. In adopting section 169A, the

core visibility provisions adopted in the

1977 Clean Air Act Amendments,

Congress also expressed its concern

with ‘‘hazes’’ and the potential

corresponding need to control a ‘‘variety

of sources’’ and ‘‘regionally distributed

sources.’’ 4 The purpose of today’s

proposal to revise the existing visibility

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–51.307 is

to integrate certain fundamental

provisions addressing regional haze

impairment. The resulting regulation

will reflect a comprehensive visibility

protection program for mandatory Class

I Federal areas.

Regional haze is produced by a

multitude of sources located across a

broad geographic area emitting fine

particles and their precursors. Twenty

years ago, when initially adopting the

visibility protection provisions of the

Act, Congress specifically recognized

that the ‘‘visibility problem is caused

primarily by emission into the

atmosphere of sulfur dioxide, oxides of

nitrogen, and particulate matter,

especially fine particulate matter, from

inadequate[ly] controlled sources.’’ 5

The fine particulate matter (PM)(e.g.,

sulfates, nitrates, organic and elemental

carbon, and soil dust) that impair

visibility by scattering and absorbing

light are among the same particles

related to serious health effects and

mortality in humans, as well as to

environmental effects such as acid

deposition. The role of regional

transport of fine particles in

contributing to elevated PM levels and

regional haze impairment has been well

documented by many researchers 6 and

recognized as a significant issue by

many policy makers.7 Data from the

existing visibility monitoring network

show that visibility impairment caused

by air pollution occurs virtually all the

time at most national park and

wilderness area monitoring stations.

Average visual range in most of the

Western U.S. is 100–150 kilometers

(km), or about one-half to two-thirds of

the visual range that would exist

without manmade air pollution. In most

of the East, the average visual range is

less than 30 kilometers, or about onefifth of the visual range that would exist

under natural conditions.

B. Background

Section 169A of the Act, established

in the 1977 Amendments, sets forth a

national visibility goal that calls for ‘‘the

prevention of any future, and the

remedying of any existing, impairment

of visibility in mandatory Class I

Federal areas which impairment results

from manmade air pollution.’’ The

EPA’s existing visibility regulations, 8

developed in 1980, address visibility

impairment that is ‘‘reasonably

attributable’’ to a single source or small

group of sources. Under these rules, the

35 States and 1 territory (Virgin Islands)

containing mandatory Class I Federal

areas are required to: (1) Revise their

SIPs to assure reasonable progress

toward the national visibility goal; (2)

determine which existing stationary

facilities should install the Best

Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

for controlling pollutants which impair

visibility; (3) develop, adopt,

implement, and evaluate long-term

strategies for making reasonable

progress toward remedying existing and

preventing future impairment in the

mandatory Class I Federal areas; (4)

adopt certain measures to assess

potential visibility impacts due to new

or modified major stationary sources,

including measures to notify FLMs of

proposed new source permit

applications, and to consider visibility

analyses conducted by FLMs in their

new source permitting decisions; and

(5) conduct visibility monitoring in

mandatory Class I Federal areas.

The 1980 rules were designed to be

the first phase in EPA’s overall program

to protect visibility. The EPA explicitly

deferred action addressing regional haze

impairment until some future date

‘‘when improvement in monitoring

techniques provides more data on

source-specific levels of visibility

impairment, regional scale models

become refined, and our scientific

knowledge about the relationships

between emitted air pollutants and

visibility impairment improves.’’ 9

While EPA is addressing visibility

protection in phases, the visibility

protection provisions of the Act are

broad. The national visibility goal in

section 169A calls for addressing

visibility impairment generally,

including regional haze.10 Further,
41140 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

vexing problem of regional haze emanates directly

from the Clean Air Act, which ‘declares as a

national goal the prevention of any future, and the

remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility

in mandatory Class I Federal areas which

impairment results from manmade air pollution.’’’)

(citation omitted).

11See U.S. EPA, ‘‘Interim Findings on the Status

of Visibility Research’’, February 1995, (EPA/600/

R–95/021); see also 60 FR 8659 notice announcing

the report availability and how to obtain copies

(Feb. 15, 1995).

12See U.S. EPA, ‘‘Effects of the 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas; An

EPA Report to Congress,’’ October 1993, (EPA–452/

R–93–014)

13CAA Section 169B(e)(1)

14 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

(GCVTC), ‘‘Recommendations for Improving

Western Vistas’’, Report to the U.S. EPA, June 10,

1996 (hereafter ‘‘GCVTC Report’’).

15CAA Section 169B(e)(1).

Congress added section 169B as part of

the 1990 Amendments to the Act to

focus attention on regional haze issues.

This section includes provisions for

EPA to conduct visibility research on

regional regulatory tools with the

National Park Service and other federal

agencies, to develop an interim findings

report on the visibility research,11 and to

provide periodic reports to Congress on

visibility improvements due to

implementation of other air pollution

protection programs.12 Section 169B

allows the Administrator to establish

visibility transport commissions.

Section 169B(f) called for EPA to

establish a visibility transport

commission for the region affecting

visibility of the Grand Canyon National

Park, the purpose of which was to assess

scientific and technical information

pertaining to adverse impacts on

visibility from existing and projected

growth in emissions, and to issue a

report to EPA recommending measures

to remedy such impacts. The statute

specifically called for the report to

address long-term strategies for

addressing regional haze.13 In 1991 EPA

established the Grand Canyon Visibility

Transport Commission (GCVTC) and its

final report was completed in June

1996.14 Section 169B(e) calls for the

Administrator, within 18 months of

receipt of the GCVTC report, to carry out

her ‘‘regulatory responsibilities under

section [169A], including criteria for

measuring ‘reasonable progress’ toward

the national goal.’’ 15 Today’s proposal is

the first step toward fulfilling EPA’s

responsibility, defined since 1980, to

put in place a national regulatory

program that addresses both reasonably

attributable and regional haze visibility

impairment.

Today’s proposal also implements the

Administrator’s decision to address the

general national public welfare concern

for visibility through a combined

program of setting a new PM2.5

secondary national ambient air quality

standard equivalent to the primary

standard, promulgated in a recent

Federal Register rule published on July

18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), and a revised

visibility protection program to address

regional haze impairment in mandatory

Class I Federal areas.

The regional haze program is being

proposed in a manner that can facilitate

integration to the extent possible with

the implementation programs for new

NAAQS for ozone and particulate

matter (PM) given the sources, precursor

pollutants, and geographic areas of

concern that these air quality programs

have in common. The regional haze

program recognizes the value of

multistate coordination for regional

haze program planning and

implementation because of the key role

of regional pollutant transport in

contributing to haze at mandatory Class

I Federal areas, most of which are in

remote locations. At a minimum,

voluntary regional planning activities,

such as establishing common protocols

and approaches for emission inventory

development, emissions tracking,

progress assessments, and regional

model development, can benefit those

States that will need to participate in

future development of emission

management strategies for PM standards

as well. EPA plans to address this

multistate coordination process in

future guidance. An example of

voluntary coordination among States to

address visibility issues is the effort

under way by western States and Tribes

to form the Western Regional Air

Partnership.

C. Key Organizations Addressing

Regional Haze Issues

In developing these proposed

revisions, EPA has taken into account a

significant body of knowledge,

developed by a wide range of

stakeholders, on regional haze technical

and policy issues. Three important

bodies in particular have recently

addressed regional haze issues: the

National Academy of Sciences

Committee on Haze in National Parks

and Wilderness Areas, the Clean Air Act

Advisory Committee (Subcommittee on

Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional

Haze Implementation Programs), and

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission (GCVTC). An overview of

these groups follows.

1. National Academy of Sciences

The 1993 report by the National

Academy of Sciences, Protecting

Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas, contributed

significantly to the state of the science

regarding regional haze visibility

impairment. The National Academy of

Sciences formed a Committee on Haze

in National Parks and Wilderness Areas

in 1990 to address a number of regional

haze-related issues, including methods

for determining anthropogenic source

contributions to haze and methods for

considering alternative source control

measures. The Committee issued several

important conclusions in the report,

including: (1) Current scientific

knowledge is adequate and control

technologies are available for taking

regulatory action to address regional

haze; (2) progress toward the national

goal will require regional programs that

operate over large geographic areas and

limit emissions of pollutants that can

cause regional haze; (3) a program to

address regional haze visibility

impairment that focuses solely on

determining the contributions of

individual emission sources to such

visibility impairment is likely to fail,

and strategies instead should be adopted

to consider the effect of many sources

simultaneously on a regional basis; (4)

visibility impairment can be attributed

to emission sources on a regional scale

through the use of several kinds of

models; (5) visibility and control

policies might need to be different in

the West than the East; (6) efforts to

improve visibility within Class I areas

will benefit visibility outside these

areas, and could help alleviate other

types of air quality problems as well; (7)

achieving the national visibility goal

will require a substantial, long-term

program; and (8) continued progress

toward this goal will require a greater

commitment toward atmospheric

research, monitoring, and emissions

control research and development. The

EPA has taken these conclusions and

recommendations into account in

developing today’s action

2. Clean Air Act Advisory Committee

and Its Subcommittee on Ozone,

Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs

The Subcommittee on Ozone, PM and

Regional Haze Implementation

Programs, established in September

1995, has also provided important input

on regional haze and NAAQS

implementation issues. The

Subcommittee discussed a range of

policy and technical issues related to

implementation programs for attaining

new and revised NAAQS and reducing

regional haze in Class I areas. The

Subcommittee includes representatives

of several important stakeholder groups,

including State, Tribal, and local

governments, industry and small
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41141

16Clean Air Act Advisory Committee,

Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and

Regional Haze Implementation Programs, Initial

Report on Subcommittee Discussions, April 1997.

17See 56 FR 57523.

18See CAA Section 169B(d).

19A clean air corridor is defined as a region that

generally brings clear air to a receptor region, such

as the Class I areas of the Golden Circle.

20See section 169B(e)(2).

21See section 169A(b).

business, environmental groups,

academia, and others. Between

September 1995 and July 1997, the

Subcommittee has held 10 meetings in

various locations across the U.S. Work

groups reporting to the Subcommittee

have developed (and continue to

develop) recommendations on a number

of air quality management issues. One

paper specifically addressed regional

haze issues. Several other issue papers

have been developed on planning and

implementation issues related to all

three programs. The Subcommittee has

issued a report to the full Committee

summarizing the Subcommittee’s

discussions through November 1996. 16

In discussing the various issue papers

to date, the Subcommittee has provided

important input to EPA on potential

implementation options and approaches

for the three air quality programs under

consideration. The Subcommittee has

recognized the significant role of

transport of pollutants contributing to

ozone, PM, and regional haze

throughout the country. The

Subcommittee has also recognized that

in order to properly address air quality

problems resulting from transported

emissions, it is important to identify the

broader geographic area contributing

emissions to a particular area of concern

(such as an area violating the NAAQS,

or a mandatory Federal Class I area

identified for visibility protection). For

air quality problems that do not result

predominantly from local emissions

sources, the Subcommittee has generally

supported the concept of initiating, as

appropriate, multistate planning

processes for conducting technical

assessments (emission inventories,

modeling, source attribution) and

developing regional emission reduction

strategy alternatives. A framework for

regional planning efforts is addressed in

the Subcommittee’s ‘‘Institutional

Mechanisms’’ paper, which is still

under development to date. The

procedures and functions of regional

planning efforts such as the Ozone

Transport Assessment Group and the

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission can serve as models for

future voluntary regional planning

efforts. The Subcommittee has also

recognized the need for expanded

monitoring networks, particularly

chemical analysis of PM2.5 for

implementation of both PM NAAQS and

regional haze programs. The

Subcommittee has discussed key

program elements related to regional

haze, including the definition of

‘‘reasonable progress,’’ criteria for

measuring progress, and control

strategies for achieving such progress.

The discussions covered issues related

to how regional institutions should be

involved in determining reasonable

progress objectives and the need for a

regional haze program to include a

federal ‘‘backstop’’ for such objectives,

as well as specific timeframes for setting

objectives and periodically assessing

progress.

3. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission (GCVTC)

As noted, the GCVTC issued a report

in June 1996 containing

recommendations for visibility

protection. Today’s rulemaking

addresses the Commission’s

recommendations to EPA.

The EPA established the GCVTC on

November 13, 1991 (56 FR 57522, Nov.

12, 1991). Based on EPA’s ‘‘broad

discretionary authority under section

169B(c) * * * to establish visibility

transport regions and commissions,’’ it

expanded the scope of the GCVTC,

to include additional Class I areas in the

vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park—

what is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘Golden

Circle’’ of parks and wilderness areas. This

includes most of the national parks and

national wilderness areas of the Colorado

Plateau.17

The GCVTC was charged with

assessing information about visibility

impacts in the region and making policy

recommendations to EPA to address

such impacts. The Act called for the

Commission to assess studies conducted

under section 169B as well as other

available information ‘‘pertaining to

adverse impacts on visibility from

potential or projected growth in

emissions for sources located in the

* * * Region,’’ and to issue a report to

EPA recommending what measures, if

any, should be taken to protect

visibility.18 The Act specifically

provided for the Commission’s report to

address the following measures: (1) The

establishment of clean air corridors,19 in

which additional restrictions on

increases in emissions may be

appropriate to protect visibility in

affected Class I areas; (2) the imposition

of additional new source review

requirements in clean air corridors; and

(3) the promulgation of regulations

addressing regional haze.

In June 1996, the GCVTC issued its

recommendations to EPA. The Act calls

for EPA, taking into account the

recommendations and other relevant

information, to ‘‘carry out [its]

regulatory responsibilities under section

[169A], including criteria for measuring

‘reasonable progress’ toward the

national goal’’ within eighteen months

of receiving the recommendations.20

Regulations issued under section 169A

must provide guidelines to the States on

appropriate techniques and methods for

characterizing, modeling and

controlling visibility impairment, and

must require applicable SIPs to contain

such emission limits, schedules of

compliance and other measures as may

be necessary to make reasonable

progress toward meeting the national

goal.21 The EPA regulations issued after

considering the Commission report

must require affected States to revise

their SIPs within 12 months.

The GCVTC recommendations

covered a wide range of control strategy

approaches, planning and tracking

activities, and technical findings which

address protection of visibility in the

Class I areas of the Golden Circle. The

primary recommendations of the

GCVTC include: (1) Air pollution

prevention and reduction of per capita

pollution is a high priority; (2)

Emissions growth should be tracked for

its effect on clean air corridors; (3)

Stationary source emissions should be

closely monitored and regional targets

should be established for sulfur dioxide

emissions in 2000, with triggers for

regulatory programs if targets are not

met; (4) Focus should be given to

emissions reductions in and near class

I areas; (5) Mobile source emissions

should be capped and national

measures aimed at further reducing

tailpipe emissions are supported; (6)

Further assessment of the contribution

of road dust to visibility impairment

and its potential future impacts should

be given high priority; (7) Further study

is needed on emissions from Mexico; (8)

Fire emissions are recognized as

significantly impacting visibility, and

programs should be implemented to

minimize effects on visibility; and (9) A

future regional coordinating entity is

needed to follow through on the

Commission’s recommendations. The

Commission also adopted an approach

to ‘‘reasonable progress’’ that, consistent

with the national visibility goal, is based

on remedying existing impairment and

preventing future impairment.

The EPA has taken the Commission’s

recommendations, as well as the body of

technical information developed by

Commission, into account in developing
41142 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

22 GCVTC Report, p. 26.

23See proposed definition of ‘‘reasonable progress

target,’’ 40 CFR 51.301(z).

24See proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d).

25 GCVTC Report, p. 87.

26 GCVTC Report, p. ii and 32–37.

27 GCVTC Report, p. 36.

the regional haze rules set forth in this

proposal. The Commission’s

recommendations have components that

contemplate implementation through a

combination of actions by EPA, other

Federal agencies, States and Tribes in

the region, and voluntary measures on

the part of public and private entities

throughout the region. The

Commission’s recommendations also

distinguish between recommended

actions and policy or strategy options

for consideration. The EPA has

considered these factors in addressing

the recommendations, discussed below.

a. Reasonable Progress. The EPA’s

proposed approach to ‘‘reasonable

progress’’ is consistent with the

Commission’s approach. The

Commission’s report provides that

‘‘[t]he overall goal of the Commission’s

recommendations is to improve

visibility on the worst days and to

preserve existing visibility on the best

days, at Class I areas on the Colorado

Plateau.’’ Thus, the Commission

highlights the importance of not only

remedying existing impairment but

preserving and protecting good

visibility. The Commission’s report

further provides that ‘‘[r]easonable

progress towards the national visibility

goal is achieving continuous emission

reductions necessary to reduce existing

impairment and attain steady

improvement of visibility in mandatory

Class I areas and managing emissions

growth so as to prevent perceptible

degradation of clean air days.’’ 22

The EPA’s proposed criteria for

measuring reasonable progress, the

proposed reasonable progress target, has

been informed by the Commission’s

report in several respects. EPA proposes

both to improve visibility on the most

impaired days and to prevent visibility

degradation on the least impaired

days.23 Similar to the Commission’s

provision for ‘‘steady improvement of

visibility,’’ EPA proposes a quantitative

visibility target and proposes to require

that progress toward the target be

demonstrated and evaluated on an ongoing periodic basis. Finally, EPA

proposes to provide that State plans

consider emissions reductions in

evaluating whether the quantitative

reasonable progress target has been

achieved.24

b. Clean Air Corridors. The

Commission concluded that a clean air

corridor does exist for the Golden Circle

region and that clean air corridors are

key sources of clear air at Class I areas.

At the same time, the GCVTC found that

future growth in this area is not

expected to perceptibly impact visibility

in the Class I areas modeled, and that

additional new source review

requirements would not be needed in

this area.25 The GCVTC recommended

careful tracking of emissions growth in

these areas but did not recommend

additional control measures beyond

those required under current laws.

The EPA generally agrees that no

special requirements need to be

proposed for clean air corridors.

Nevertheless, these corridors contain a

significant number of mandatory

Federal Class I areas, and the regional

emissions control strategies necessary to

ensure reasonable progress toward the

national visibility goal will need to

address sources of pollution in these

areas.

c. Stationary Sources. The

Commission found that continuing

implementation of existing Clean Air

Act requirements such as efforts to

address visibility impairment under the

current rules would, in the short-term,

result in significant sulfur dioxide (SO2)

emissions reductions in the region and

corresponding improvements in

visibility.26 The Report specifically

encourages States and Tribes to review

the visibility impacts at Class I areas on

the Colorado Plateau from uncontrolled

pollution sources and to make

expeditious determinations regarding

the need for additional control. The

Commission also provides for the

establishment and tracking of progress

toward an initial stationary source SO2

emissions target to be achieved by the

year 2000. A long-term target for the

year 2040 and provisions for interim

targets were also recommended.

Progress in complying with emission

targets would be assessed periodically.

Exceeding the targets would trigger a

regulatory emissions reduction program

(such as an emission cap and incentivebased market trading program).27 The

report indicates that State and Tribal

participants will evaluate development

of a regional emissions cap and trading

regulatory program to achieve the

emissions reductions. Finally, the report

provides that the participants in the

Commission process intend to design

the emissions reduction strategy for

EPA’s consideration before it takes final

regulatory action on the Commission’s

recommendations in order to create

economic incentives for early

reductions, and to provide flexibility

and certainty to sources in planning

future actions.

The EPA fully agrees with the

importance of addressing existing

visibility impairment in the Golden

Circle parks and wilderness areas that is

attributable to single or small groups of

stationary sources. The EPA has

retained its existing visibility protection

program, and intends for States to

continue making progress in addressing

visibility impairment from such sources.

The EPA is committed to working with

States, Tribes, and Federal Land

Managers to address such impairment.

Likewise, EPA is fully supportive of

long-term efforts by the States in the

region addressing regional haze in the

Golden Circle to address visibilityimpairing emissions from stationary

sources. Indeed, a centerpiece of today’s

proposal is a long-term strategy, to be

adopted by affected States throughout

the country. The proposed long-term

strategy requirements are intended to

provide a flexible air quality planning

framework to facilitate the interstate

coordination necessary to reduce

regional haze visibility impairment in

mandatory Class I Federal areas

nationwide.

The long-term strategy proposed

herein would be due one year after

issuance of this proposal as a final rule,

estimated to be due in 1999.

Implementation would occur in phases,

with initial planning for additional

monitoring, emissions tracking and

modeling to begin in 1999, and

identification of stationary sources and

potential emissions reductions to occur

by 2001. Emissions control strategies

would be due in 2003, or 2005 for States

preparing PM2.5 nonattainment control

strategy SIP revisions, and revised every

three years thereafter. The planning

schedule for the long-term strategy has

been developed to facilitate integration

with State planning for the PM and

Ozone NAAQS. Similarly, EPA intends

to address specific visibility emissions

control strategies in more detail in

conjunction with the PM and Ozone

NAAQS control strategies.

In today’s proposal, EPA has not

included the Commission’s specific

stationary source emissions target and

related provisions as regulatory

requirements. However, the proposed

rule in no way precludes the States in

the GCVTC transport region from

expeditiously adopting, on their own

initiative, these control strategy

provisions. These States are wellsituated for achieving earlier reductions

in light of the technical and policy

groundwork established during the

Commission’s deliberations, and the

importance of protecting visibility in the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41143

28 GCVTC Report, p. ii and 38–45.

29 GCVTC Report, p. ii–iii and 47–50.

30See 40 CFR 51.306(e)(5).

31 GCVTC Report, p. i and 28–31.

premiere natural resources that

comprise the Golden Circle. The EPA

requests public comment on whether it

should instead adopt, or adopt with

modification, these specific

recommendations.

d. Mobile Sources. The Commission

determined that mobile source

emissions are projected to decrease

through about the year 2005 due to

improved control technologies but was

concerned that emissions would

increase thereafter. The Commission

recommended a number of national,

regional and local strategies related to

mobile sources.28 Recognizing the

problems with establishing a national

mobile source control program based

strictly on the impact of the Golden

Circle, the Commission report

‘‘promotes’’ several national initiatives

that may benefit air quality in the

transport region.

The EPA agrees with the central

policy embodied in the Commission’s

recommendations on mobile sources—

that there are certain categories of

pollution sources that especially lend

themselves to national control

strategies. The EPA administers and is

developing programs under Title II of

the Clean Air Act that address emissions

from motor vehicles, highway and nonroad heavy-duty engines, marine

engines (including recreational outboard

and personal watercraft), small gasoline

engines and locomotives. The EPA will

continue to implement these and other

nationally-applicable programs, such as

the new source performance standards

and national emission standards for

sources of hazardous pollutants, that

provide important air pollution

protection in the Commission Transport

region and other areas of the country.

e. Prescribed Fire. The Commission

made a number of recommendations

related to minimizing the emissions and

visibility impacts of both prescribed fire

used by Federal land management

agencies to maintain ecosystem balances

and agricultural/silvicultural prescribed

burning practices.29 The

recommendation directed at EPA

suggested that EPA require all Federal,

State, Tribal, and private prescribed fire

programs to incorporate smoke effects in

planning and application by the year

2000.

The EPA has long recognized that

prescribed fire can have significant

effects on visibility. The EPA’s current

visibility protection regulations require

States to consider smoke management

techniques for agricultural and forestry

management purposes in developing

long-term strategies.30 This requirement

would apply to the long-term strategies

for addressing regional haze visibility

impairment proposed in this notice.

Further, EPA currently participates in

an interagency forum on prescribed fire

to support on-going efforts to address

these issues.

f. Air Pollution Prevention, Future

Regional Coordinating Entity, and Areas

in Need of Additional Research. The

Commission recommended a number of

regional, State, and local policies for air

pollution prevention including energy

conservation, increased energy

efficiency, promotion of the use of

renewable resources for energy

production, and enhanced public

education and outreach.31 The EPA

strongly supports pollution prevention

initiatives and has taken numerous

steps to promote pollution prevention

under the Pollution Prevention Act of

1990, the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act, and

other environmental statutes EPA

administers. The EPA has carried out

important voluntary pollution

prevention programs, such as the Green

Lights program. Under this program,

EPA uses education and outreach to

encourage businesses, public schools,

and government agencies to reduce the

amount of electricity used while

maintaining lighting quality.

The Commission determined that

there is a need for a group like the

Commission to oversee, promote, and

support many of its recommendations,

and urged EPA to provide support for

such an organization. States and Tribes

in the Commission’s transport region are

currently discussing the formation of an

organization to succeed the

Commission. At the request of the States

and Tribes, EPA has participated in and

supported these efforts.

The Commission’s report identified

areas warranting further research and

analysis, including the impact from

emissions within and near the Golden

Circle Class I areas, the contribution of

road dust, and emissions from Mexico.

EPA especially encourages the States

and Tribes to address the informational

deficiencies that would inhibit

development of long-term strategies to

address regional haze visibility

impairment.

g. Conclusions. The preceding

discussion addresses the key

Commission recommendations to EPA.

As discussed here and elsewhere in

today’s action, the Commission’s

recommendations have informed EPA’s

proposed rules. The EPA seeks public

comment on the manner it has proposed

to address the Commission’s

recommendations in this rulemaking,

and EPA requests alternative

suggestions for addressing the

recommendations.

D. Overview of Proposed Revisions to

Visibility Regulations

In developing the proposed revisions

to the visibility regulations, EPA has

tried to maintain as much of the existing

regulatory language as possible, where

such provisions appropriately apply to

both reasonably attributable and

regional haze visibility impairment.

This approach is intended to minimize

the level of effort needed for States to

adopt new regulations and revise SIPs

in order to address regional haze

requirements, particularly for those

States that have already adopted plans

to implement the existing visibility

program.

Several new elements of the visibility

protection program are proposed in this

notice. These elements are outlined

below and discussed in greater detail in

subsequent subsections of this notice.

• Expanded applicability of the

regional haze program to all States, the

District of Columbia, and certain

territories.

• Establishment of presumptive

reasonable progress targets.

• Requirements for periodic SIP

revisions, including periodic

demonstrations by States on whether

reasonable progress targets are being

achieved for each mandatory Class I

Federal area.

• Analysis of sources contributing to

regional haze impairment, including

sources potentially subject to BART.

• Expansion of the current

monitoring network as necessary to be

representative of all mandatory Class I

Federal areas.

• Development of strategies to reduce

emissions of visibility impairing

pollutants in conjunction with strategies

to meet the new and revised NAAQS for

PM2.5 and ozone.

The current program for addressing

reasonably attributable impairment

remains in place, including, for

example, requirements for BART and a

long-term strategy to address

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility

impairment, State consultation with

FLMs on SIP revisions, consideration of

integral vistas, and visibility

monitoring. Further, the program

requires the review of new source

impacts on visibility in mandatory Class

I Federal areas to prevent future

visibility impairment. The existing

regulations have been in place for nearly

seventeen years and EPA is not
41144 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

32 National Research Council, Protecting

Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

1993.

33 Latimer and Associates, Particulate Matter

Source-Receptor Relationships Between All Point

and Area Sources in the United States and PSD

Class I Area Receptors, Report prepared for EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

September 1996.

34 ENVIRON International Corporation,

Development of Revised Federal Class I Area

Groups in Support of Regional Haze Regulations,

Report prepared for EPA Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, September 1996.

reopening those regulations for public

comment in this rulemaking. However,

EPA seeks public comment on the

regulatory changes proposed in this

action related to integrating the new

regional haze provisions with the

existing visibility regulations. For

example, EPA seeks comment on its

proposed revisions to 40 CFR 51.306(c)

to integrate periodic long-term strategy

revisions for regional haze with the

periodic long-term strategy assessments

for reasonably attributable visibility

impairment. The EPA is also seeking

comment on a revision to 40 CFR

51.306(a)(1) which requires the State to

address any certification of reasonably

attributable impairment that occurs 6

months before a long-term strategy is

due in the next long-term strategy

revision. This revision clarifies that the

State has the same grace period in

considering certifications of impairment

as when the original visibility SIP was

developed. Beyond specific revisions

proposed today, comments on the

existing regulations are generally

outside of the scope of this proposal.

The EPA is proposing to make

technical corrections to cross-references

to other rules within the existing rule

language to reflect changes in the

numbering of Part 51. In addition, EPA

is proposing to add ‘‘light extinction’’ to

the list of indices (visual range, contrast,

and coloration) currently used to define

‘‘visibility impairment’’ in 40 CFR

51.301(x) and referenced throughout the

rule. Light extinction is the underlying

physical property of the atmosphere that

determines visual range. EPA is also

proposing to coordinate the Federal

Land Manager notification,

consultation, and timing requirements

for regional haze plan development and

revision with those of the current

program addressing reasonably

attributable impairment. This approach

will allow for efficient coordination

between the State and Federal land

managers on comprehensive visibility

SIP submittals and revisions.

The proposed revisions establish a

new framework for States to follow in

revising their visibility SIPs. The key

milestones of the proposed visibility

program are contained in the table

below:

Date Activity

July 1997 ......................................... Promulgation of revised ozone and PM NAAQS and proposal of revised visibility regulations.

February 1998 ................................. Promulgation of revised visibility regulations.

March 1998 ..................................... Commence regional planning activities as necessary.

February 1999 ................................. States submit new/revised visibility SIPs, including monitoring plan, identification of potential BART

sources, and schedule for assessing BART and associated emission reductions by February 2001, longterm strategy provisions (including procedures for future plan requirements), revisions as necessary to

address section 110(a)(2) requirements relevant to regional haze, and provisions / procedures for State

coordination with FLM.

February 2000 ................................. New monitoring sites online.

February 2001 ................................. State assessment of BART sources to be completed and available for use in regional modeling and control

strategy development.

July 2003 ......................................... SIPs due for emission reduction strategies for regional haze. First demonstration of progress in relation to

reasonable progress targets due. One year monitoring reporting begins. (July 2005 for States preparing

PM2.5 nonattainment control strategy SIPs.)

July 2006 (and every 3 years thereafter).Visibility SIP revision to demonstrate progress in relation to reasonable progress targets, and to adjust

emission reduction strategies as necessary. (July 2008 for States noted above)

The following sections focus on

proposed new elements of the visibility

protection program.

E. Applicability

Section 51.300(b) of the existing

visibility regulations addresses

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ impairment

from relatively nearby sources and

requires the 36 States containing

mandatory Class I Federal areas to

submit SIP revisions to assure

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal. A proposed 40 CFR

51.300(b)(3) would expand the

applicability of the program to all States

(excluding certain territories) for the

purpose of addressing regional haze

visibility impairment. This provision

would require the following additional

States to participate in the program:

Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin,

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, New

York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,

Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland

and Washington, DC. The territories of

Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,

and the Northern Mariana Islands

would not be subject to the program

because of their great distance from any

mandatory Class I Federal area.

However, Hawaii, Alaska, and the

Virgin Islands would be subject to the

regional haze provisions because of the

potential for emissions from sources

within their borders to contribute to

regional haze impairment in mandatory

Class I Federal areas also located within

these States. These States would not

need to participate in regional planning

activities, but would be expected to

implement programs to develop

emission reduction strategies to achieve

the reasonable progress targets

established by these revised regulations.

Section 169A(b)(2) requires States

containing mandatory Class I Federal

areas or having emissions which ‘‘may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to any impairment of

visibility in any such area’’ to revise

their visibility SIPs in order to make

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal. Many scientific studies

and technical assessments, including

the 1990 report from the National Acid

Precipitation Assessment Program, the

1993 NAS report, and the 1996 GCVTC

report ‘‘Recommendations for

Improving Western Vistas,’’ have shown

that regional haze is frequently caused

by fine particles that are transported

significant distances, even hundreds or

thousands of kilometers 32. Modeling

analyses have been conducted for EPA

that use county-to-Class I area transfer

coefficients for PM-fine to identify

counties which may reasonably be

anticipated to contribute transported

PM-fine to mandatory Class I Federal

areas. These studies by Latimer and

Associates 33 and Environ International

Corporation 34 suggest that, to varying

degrees, emissions from each of the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41145

35 Dennis, Robin L. ‘‘Using the Regional Acid

Deposition Model to Determine the Nitrogen

Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed,’’ in Atmospheric Deposition to the

Great Lakes and Coastal Waters, edited by Joel

Baker, 1996.

36 Clean Air Act, section 169A(b)(2).

37See Pitchford, M. and Malm, W. ‘‘Development

and Applications of a Standard Visual Index,’’

Atmospheric Environment, v.28, no. 5, March 1994.

38U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Research

Triangle Park, NC: National Center for

Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and

Development. July 1996.

39EPA has referenced Tribal plans because

section 301(d) of the Act calls for EPA to issue

regulations specifying those provisions of the Act

for which it is appropriate to treat Indian Tribes in

the same manner as States. On August 25, 1994,

EPA published its proposed rules. See 59 FR 43956.

EPA has not yet issued final rules. However, the

proposed rules would allow eligible Tribes that

seek to be treated in the same manner as States to

administer visibility implementation plans. See 59

FR 43966 and 43980. If the final rules addressing

Tribal authority under the Clean Air Act are issued

and similarly allow eligible Indian Tribes to

administer visibility implementation plans, EPA

may make conforming changes in the final visibility

rules proposed here (in this action) to reflect such

potential Tribal plans without providing additional

opportunity for public comment.

contiguous 48 States contribute to PMfine loadings and associated visibility

impairment in at least one mandatory

Class I Federal area. Other analyses

using the Regional Acid Deposition

Model (RADM) have estimated that

sulfate and nitrate deposition receptors

are influenced by sources located up to

600–800 kilometers away. 35 These

analyses, combined with the geographic

distribution of large emission sources

and mandatory Class I Federal areas,

provide the basis for the expanded

applicability of the visibility program to

all States for the purposes of protecting

against visibility impairment due to

regional haze. In addition, the 1993

NAS report observed that the section

169A requirement for a State to revise

its implementation plan if it ‘‘may

reasonably be anticipated’’ to cause or

contribute to impairment in any

mandatory Class I Federal area 36

indicates that Congress intended that

‘‘the philosophy of precautionary action

should apply to visibility protection as

it applies to other areas [such as the

NAAQS].’’

However, this expanded applicability

should not be interpreted by the States

to mean that they will necessarily have

to adopt control strategies for regional

haze immediately. Instead, it means that

a State subject to the program first

should participate in a regional air

quality planning group to further

establish and refine the relative

contributions of various States to

regional haze conditions in mandatory

Class I Federal areas. Thus, it will be

important for all States having

emissions which may be reasonably

anticipated to contribute to regional

haze in mandatory Class I Federal areas

to participate in the planning process

employed to develop regional

recommendations on State

apportionment of emission reduction

and control measure responsibilities.

The States subject to the program will

need to establish or identify existing SIP

authorities enabling the State to take

actions to address its contribution to

visibility problems in other States and

to carry out other proposed planning

requirements. The EPA seeks public

comment on the proposed applicability

of the regional haze visibility protection

program.

Regarding applicability for the

purpose of addressing reasonably

attributable impairment, the existing

regulations continue to apply to the 36

States and territories in which at least

one mandatory Class I Federal area is

located. It should be recognized, the

existing requirement in 40 CFR

51.300(b)(1), along with sections

110(k)(5) and 169A of the Act, provide

EPA with general authority to request a

SIP revision from any State (including

those not having a mandatory Class I

Federal area) in the event that

information exists demonstrating that

emissions from sources in the State are

reasonably anticipated to contribute to

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility

impairment in a mandatory Class I

Federal area located in another State.

F. Definitions

1. Deciview

The proposed reasonable progress

targets are expressed in terms of the

‘‘deciview’’ metric, the definition of

which is proposed in section 301(bb).

The deciview is an atmospheric haze

index that expresses uniform changes in

haziness in terms of common

increments across the entire range of

conditions, from pristine to extremely

impaired environments.37 A one

deciview change in haziness is a small

but noticeable change in haziness under

most circumstances when viewing

scenes in mandatory Class I Federal

areas. The deciview is a means of

expressing atmospheric light extinction,

just as visual range is an expression of

atmospheric light extinction. All three

of these visibility metrics are

mathematically related. Just as in the

case of atmospheric light extinction or

visual range, deciview levels can also be

calculated from ambient PM2.5 and PM10

data using certain assumptions for

average light extinction efficiency

attributed to specific components of PM

(such as sulfates, nitrates, elemental

carbon, and so on). One can use these

same assumptions to evaluate whether

potential emission reduction strategies

will lead to perceptible visibility

changes in the future.

An advantage to using the deciview is

that it can be used to express changes

in visibility impairment linearly with

human perception. The scales for light

extinction coefficient and visual range

do not express perception linearly. For

example, a 5-mile change in visual

range can in some cases be very

significant, such as a change from 5 to

10 miles in an impaired environment,

whereas it may be barely perceptible on

a clearer day (such as from 95 to 100

miles). The EPA recognized the

deciview as an appropriate metric for

regulatory purposes in chapter 8 of the

Staff Paper for the Particulate Matter

NAAQS review.38 The EPA proposes

use of the deciview metric in the

proposed definition of the reasonable

progress target, at 40 CFR 301(z) of the

proposed regulations, because of the

importance that progress for visibility be

measured in terms of ‘‘perceptible’’

changes in visibility, and due to the

simplicity of its useful scale. In contrast,

the sole use of a metric such as emission

reductions or ambient particle mass

would not directly relate to the visibility

conditions since the composition of the

ambient particle mass is key to its effect

on visibility. Additionally, the

atmospheric processes and transport

that affect the way in which pollutant

loadings translate into visibility

impairment varies by location. The EPA

requests comment on its proposed use

of the deciview metric in EPA’s

visibility regulations.

The EPA is also proposing, as noted

in the discussion below, to use the

tracking of pollutant emissions to

supplement the periodic evaluation of

deciview changes in implementing the

regional haze reasonable progress

requirement. When calculating the

ability of a SIP or Tribal plan 39 to

demonstrate reasonable progress, the

States or Tribes can consider other

emissions reduction requirements (e.g.,

emission reductions meeting RFP for the

NAAQS) toward meeting the reasonable

progress target. However, given that

other air quality progress measures rely

on tracking emissions reductions of key

pollutants, the EPA requests comments

regarding appropriate methods for

translating other program metrics into

visibility changes.

2. Reasonable Progress Target

a. Protection for Most Impaired and

Least Impaired Days. The proposed
41146 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

40The IMPROVE network is described in Unit I.H.

of this notice.

41 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21,

1990) (statement of Sen. Adams).

42 GCVTC Report, p. x.

43See proposed 40 CFR 51.306

44See CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 169A(g)(2).

45See proposed 40 CFR 51.301(z).

46See CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(B).

definition in 40 CFR 51.301(z) for

‘‘reasonable progress target’’ sets forth

presumptive quantitative objectives to

be met in each mandatory Class I

Federal area nationally. The proposed

targets provide for progress toward the

national visibility goal of reducing any

existing and preventing any future

impairment by perceptibly improving

the days that are most impaired (i.e., the

average of the 20 percent most impaired

days over an entire year) and allowing

no degradation in the ‘‘cleanest’’ or least

impaired days (i.e., the average of the 20

percent least impaired days over an

entire year). In deciding upon an

appropriate characterization of the

‘‘most’’ and ‘‘least’’ impaired days, EPA

considered the typical frequency of

visibility monitoring in the IMPROVE

network 40 (twice a week), and the

number of samples that would be

available for analysis annually (104

possible samples per year). The EPA

determined that basing these targets on

any fewer than 20 data points annually

would allow an average value to be

unduly influenced by a single

anomalous data point. EPA’s basis is

consistent with the approach used by

the GCVTC in its technical assessment

work. The GCVTC also characterized the

most and least impaired days as the

average of the best and worst 20% days

in a given year.

The approach of improving the most

impaired days and preventing

degradation of the least impaired days is

also supported by the legislative history

of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

and the reasonable progress definition

used by the GCVTC. The legislative

history provides that, ‘‘At a minimum,

progress and improvement must require

that visibility be perceptibly improved

compared to periods of impairment, and

that it not be degraded or impaired

during conditions that historically

contribute to relatively unimpaired

visibility.’’ 41 The approach taken by the

GCVTC, also emphasized improving the

impaired days and protecting the clean

days. The GCVTC interpreted the

requirement for reasonable progress to

be met by ‘‘achieving continuous

emissions reductions necessary to

reduce existing impairment and attain a

steady improvement in visibility in

mandatory Class I areas, and managing

emissions growth so as to prevent

perceptible degradation of clear air

days.’’ 42 In establishing this definition,

the GCVTC in effect set forth continuous

emission reductions as a basic strategy

for meeting the goals of improving the

most impaired days and maintaining the

least impaired days.

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is

similarly providing for ‘‘attaining a

steady improvement in visibility’’ and

‘‘preventing perceptible degradation of

clean air days’’ through its proposed

definition of a reasonable progress

target. Under the proposed rules, States

meeting the reasonable progress target

requirements would satisfy the

reasonable progress requirements of

section 169A for the purpose of

addressing regional haze impairment.

The EPA is setting forth proposed

requirements for periodic reasonable

progress demonstrations to be

developed for all mandatory Class I

Federal areas beginning as early as July

2003 and every 3 years thereafter.43

These demonstrations should

incorporate control strategies developed

by each State, in conjunction with

strategies developed for the NAAQS and

other programs. Recognizing that many

factors will determine if a State can

develop and implement control

measures to meet a specific increment of

visibility change, EPA is also proposing

in 40 CFR 51.306(d)(5) that States, in

consultation with the Federal Land

Managers and approval from EPA, may

develop alternate reasonable progress

targets. At the same time, the alternate

target must be explained based on

relevant statutory factors and may not

allow for visibility degradation.44 The

relevant statutory factors are listed in

section 169A(g)(1) and include the costs

of compliance, the time necessary for

compliance, and the energy and nonair

quality environmental impacts of

compliance, and the remaining useful

life of any existing source subject to

such requirements. Inclusion of the

alternative reasonable progress

provision is intended to recognize that

the qualitative factors listed in the Act

may influence what is considered

‘‘reasonable progress’’ in individual

mandatory class I Federal area. In such

cases consideration of these factors

might lead a State to adopt an

alternative target for a given mandatory

Class I Federal area which might differ

from targets of other mandatory Class I

Federal areas within a larger planning

region. Further discussion of the

alternate progress target is included in

Unit I.I. of this preamble below. The

EPA requests public comment on the

presumptive ‘‘reasonable progress

target’’ proposed in this action as well

as the proposal to allow alternative

targets.

The proposed ‘‘reasonable progress

target’’ has two elements: (1) For the

most impaired days, a rate of

improvement equivalent to 1.0 deciview

over a 10-year or 15-year period; and (2)

for the least impaired days, no increase

in deciview as compared to the baseline

conditions.45 The EPA is proposing two

options for the rate of improvement for

the most impaired days. One option is

1.0 deciview improvement every 10

years, the second option is 1.0 deciview

every 15 years. The EPA proposes to

express the presumptive reasonable

progress targets in terms of deciview

changes to reflect perceptible changes

for complex scenes like those found in

mandatory Federal Class I areas. The

EPA believes it is important to express

progress measures for visibility in terms

of ‘‘perceptible’’ changes.

EPA proposes the presumptive rate of

progress for the most impaired days

equivalent to a 1.0 deciview

improvement over 10 to 15 years for

three main reasons. The first reason is

that tracking visibility over longer time

periods, allows for better analysis of

trends despite inter-annual changes in

weather conditions, transport patterns,

and variances in naturally occurring

emissions of fine particles. Secondly,

the 10 to 15 year time periods are

consistent with the Clean Air Act

requirement for each SIP to contain a

long term strategy for visibility

protection covering the next 10–15

years.46 It logically follows that the

public would expect a visibility strategy

covering a 10 to 15-year period to

actually result in a perceptible

improvement in visibility over that

period. Third, a gradual improvement in

visibility conditions over a 10 to 15 year

period is consistent with the GCVTC

definition of reasonable progress, which

is ‘‘achieving continuous emission

reductions necessary to reduce existing

impairment and attain steady

improvement of visibility in mandatory

Class I areas * * *’’

In considering the choice between the

10 and 15 year options, EPA notes the

following. Both time periods are within

the statutory provisions for long-term

strategies of 10 to 15 years. However,

while the 15-year option allows more

time for States to plan and implement

control strategies, a presumptive rate of

1.0 deciview in 15 years would take 50

percent longer to attain the national goal

than a presumptive rate of 1.0 deciview

in 10 years. Congress did not specify a

time frame within which the national
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41147

47See proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(2).

goal is to be achieved, but given the

magnitude of current impairment in

some areas, even with the more

expeditious 10-year presumptive target,

it will take a long time to achieve the

national visibility goal in all mandatory

Class I Federal areas. At the same time,

the costs of the program may be

substantial (see Unit II.A below). The

more conservative 15-year presumptive

target would allow these costs to be

spread out over a longer time period.

The EPA solicits comment on these two

options for presumptive rate of

improvement for the most impaired

days.

With respect to the ‘‘no degradation’’

target (0.0 deciview change) for the least

impaired days, EPA believes this target

is consistent with the national goal of

preventing future impairment, as well as

with the GCVTC definition of

reasonable progress (‘‘* * * managing

emissions growth so as to prevent

perceptible degradation of clean air

days’’).

The EPA solicits comment on these

and any other proposed options for

reasonable progress targets for the most

impaired and least impaired days.

Commenters should address how

alternative proposals would ensure

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility protection goal.

The proposed regulations require

States to provide a demonstration of

reasonable progress every 3 years. The

EPA intends that a demonstration of

compliance with the presumptive

reasonable progress targets be the

principal means of measuring

reasonable progress with respect to

regional haze impairment. Measures to

achieve this progress must include

measures to address Best Available

Retrofit Technology requirements and

other measures necessary to achieve

such progress that are contained in State

SIPs and long-term strategies.

b. Determining Baseline Conditions.

The demonstration of compliance with

the reasonable progress targets,

beginning as early as 2003, will require

States to determine the baseline

conditions, for both the haziest days and

the clearest days, 47 for all mandatory

Class I Federal areas in the State. The

EPA proposes that for each Class I area

in the State, the State computes a simple

annual average of the haziest and

clearest days to establish a record over

time. As noted in the previous section,

the haziest and clearest days are to be

represented by the average of the 20%

highest and lowest deciview values

measured each calendar year. Baseline

values should be calculated based on a

minimum of three years of monitoring

data collected at the Class I area, or at

a monitoring location that is determined

to be representative of that Class I area.

EPA would allow up to nine years of

monitoring data collected prior to the

first reasonable progress demonstration

SIP submittal (due as early as 2003) to

be used to establish baseline haziest and

clearest conditions. Currently, there are

30 Class I sites with 8 consecutive years

of visibility monitoring data (1988–95).

A baseline established on more than

three years of data may better account

for inter-annual variability due to

meteorology. However, a baseline

established on more than three years of

data also may not accurately represent

current conditions if significant

emission reductions have occurred

during that time period. The EPA is

considering allowing any State that

establishes a baseline using only three

years of data to call that baseline an

interim baseline, and to be able to

modify that baseline at the time of

future reasonable progress

demonstration SIP revisions so that up

to nine years of data are used for

establishing a final baseline. It should

be noted that if there are substantial

changes to regional emissions during

this time period that affect visibility

levels (e.g. large reduction in emissions

from the acid rain program) then the

State should demonstrate why use of

that time period is appropriate for

baseline determinations. The EPA

solicits comment on this approach for

setting baselines from which to track

reasonable progress for the haziest and

cleanest days, specifically on the use of

the simple annual averaging of the

twenty percent haziest and clearest

days, on the three year minimum and

nine year maximum number of years

used in establishing current baseline

conditions, and on the interim baseline

concept.

It is proposed that tracking of the

haziest and clearest days be maintained

on a three year SIP review and revision

cycle. The EPA is contemplating using

a simple average of the 20 percent most

impaired days and the 20 percent least

impaired days for each year over a three

year period as the indicator for

determining whether the ‘‘reasonable

progress target’’ is being met. Since a

three year period may be subject to

higher variation in both meteorological

conditions and natural emissions that

impair visibility than a ten-year period,

EPA is considering supplementing the

three year review of measured visibility

progress with evaluation of the

emissions reductions used to support

the planned improvement in visibility

during SIP development. This

evaluation of planned emission

reductions is based on the approach

taken by the GCVTC in calling for

continuous emissions reductions and

tracking. Analysis of IMPROVE data

collected since 1988 shows that some

sites may not be meeting the proposed

reasonable progress targets. If the

monitoring data representing a Class I

area does not track along the

presumptive reasonable progress rate,

the State would need to review

emissions inventory estimates for both

anthropogenic and natural emissions

and anthropogenic emissions reduction

assumptions, that were used in

estimating compliance with the

presumptive rate as part of the three

year SIP revision process. If

anthropogenic emissions tracked as

planned, the State, using any additional

visibility data (i.e., optical instrument

measurements) and meteorological data,

should demonstrate that current

emissions strategies will make progress

in the next 3-year planning period. A

State would need to revise its SIP

emission reduction strategies in order to

bring the visibility conditions to a level

at or below the reasonable progress

target when anthropogenic emissions

were shown to exceed levels used in

planning to meet the reasonable

progress target. The EPA solicits

comment on this approach toward

tracking the reasonable progress target,

specifically on (1) approaches other

than a simple block average, (2) the

approach for compliance with the

presumptive target supplemented by a

check on anthropogenic emissions, and

(3) on whether the compliance

assessment should be set forth in the

regulations proposed here or in

guidance.

Under the proposed rules, once the

visibility conditions for the haziest days

in a mandatory Class I Federal area are

within 1.0 deciview of natural

conditions, the visibility SIP would be

considered a type of maintenance plan.

The reasonable progress demonstration

would need to reflect no further

degradation of visibility conditions for

both the haziest and clearest days

consistent with the national goal to

prevent future impairment.

Due to the broad variety of scenic,

atmospheric, and lighting conditions at

the mandatory Class I Federal areas

across the country, at any specific time

a given area may contain vistas for

which slightly more or less than one

deciview above background conditions

represents a perceptible impact for the

components of the scene. For example,

a view of a snow-capped mountain may

be more sensitive to changes in air
41148 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

quality than a view of a forest with the

result that less than a 1.0 deciview

change is perceptible for that portion of

the scene. Conversely, in another scene

a deciview change slightly greater than

1.0 may not be perceptible. The EPA

proposes a one deciview increment

above natural conditions to be perceived

as sufficiently near to natural conditions

for those sensitive scenes that are

thought to exist in all mandatory Class

I Federal areas. However EPA

acknowledges that for specific scenes a

greater or lesser deciview change can be

perceived, and so requests comments on

whether it would be more appropriate to

establish a 0.5 deciview, 1.5 deciview,

or 2.0 deciview cut point for

determining when visibility planning

should become exclusively preventative

to assure maintenance of existing

natural conditions.

This concern is less important for the

presumptive reasonable progress target

of 1.0 deciview improvement in the

haziest days every ten to fifteen years

contained in today’s proposal.

Generally, a rate of progress for the

haziest days equivalent to 1.0 deciview

every 10 or 15 years should result in a

perceptible improvement across the

range of complex views found in all

Class I areas. If there are particular Class

I areas for which a slight variation can

be demonstrated, the adequacy of 1.0

deciview in realizing perceptible

improvement may be a relevant

consideration in evaluating an

alternative reasonable progress target so

that a perceptible improvement is the

target for the planning period.

c. Protecting Vistas Seen From Within

Class I Areas. The proposed

presumptive reasonable progress targets

are designed to improve visibility

conditions in all mandatory Class I

Federal areas. The scenic vistas enjoyed

by visitors to many parks often extend

to important natural features outside

these parks. In developing the 1980

program addressing reasonably

attributable impairment, the EPA

afforded the Federal Land Managers the

opportunity to account for specific

impairment outside of the mandatory

Federal class I areas by establishing

‘‘integral vistas.’’ Integral vistas are

views perceived from within a

mandatory Class I Federal area of a

specific panorama or landmark located

outside the Class I area boundary. These

vistas are considered ‘‘integral’’ to the

enjoyment of the Class I area and were

afforded a level of protection similar to

views contained within the Class I

boundaries. With respect to regional

haze, a monitoring station in or near the

Class I area that is established as

representing the regional haze

conditions for that area may not be

representative of all views that can be

seen from that Class I area, many of

which may have been critical to the

reasons Congress established these

protected areas. The EPA solicits

comment on whether, under a regional

haze program, such important views

require special protection, what support

under the Clean Air Act exists for

establishment of such protection, and

the appropriate mechanism for

protecting such views outside Class I

areas within requirements of a State

implementation plan.

d. Calculating Changes in Deciviews.

The revised rule proposes in 40 CFR

51.306(d) that every 3 years, States

perform a comparison of actual or

representative monitoring data to

presumptive reasonable progress targets.

The EPA expects that tracking of

visibility conditions will be

accomplished by measuring the particle

constituents at representative

monitoring sites using techniques

developed and peer-reviewed, such as

those used in the IMPROVE monitoring

network. Progress is to be tracked in

terms of deciviews. Deciviews can be

calculated from light extinction values

derived from speciated particle

monitoring (known as reconstructed

light extinction), or from optical

measurements of light scattering

(nephelometers) or light extinction

(transmissometers). A deciview measure

derived from reconstructed light

extinction avoids the need of

eliminating data for weather events

which can obstruct optical monitoring

devices and therefore allows for a

consistent technique to be applied from

year to year. The EPA solicits comments

on using a reconstructed light extinction

approach as the basis for calculating

visibility changes in terms of deciview,

whether this approach should be

specifically included in the regulatory

requirements, and on other approaches

for calculating visibility changes using

other monitoring information collected

at Class I areas.

G. Implementation Plan Revisions

1. SIPs Due 12 Months After

Promulgation

40 CFR 51.302 of the existing

visibility regulations required States to

revise implementation plans within 9

months of rule promulgation to include

a long-term strategy for making progress

toward the national goal, provisions for

notification of Federal Land Managers

for certain new source permits, a

monitoring strategy, an assessment of

visibility impairment in mandatory

Class I Federal areas, and emission

limitations representing BART. Under

40 CFR 51.306(c) in the existing

regulations, long-term strategies are to

be reviewed and revised as appropriate

every three years.

Proposed section 40 CFR

51.302(a)(1)(ii) would require States to

submit visibility SIP revisions for

regional haze within 12 months of

issuance of the final regional haze rules.

This is consistent with section

169B(c)(2) of the Act and comparable to

the time allowed for visibility SIP

revisions under the 1980 regulations.

Based on the current schedule, EPA

plans to finalize this rule in February

1998, so the first visibility SIP revision

would be due 12 months later, in

February 1999.

The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR

51.302 of the existing regulations be

revised to incorporate timing

requirements for future SIP revisions

and to outline additional plan elements

required specifically to address regional

haze impairment. Specifically, proposed

40 CFR 51.302(a)(1)(ii) requires that

implementation plans be revised to

require States to in the future revise

SIPs in accordance with the proposed

new timing requirements in proposed

40 CFR 51.306(c). In this proposed

section, the next implementation plan

revision is required 4 years later in

order to coordinate implementation

plan revisions with those for the

NAAQS to the extent possible. Future

visibility implementation plan revisions

are required in proposed 40 CFR

51.306(c) every 3 years thereafter. These

implementation plan revisions will

include an assessment of whether

reasonable progress targets have been

met for all mandatory Class I Federal

areas in the State, and emission

reduction strategies as appropriate for

meeting reasonable progress targets for

each subsequent 3-year period.

Many of the 40 CFR 51.302 elements

currently required in visibility SIPs for

reasonably attributable impairment will

also be needed in visibility SIPs to

address regional haze impairment.

These include provisions for

coordination with FLMs as found in 40

CFR 51.302(b) of the existing regulations

for which EPA is proposing revisions

related to regional haze, and general

implementation plan requirements for a

long-term strategy and a monitoring

strategy, as found in the existing 40 CFR

51.302(c).

In addition, implementation plan

requirements due within 12 months that

are specific to regional haze are

proposed in 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5). The

proposed revision identifies two

principal new elements: identification

of sources potentially subject to BART,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41149

48See CAA section 169A(g)(2).

49See CAA section 169A(b)(2).

50See CAA section 169A(b)(2). The legislative

history also explains that at a minimum, visibility

SIPs are to include two principal elements: BART

and the long-term strategy. H.R. Rep. No. 564, 95th

Congress, 1st Sess. at 154 (1977).

51The 1993 report of the National Research

Council, Protecting Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas, provides an example, using a

speciated rollback model, of the apportionment of

anthropogenic light extinction among source types

in the eastern, southwestern, and northwestern

United States. This example illustrates some of the

key issues that arise in any apportionment of

visibility impairment.

52REMSAD and MODELS3 are regional-scale

computer models under development that will

predict particulate matter and visual air quality

based on emissions, transport, and atmospheric

chemistry.

and revisions as necessary for the State

to meet the requirements under section

110(a)(2) of the Act as they pertain to

implementation of measures to address

regional haze. These elements are

discussed in greater detail in the next

two sections below.

2. Plan Revisions To Address Best

Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

The first new element in proposed 40

CFR 51.302(c)(5) requires States to

identify, within the first 12 months after

rule promulgation, sources located in

the State that are potentially subject to

BART (i.e., ‘‘existing stationary

facilities’’ as defined in existing 40 CFR

51.301(e)). The list should include those

sources potentially subject to BART that

emit any air pollutant which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to regional haze visibility

impairment in any mandatory Class I

Federal area, and which meet certain

specific criteria. These criteria require

that potential BART sources are major

stationary sources, including

reconstructed sources, from one of 26

identified source categories which have

the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of

any air pollutant, and which were

placed into operation between August

1962 and August 1977. The 26 source

categories identified in existing 40 CFR

51.301(e) and section 169A(g)(7) of the

Clean Air Act include sources such as

electric utilities, smelters, petroleum

refineries, and kraft pulp mills. The

purpose of this requirement is to have

the States identify early in the planning

process the universe of sources

potentially subject to BART so related

information can be taken into account in

developing future control strategies,

both for the NAAQS and regional haze.

Several factors must be taken into

consideration in determining BART,

including the technology available, the

costs of compliance, the energy and

nonair environmental impacts of

compliance, any pollution control

equipment in use at the source, the

remaining useful life of the source, and

the degree of improvement in visibility

which may reasonably be anticipated to

result from the use of such technology.48

The provisions in the Act requiring

BART appear to demonstrate Congress’

intention to focus attention on this

specific set of large existing sources,

which are minimally controlling

emissions, as possible candidates for

emissions reductions needed to make

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal.

Note that the States are responsible

for revising their SIPs to contain ‘‘such

emission limits, schedules of

compliance, and other measures’’ as

may be necessary to make reasonable

progress toward the national visibility

goal.49 Such implementation plan

revisions are to include, at a minimum,

provisions meeting the BART and longterm strategy requirements of the Act.50

Thus, these SIPs can ensure reasonable

progress by addressing emissions

reductions from a wide range of existing

emissions sources that may reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute to

regional haze impairment, some of

which are specifically subject to the

BART requirement and some of which

are not.

Proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(5) also

requires States to submit within 12

months a plan and schedule for

evaluating BART for applicable sources

within the next 3 years after rule

promulgation (i.e., between February

1998 and February 2001). A three-year

time frame has been proposed for this

requirement so that possible emission

limits and associated emission

reductions for all applicable BART

sources can be integrated into future

regional modeling and control strategy

development activities for attainment of

the PM2.5 and ozone standards as well.

In this way, States can assess the degree

to which reductions from sources

subject to BART will also benefit other

air quality problems, and vice versa. In

this way, States can explore ways to

integrate control strategies for ozone and

PM with the requirement for BART. It

is expected that control strategy options

will be analyzed by States as part of

regional technical assessments.

The EPA believes that because

regional haze is the cumulative product

of emissions from many sources over a

broad area, the test for determining

whether a single source ‘‘may

reasonably be anticipated to contribute’’

to regional haze in a mandatory Class I

Federal area should not involve

extremely costly or lengthy studies of

specific sources. The National Academy

of Sciences report supports this

recommendation, stating that ‘‘it would

be an extremely time-consuming and

expensive undertaking to try to

determine, one source at a time, the

percent contribution of each source to

haze.’’ While one of the factors to

consider in determining BART is ‘‘the

degree of improvement in visibility

which may reasonably be anticipated,’’

EPA believes this factor should be

evaluated to reflect the degree of

improvement in visibility that could be

expected at each class I area if BART

requirements are implemented for

applicable BART sources. This

evaluation would be similar to

developing attainment strategies for the

NAAQS, and could be accomplished

using a basic technique, such as a

speciated rollback approach,51 or a more

complex technique, such as a regional

model (like REMSAD or MODELS3).52

Thus, while the other BART factors

would be evaluated for each source that

is reasonably anticipated to contribute

to regional haze in a mandatory Class I

Federal area, EPA proposes that the

degree of visibility improvement

expected to result would be evaluated in

the context of the overall emissions

reduction strategy. As the descriptive

name ‘‘regional haze’’ implies, regional

haze is characterized by regional or

region wide impairment of mandatory

Class I Federal areas. The EPA requests

public comments on this proposed

approach for the BART assessment

process for regional haze.

By comparison, under the existing

visibility regulations, the BART process

is triggered by the Federal land

manager. The FLM may certify to the

State at any time that impairment exists

in any mandatory Class I Federal area.

See existing 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1). State

implementation plans must provide for

a BART analysis for any existing

stationary facility that may cause or

contribute to ‘‘reasonably attributable’’

impairment in any Class I area

identified by the Federal land manager.

In determining BART, the State must

consider the various factors listed in

section 169A(g)(2), including costs of

compliance and the degree of

improvement in visibility which may

reasonably be anticipated to result from

the use of such technology on a specific

source. See existing 40 CFR 51.301(c).

The proposed approach to evaluating

potential improvements in regional haze

visibility impairment due to BART

differs from the current approach for

reasonably attributable impairment in

that the degree to which visibility is

expected to improve in a mandatory
41150 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Class I Federal area would take into

account the emission reductions from

the multiple sources affecting that Class

I area. An alternative approach would

be to evaluate the degree of

improvement in regional haze

impairment expected from each specific

BART source. Under this approach, a

single source’s contribution to regional

haze visibility impairment in a Class I

area would be assessed. Section

169A(b)(2)(A) provides that BART is

required for applicable sources that emit

air pollution that is reasonably

anticipated to contribute to any

visibility impairment in a Class I area.

Thus, the ‘‘degree of improvement’’

estimated under section 169A(g)(2),

which in most cases may be less than

perceptible, would be based on the

improvement projected from a single

BART source. The concern with this

approach is the substantial technical

difficulty in establishing source-specific

receptor relationships for a regional

transport environmental effect. The

National Academy of Sciences

Committee on Haze in National Parks

and Wilderness Areas has expressed

doubt that such source specific

attributions could be the basis for a

workable visibility protection program.

However, allowing assessment of BART

sources on a source-specific basis would

not preclude States from including

controls on BART sources in their longterm strategy in order to achieve the

applicable reasonable progress targets,

even if source-specific impairment

could not be demonstrated. This option

would likely give States greater

flexibility in developing the most costeffective means to address the BART

and long-term strategy requirements.

The EPA requests comment on these

alternative approaches to implementing

the BART and long-term strategy

requirements to address regional haze

visibility impairment.

In the proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3),

this action also sets forth the timing

requirement for States to include

provisions to address the BART

requirement in their implementation

plans due in July 2003 except as

discussed in Unit I.I. This approach is

consistent with recommendations of the

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee

(CAAAC) and its Subcommittee to

integrate control strategies across

programs to the greatest extent possible.

The CAAAC’s Subcommittee on Ozone,

Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs is currently

discussing a number of issues related to

control strategies, and EPA intends to

consider any CAAAC recommendations

in future implementation guidance.

Finally, with respect to proposed

regulatory changes related to BART,

EPA notes that the existing 40 CFR

51.302(c)(4)(iv) of the existing visibility

regulations requires BART to be

implemented no later than five years

after ‘‘plan approval.’’ EPA proposes to

clarify this provision to read ‘‘plan

approval or revision’’ consistent with

section 169A(g)(4) of the Act.

The EPA requests comment on all of

the proposed BART requirements

discussed above including whether

additional regulatory revisions beyond

those addressed here are necessary.

While EPA requests comment on

possible emission reduction strategies to

be used for implementing BART and

long-term strategy requirements under

the regional haze program, EPA also

expects to address more specific control

strategy options for BART and the longterm strategy requirements for regional

haze in later guidance.

3. Plan Revisions for Section 110(a)(2)

Requirements

The second element of proposed 40

CFR 51.302(c)(5) relates to SIP revisions

necessary to meet the various

requirements under section 110(a)(2) of

the Act. Section 169B(e)(2) provides for

EPA to require States to revise their

section 110 implementation plans

within 12 months to contain ‘‘such

emission limits, schedules of

compliance, and other measures as

necessary’’ to carry out these

regulations. In addition, visibility

protection is specifically provided for in

section 110(a)(2)(J).

The elements of section 110(a)(2) are

critical to establishing a strong

foundation for ongoing implementation

of the visibility protection program. The

EPA believes that during this initial 12-

month period, the States should focus

first on plan requirements providing for

adequate future planning activities in

conjunction with other States.

Important planning activities include

development of enhanced emission

inventories and emissions tracking

systems, monitoring network

deployment, and refinement of regional

models. The EPA encourages all States

to participate in regional planning

activities. This planning will then

facilitate the future assessment of

regional strategies to achieve reasonable

progress targets, and will also provide

beneficial data and tools needed for

attainment of the new ozone and PM

NAAQS.

States will need to address each of the

section 110 elements needing revision

to support implementation of the

revised visibility program. The EPA

believes that the following sections

should be closely reviewed for meeting

the needs of a regional haze program.

• Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires the

State plan to contain adequate

provisions to prohibit interstate

transport that contributes significantly

to nonattainment in or interferes with

maintenance by other States with

respect to the NAAQS or interferes with

measures in other States to protect

visibility. This provision is highlighted

to emphasize the critical role of

transport in dealing with visibility

issues and to serve as an incentive to

regional planning and cooperation

among States.

• Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to

provide for air quality modeling for the

NAAQS and collection of necessary

emissions inventory information to use

as input to the models. Many primary

and secondary PM and ozone emissions

(VOC, NOX, SO2, ammonia, primary

PM, elemental carbon, organic carbon)

also result in visibility impairment, so

developing enhanced statewide

emission inventories for these

pollutants will benefit all three

programs. Further, sections 110(a)(2)(F),

110(a)(2)(A), and 169A(b) provide

specific authority for emissions

inventory requirements and general

authority to require measures necessary

to protect visibility. It will be important

for States to develop inventories both

for sources potentially subject to BART,

and for other sources that are reasonably

anticipated to contribute to regional

haze visibility impairment. The

inventories can then be used as inputs

to regional models and possibly as the

basis for regional pollutant trading

programs, as suggested by the GCVTC.

Integrated modeling tools such as

MODELS3 are under development

which will be able to predict ozone and

PM concentrations, as well as the

resulting regional haze, using the

enhanced inventory data. It is

anticipated that emission inventory

inputs to regional modeling will be

needed in the 1999–2000 time frame.

The need for enhanced inventory

development and expanded regional

modeling capabilities has been greatly

emphasized by a number of

organizations, including the GCVTC and

CAAAC.

• Section 110(a)(2)(B). Expansion of

the existing visibility monitoring

network to provide for representative

monitoring of all Class I areas is the

third major technical task for State

emphasis. Proposed revisions related to

monitoring are more fully discussed in

Unit I.H. of this action.

• Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires States

to submit enforceable emission limits

and compliance schedules. The EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41151

believes that, in general, enforceable

‘‘emission limitations’’ and ‘‘schedules

of compliance’’ as required under

sections 169A and 169B of the Act

should be appropriately incorporated

into SIPs after assessment of regional

strategies can be coordinated with the

ozone and PM implementation

programs. However, it is important to

recognize that regional haze ‘‘areas of

concern’’ (i.e., mandatory Class I

Federal areas) are already defined, and

modeling work can begin early in the

planning process to define the areas of

influence affecting them. In addition,

there may be some parts of the country

that have no nonattainment areas (or

areas of violation) for which the

assessment of regional strategies for

haze could proceed earlier, but these

modeling activities would be dependent

upon completion of inventory

enhancements and availability of

adequate regional models.

Timing requirements for future SIP

revisions after the ‘‘12-month SIP’’ are

included in proposed section 40 CFR

51.306(c). The proposal states that the

next SIP revision will be due 4 years

after the first SIP revision is required, in

July 2003, except as noted below. By

doing this, EPA seeks to allow for

integration of planning activities and

control strategy development to the

maximum extent possible. The EPA

recognizes that the implementation

schedule for the Ozone and PM NAAQS

may change in light of monitoring data

availability and other factors related to

development of a SIP attainment

strategy.

In light of EPA’s intent to foster

coordinated planning and

implementation of the regional haze

requirements proposed and the new

PM2.5 while still addressing the need to

ensure reasonable progress in

addressing visibility impairment, EPA is

also proposing to allow States preparing

nonattainment plans for fine particulate

matter (PM2.5) to submit their regional

haze emissions control strategy SIP

revisions by but not later than the

required date for submittal of the State’s

PM2.5 attainment control strategy SIP

revisions. See proposed 40 CFR 51.306

(d)(3) and (d)(6). This approach would

allow the initial emissions management

measures portion of the regional haze

long-term strategies to be developed in

conjunction with the first round of

PM2.5 nonattainment actions. EPA also

takes comment on how to appropriately

balance coordination among SIP

requirements with the potential delay in

ensuring reasonable progress toward the

national visibility protection goal.

The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(c) also

states that visibility SIPs are to be

revised every 3 years thereafter (e.g.,

2006, 2009, etc.) This requirement is

consistent with the overall need to track

reasonable progress over time, as well as

with the 3-year requirement for longterm strategy review and revision in the

current rules. The EPA has clarified this

provision by proposing to remove

reference to periodic review and

revision ‘‘as appropriate.’’ The EPA

proposes to require a SIP revision every

3 years, and proposes that the process

for developing the plan revision include

consideration of a ‘‘report’’ outlining

progress toward the national goal. The

EPA believes that a requirement for

regular SIP revisions will result in a

more effective program over time and

provide a focus for demonstrating

ongoing progress and making midcourse corrections in emissions

strategies.

To the extent possible, the EPA will

endeavor to coordinate timing

requirements for RFP submittals for the

NAAQS with long-term strategy

revisions for visibility. The timing of

progress reviews for RFP for the NAAQS

will be addressed in future guidance.

Instead of periodic SIP revisions every

three years, the EPA is also considering

requiring that the SIPs be revised every

5 years after the initial visibility longterm strategy SIP (e.g., 2008, 2013, etc.).

This would allow more time for

collection of visibility data to be used in

assessing compliance with the visibility

target. This longer time period would

also be less influenced by unusual

meteorological conditions than a threeyear period. Periodic five-year revisions

would also reduce the administrative

burden on the States. However, a fiveyear period may not as easily allow for

mid-course corrections in sufficient

time to ensure meeting the progress

target over a 10-year or 15-year period.

A 5-year revision period would also be

inconsistent with the 3-year timing for

long-term strategy revisions for

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment in the existing rules. The

EPA requests public comment on the

frequency of periodic SIP revisions. In

particular, EPA seeks public input on

whether a five-year periodic SIP

revision schedule would be more

appropriate. In considering a 5-year

review period for regional haze, the EPA

also seeks comment on whether it

should revise current rules to adopt a 5-

year SIP revision schedule for

‘‘reasonable attributable’’ impairment

SIP requirements to allow for

administrative efficiency.

H. Visibility Monitoring

Visibility monitoring is authorized

under the section 169A(b)(1) provision

for issuing guidelines to the States on

monitoring, the section 169A(b)(2)

provision requiring SIPs to address

‘‘other measures as may be necessary,’’

as well as the section 110(a)(2)(B)

authority requiring State

implementation plans to provide for the

monitoring of ambient air quality. Since

1986, visibility monitoring (using

aerosol, optical, and photographic

techniques) has been coordinated

through the IMPROVE program, a

cooperative, multi-agency approach

with participation by EPA, the FLMs,

and States. Each of the participants in

the IMPROVE Steering Committee

contributes funding for the purchase

and operation of monitoring equipment,

and participates in resource and siting

decisions. Speciated fine PM data and

reconstructed light extinction data has

been collected since 1988 for 30 sites,

and more than 60 sites have at least 1

year of data collected using IMPROVE

protocols. The IMPROVE protocols and

quality assurance procedures that have

been enhanced over the years are the

basis for forthcoming EPA guidance.

EPA believes that continued

coordination of visibility monitoring is

critical due to the common

responsibilities of States, FLMs, and

EPA for visibility protection. Proposed

in 40 CFR 51.305(b) are various

monitoring requirements for

implementation of the regional haze

program, including a requirement that

development of monitoring strategies be

coordinated with the FLMs and other

agencies, such as EPA, that are involved

in existing visibility monitoring efforts.

Proposed 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(iv)

requires States to submit monitoring

strategies (revisions for those States

with existing strategies) as part of their

implementation plans within 12 months

of promulgation, and proposed section

40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(v) requires

revisions of these strategies four years

later (in 2003), and every 3 years

thereafter, at the same time that longterm strategy revisions would be

required.

A central element of each State’s

visibility program will be the

demonstration every 3 years of current

trends in visibility compared to

reasonable progress targets for each

mandatory Class I Federal area in the

State. This demonstration must rely on

historical monitoring data to the greatest

extent possible. Since visibility

monitoring does not exist at all 156

mandatory Class I Federal areas, it will

be essential for each State to develop a

monitoring strategy, in conjunction with

the appropriate FLMs and other States,

which ensures that ‘‘representative’’

monitoring has been or will be
41152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

established for each mandatory Class I

Federal area in the State.

Proposed 40 CFR 51.305(b)(2) requires

that additional monitoring sites be

established within 12 months of plan

submittal as necessary to ensure that

progress in relation to the reasonable

progress targets can be determined. The

EPA recognizes that due to resource

limitations, it would be difficult to

establish monitoring sites at all 156

mandatory Class I Federal areas. This

section, in conjunction with the

proposed new provisions in 40 CFR

51.305(b)(1) and (b)(3), call for the

establishment of additional monitoring

sites such that monitoring can be

considered representative of all Class I

areas. The EPA believes that several

additional sites are needed to more

effectively characterize regional

transport of haze on a national basis.

However, the concept of a

‘‘representative’’ network will likely be

the subject of much discussion, and

ultimately it will need to incorporate

both technical and policy concerns of

the States and FLMs. The EPA

encourages the States and FLMs to

discuss this issue in depth, possibly

using the IMPROVE Steering Committee

as a forum for further discussion. EPA

takes comment on whether 12 months

from plan submittal is an adequate

amount of time for installation of new

sites.

In the strategy, the participants in the

monitoring network should address the

following questions:

—For areas with monitoring funded

solely by one agency, will such

monitoring remain in place until the

next progress demonstration?

—For an area without existing

monitoring, is there a monitoring site

nearby that can be considered

‘‘representative’’ of this area? If not,

the strategy should implement the

addition of a site to the network.

—For which mandatory Class I Federal

areas in the State will new visibility

or fine particle monitoring be initiated

within the next 3 years?

The EPA plans to issue a visibility

monitoring guidance document in the

near future that will be designed to

assist the States in developing this

monitoring strategy. The document will

provide guidance for determining

‘‘representative’’ sites and will include

technical criteria and procedures for

conducting aerosol, optical, and scene

monitoring of visibility conditions in

Class I areas. The procedures currently

used in the IMPROVE network will be

included in this guidance. For the

purpose of assuring that monitoring data

will be complete in assessing and

modifying long-term strategies, States

should review the existing monitoring

strategy with the FLMs and other

participating agencies to assess the need

for additional monitoring sites or

modifications to existing ones on the

same periodic basis as the long-term

strategy revisions.

States should emphasize the

coordination of the design of monitoring

networks for PM2.5 and visibility to the

greatest extent possible in order to

optimize resources. In some situations,

existing visibility monitoring sites can

be used to meet Part 58 requirements to

characterize regional PM2.5 levels.

However, States needing to establish

new PM2.5 monitoring sites to

characterize regional levels should

consider siting new monitors at or near

a mandatory Class I Federal area that

currently has no monitoring.

Reconstructed light extinction can be

calculated for any PM2.5 site collecting

aerosol data that undergoes

compositional analysis. This

information can help fill certain spatial

gaps and can be used for calibration of

regional models for PM and visibility, as

well as for assessments of visibility

nationally under the secondary

particulate matter standard.

Proposed 40 CFR 51.305(b)(4) requires

the States to report to EPA all visibility

monitoring data on at least an annual

basis. The characterization of visibility

trends is one important reason for this

requirement. It will be important for

States to track annual trends in relation

to the reasonable progress targets.

Annual trend data can provide the

States with an early indication of the

effectiveness of current strategies in

meeting presumptive reasonable

progress targets for specific mandatory

Class I Federal areas before the triennial

long-term strategy review comes due.

Annual consolidation of this data will

also enable EPA to better characterize

national and regional visibility trends in

its annual air quality trends report.

Another important reason for this

requirement is to provide for the

ultimate integration of monitoring data

from the new PM2.5 monitoring network

and the visibility monitoring network,

both of which will include PM2.5 and

PM10 mass as well as compositional

analysis by aerosol species. Class I area

particle mass and speciation data can

fill important data gaps in defining

regional concentrations for air quality

modeling analyses. As noted above, EPA

seeks for these two monitoring networks

to be developed in a complementary

manner.

Due to the well-established quality

assurance procedures and accessibility

of data collected through the IMPROVE

network, EPA does not expect this

reporting requirement to be

exceptionally burdensome. The

electronic transfer of data should

facilitate the process as well. The EPA

requests public comment on its

proposed requirement for reporting of

data, and on the other proposed

revisions to the visibility monitoring

requirements.

I. Long-Term Strategy

The existing long-term strategy

provisions in 40 CFR 51.306 require

several basic elements:

—A strategy for making reasonable

progress in improving visibility in all

mandatory Class I Federal areas in the

State. Specifically, the strategy should

include measures necessary to remedy

any reasonably attributable

impairment certified by a FLM. The

strategy should specify emission

reduction measures for sources

subject to BART requirements, and for

other sources causing or contributing

to such visibility impairment in these

areas. The strategy should also

include measures necessary for

reasonable progress to be achieved in

other mandatory Class I Federal areas

located outside the State that may be

affected by emissions within the

State.

—A SIP assessment every 3 years,

including a review of progress made

and a revision of the long-term

strategy as appropriate, including

consultation with the FLM and a

report to EPA and the public.

—Provisions for review of new source

impacts on visibility.

—Coordination with existing plans and

goals, including those of FLMs.

The basic framework for the long-term

strategy provisions in 40 CFR 51.306

remains the same. The proposed

revisions do not affect the on-going

requirement for States to continue to

address reasonably attributable

impairment while adding new

provisions to address regional haze

impairment. The EPA has specifically

revised the regulation to preserve the

requirements in the existing visibility

program for addressing reasonably

attributable impairment. These

requirements are to continue to be

implemented independent of whether

the State is currently meeting reasonable

progress targets or not. Proposed 40 CFR

51.306(a)(1) has been revised to address

this point. This proposed revision

requires the State to first identify

whether there is an active certification

of reasonably attributable impairment

for any Class I area in the State. If an

active certification is pending, the long-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41153

term strategy needs to address the

progress made in assessing BART

pursuant to this certification and other

related activities. This proposed section

provides that all other visibility

impairment will be considered as

regional haze and be addressed in

accordance with other provisions in 40

CFR 51.306, including the proposed 40

CFR 51.306(d).

The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d) (1)

and (2) set forth requirements for the

State, within 12 months to develop a

procedure that will, by a date 5 years

from rule promulgation, determine

current visibility conditions for every

mandatory Class I Federal area. The

procedure should provide for

coordination with the FLMs and use

appropriate data available or planned

for under the monitoring plan. Current

conditions are to be defined (or

estimated for mandatory Class I Federal

areas without monitoring at the time of

promulgation of these revisions) for the

average of the 20 percent most impaired

days and 20 percent least impaired

days, using the deciview scale. The

State should use all years where

monitoring data are available or

estimation and apportionment

techniques noted in Agency guidance

can be applied. As mentioned in the

discussion of the baseline in Part E.

above, a minimum of three years of

monitoring data should be used.

Adjustments to a baseline using 3 years

of data can be made using more ambient

data up to nine consecutive years.

In addition, proposed 40 CFR

51.306(d)(1) requires the State to

establish a procedure in consultation

with the FLMs by which levels of

naturally-occurring PM-fine and

visibility will be established within five

years. Estimates from NAPAP 1990 and

developed by Trijonis (PM2.5: 1.5 μg/m3

in west, 3.3 μg/m3 in east) may be

converted to deciview and used as a

default as necessary. After the SIP

revision due in 2003, these assessments

will then be required every 3 years. The

periodic assessment of natural and

current conditions should take into

consideration new findings from the

research community, improved

emissions estimates for wildfire,

prescribed fire and windblown dust,

and any future policies for ecosystem

management, prescribed fire, and so on.

The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(3)

also requires that the regional haze longterm strategy submitted within 1 year of

the final promulgation of these rules

include provisions for requiring that for

each Class I area with existing

anthropogenic impairment greater than

1 deciview, the State shall within 5

years of rule promulgation (except in

the case of States concurrently

preparing nonattainment control

strategy SIP revisions for PM2.5) adopt

measures and revise its SIP to include

emission reduction strategies that would

meet the reasonable progress targets

within the next 3-year period. These

measures are to address the best

available retrofit technology

requirement, as well as other necessary

measures from non-BART sources to

ensure that reasonable progress targets

are achieved. Such measures should

include a combination of local and

regional measures. Regional measures

recommended through the multistate

implementation process are expected to

take regional modeling efforts into

consideration. States will take these

assessments into account, but will be

the ultimate authority responsible for

control strategy development and

implementation. The types of analyses

conducted by the GCVTC to identify

and assess the various source categories

contributing to regional haze on the

Colorado plateau can serve as a model

for regional approaches to develop

strategies for making reasonable

progress. Although the GCVTC process

did not emphasize analysis of sources

potentially subject to BART, EPA

believes it is important that States make

such an analysis a primary component

of the long-term strategy.

The proposed timing for required

emission reduction strategies for

regional haze is designed to allow

sufficient time to conduct technical

assessments on a regional scale. The

EPA also proposes that emission

reduction strategies for visibility be

revised every 3 years thereafter in order

to meet the reasonable progress targets

for any mandatory Class I Federal areas

located in the State. These revised

strategies are to be implemented

through SIP revisions.

Section 51.306(f) of 40 CFR specifies

a number of factors, currently set forth

in 40 CFR 51.306(e), in considering the

need for visibility-specific measures,

including the measures being

implemented for other programs. It is

possible that for some areas of the

country, such as parts of the Eastern

U.S., emission reductions achieved for

the acid rain program could be

sufficient to meet the presumptive

reasonable progress targets initially. The

EPA has proposed revisions that would

require the State to address the

anticipated net effect on visibility due to

projected changes in point, area, and

mobile source emissions over the next

10–15 years when developing emissions

strategies that will meet the reasonable

progress requirements. In some areas,

these changes in emissions would be

expected primarily from population

growth, while in others emissions

changes may result from potential new

industrial, energy, natural resource

development, or land management

activities.

The proposed 40 CFR

51.306(d)(3)(ii)(B) would require SIPs to

explicitly address the contribution by

each State needed to meet reasonable

progress targets. This section provides

that such strategies should be consistent

with strategies recommended through

regional planning processes conducted

for related air quality issues. This

provision should serve as an incentive

for States to participate in regional

planning activities. The EPA believes

that multi-state planning, modeling, and

control strategy assessment will be

important in addressing regional haze.

At the same time, each State is

ultimately responsible for determining

its contribution to ensure reasonable

progress in mandatory Class I Federal

areas affected by its emissions sources

and implementing appropriate

emissions control strategies. In

evaluating visibility SIP revisions, the

EPA will consider the information

submitted by the State as well as any

relevant regional planning analysis.

The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(4)

sets forth requirements to be addressed

by the State in the implementation plan

revision if it has not met the

presumptive reasonable progress targets

over the past 3-year period. This

provision requires the State to first

determine whether targeted emissions

reductions planned for in its previous

long-term strategy revision were

achieved. This approach follows from

the GCVTC definition of reasonable

progress as ‘‘continuous emission

reductions.’’ This step would involve

reviewing emissions sources,

inventories, and other data used as the

‘‘baseline’’ for any modeling

assessments or assumptions used in

developing the strategy. If such

reductions were found to have been

actually achieved, the State must then

evaluate other factors, such as

meteorological conditions, that were

responsible for not achieving the targets.

This assessment must be provided to

EPA as part of the implementation plan

revision process. If planned emission

reductions were not achieved, then the

State must revise its emissions

reduction strategies to enable it to meet

over the next 3-year period the

presumptive reasonable progress targets

that would have been required if the

targets had been achieved initially. This

3-year submittal, review and adjustment

of emission reduction strategies is

similar to the tracking of reasonable
41154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

further progress for the NAAQS.

Additional discussion on achieving

reasonable progress targets is found in

Unit I.F.2.b., Determining Baseline

Conditions, of this action.

The proposed 40 CFR 51.306(d)(5)

introduces requirements for States to

follow in developing ‘‘alternate progress

targets.’’ A State would pursue

development of such targets if it can

demonstrate that achievement of the

presumptive targets would not be

reasonable due to the factors found in

section 169(A)(g)(1) of the Act that are

to be considered in developing longterm strategies. These factors include

the costs of compliance, the time

necessary for compliance, the energy

and nonair quality environmental

impacts of compliance, and the

remaining useful life of any affected

source or equipment therein. This

section requires the State to provide to

EPA a satisfactory justification for any

alternate progress target. The State

should consult with other States whose

emissions may contribute to regional

haze in the Class I area, the appropriate

Federal Land Manager, and EPA in

development of an alternative

reasonable progress target for any Class

I area. This provision recognizes that

consideration of these factors may lead

a State to adopt alternative reasonable

progress targets for a mandatory Class I

Federal area that differ from those of

other mandatory Class I Federal areas

within a planning region. However, the

proposed rules prohibit States from

interpreting the alternative target to

allow a degradation of visibility

conditions due to human-caused

emissions. At a minimum, for any three

year period between long-term strategy

revisions, the State’s plan should

provide maintenance of current

conditions for the most and least

impaired days. The alternative target

and corresponding justification must be

submitted as part of the State visibility

SIP revision process. Any alternative

reasonable progress target submitted by

the State will be reviewable through

public hearings on the SIP revision and

will be subject to approval by EPA.

The EPA seeks public comment on all

aspects of its proposed regulatory

revisions to the visibility long-term

strategy requirements in 40 CFR 51.306

as well as all of the other proposed

policies and regulatory revisions related

to regional haze SIP requirements set

forth in this action.

II. Regulatory Requirements

The discussion below addresses

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act, Paperwork Reduction Act,

Executive Order 12898, and Executive

Order 12866 for purposes of the

proposed regional haze rule.

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the

Agency must determine whether a

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,

therefore, subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review

and other requirements of the Executive

Order. The order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another Agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

In view of its important policy

implications, the proposed regional

haze rule has been judged to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of the Executive Order, and

EPA has submitted it to OMB for

review. The drafts of proposed rules

submitted to OMB, the documents

accompanying such drafts, written

comments thereon, written responses by

EPA, and identification of the changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public docket and made available

for public inspection at EPA’s Air and

Radiation Docket Information Center

(Docket No. A–95–38).

The EPA has prepared and entered

into the docket a Regulatory Impact

Analysis (RIA) entitled Regulatory

Impact Analysis for Proposed Ozone

and Particulate Matter National

Ambient Air Quality Standard and

Regional Haze Rule. This RIA assesses

the costs, economic impacts, and

benefits associated with the

implementation of the current and

several alternative NAAQS for ozone

and PM and the regional haze rule. As

discussed in the RIA, there are an

unusually large number of limitations

and uncertainties associated with the

analyses and resulting cost impacts and

benefit estimates. Furthermore, the

assumptions regarding implementation

are necessarily speculative in nature.

Under the proposed regional haze rule,

States bear the primary responsibility

for establishing control requirements for

assuring reasonable progress toward the

national visibility goal. Until such time

as States make decisions regarding

control measures, EPA may only

speculate as to which sources may be

regulated and as to what types of control

requirements or emission limits may be

required.

The proposed regional haze rule

establishes presumptive targets for

visibility improvements in mandatory

Class I Federal areas, but also provides

discretion to the States to establish

alternate targets where warranted. The

EPA has prepared a RIA that analyzes

the costs and benefits of implementing

a regional haze program to achieve 2

different presumptive targets for

visibility improvement: one target equal

to a rate over 10 years, the other over 15

years. The targets can be attained by

taking into account emissions

reductions achieved under other air

quality programs, including

implementation of the new ozone and

particulate matter standards. The RIA

analysis estimates that annual costs over

the period 2000–2010 would likely

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector, in aggregate, of over $100 million

per year for both presumptive options.

It is important to note, however, that

there is significant uncertainty in these

cost estimates for a number of technical

reasons specific to the analysis, but

more importantly because of the

flexibility that States have in

establishing alternate targets and in

developing emissions control strategies

to meet the target. The EPA has no way

of estimating the number of States that

may seek to establish alternate progress

targets for any of the 156 mandatory

Class I Federal areas required to make

progress or in predicting the actual

control measures that will be employed.

For this reason, the costs associated

with the presumptive target options in

the RIA may be significantly overstated.

As stated in the RIA, total annual costs

of the rule in 2010 would be zero if all

States adopted alternative reasonable

progress targets which imposed no

additional controls beyond those

required for the PM NAAQS, $2.1

billion if all States adopted the

proposed presumptive reasonable

progress target of 1.0 deciview

improvement in the most impaired days

over 15 years, and $2.7 billion if all

States adopted the proposed

presumptive reasonable progress target

of 1.0 deciview improvement over 10

years. Nevertheless, it is likely that they

would exceed the $100 million

threshold in any event.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41155

Total annual benefits in 2010 under

these three alternative scenarios would

be $0, $1.3 to $3.2 billion, or $1.7 to

$5.7 billion respectively. Since it is

likely that some States will adopt the

presumptive targets and some will

adopt alternative targets for mandatory

Class I Federal areas, actual costs and

benefits would probably fall within

these ranges. These benefits are

incremental to the visibility benefits,

including those for mandatory Class I

Federal area visibility improvement

expected from implementation of the

PM and Ozone NAAQS recently

promulgated on July 18, 1997 (62 FR

38652 and 38856). There are important

benefits to human health and welfare,

and to the environment from improving

air quality in these important natural

areas by reducing emissions of fine

particles (the main contributors to

visibility impairment).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., provides that,

whenever an agency is required to

publish a general notice of rulemaking

for a proposed rule, the agency must

prepare regulatory flexibility analyses

for the proposed and final rule unless

the head of the agency certifies that it

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small governments (e.g.,

cities, towns, school districts), and

small non-profit organizations. The

regional haze rule being proposed today

applies to States, not to small entities.

It proposes to establish presumptive

visibility protection goals for certain

national parks and wilderness areas that

States may modify, where appropriate,

based on a review of specific criteria

related to the degree of visibility

impairment, the costs of controlling

emissions and other relevant

information, after consultation with the

Federal Land Managers. In addition, the

rule proposes planning, monitoring and

progress reporting requirements that

would apply to States to assure that

States are making progress toward the

national visibility goal for mandatory

Class I Federal areas.

Under the proposed rules, States

would decide how to obtain sufficient

emissions control measures through

State-level rulemakings. In developing

emission control measures, section

169A of the Clean Air Act requires

States to address best available retrofit

technology requirements (BART) for a

select list of major stationary sources

defined by the Clean Air Act section

169A(g)(7). Before any such major

stationary source would be subject to

BART for regional haze, however, the

State would have to make a

determination which involves some

State discretion in considering a number

of relevant statutory factors set forth in

section 169A(g)(2), including the costs

of compliance, any existing control

technology in use at the source, the

remaining useful life of the source, the

energy and nonair quality

environmental impacts of compliance,

and the degree of visibility

improvement that may reasonably be

anticipated. Further, EPA is seeking

public comment on the potential for

alternative approaches to addressing the

BART requirement, as discussed earlier

in this action. For BART and for other

measures the State may adopt to meet

the requirements of a regional haze rule,

EPA will also be exploring further

policy issues in a future implementation

guidance. The potential consequences of

today’s proposal are thus speculative at

this time. Any requirements for

emission control measures, like the SIP

process for attaining national ambient

air quality standards, will be established

by State rulemaking. Because the States

will exercise substantial intervening

discretion in implementing the

proposed rule, EPA certifies that the

regional haze rule being proposed today

will not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the RFA. The

legal reasoning supporting this

certification is analogous to the

reasoning explained in certifying the

recent NAAQS rulemakings for ozone

and particulate matter; a full statement

of this reasoning was published

previously in the Federal Register as

part of the Notices of Final Rulemaking

on July 18, 1997, for those two NAAQS

rulemakings (62 FR 38652 and 38856).

The EPA’s finding that today’s

proposed regional haze rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

also entails that the small-entity

provisions in section 609 of the RFA do

not apply. Nevertheless, EPA undertook

small-entity outreach activities modeled

on these provisions on a voluntary

basis. These activities include

conducting a review panel, following

RFA procedures, to solicit advice and

recommendations from representatives

of small businesses, small governments,

and other small organizations. This

panel review resulted in a final report

entitled ‘‘Final Report of the Review

Panel Convened to Consider EPA’s

Planned Phase I Guidance on

Implementation of New or Revised

Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS

and Proposed Rule on Regional Haze’’,

dated June 10, 1997. A copy of the

report has been placed in the docket for

this rulemaking. The EPA has also

added a number of additional smallentity representatives to its CAAAC

Subcommittee on NAAQS and regional

haze implementation.

The goal of this outreach activity is to

work with the small-entity

representatives to find implementation

approaches that minimize impacts on

small entities, and to help and

encourage the States to use these

approaches as they develop their State

Implementation Plans for NAAQS

attainment and regional haze reduction.

It should be noted that the principal

way States can minimize small-entity

impact is by their choices of control

strategies. While development of control

strategies will be required in order for

States to fully implement a regional

haze program, EPA plans to address

coordination of regional haze and

NAAQS-related implementation

strategies in future guidance. However,

the small-entity review panel felt that it

was important to share whatever

information available with the States, so

that states can begin thinking about

small-entity impacts as part of their

early planning. Therefore, the panel

recommended that EPA develop and

publish a guidance memorandum to the

States which will summarize current

knowledge on approaches to minimize

small-entity impacts. The EPA has

accepted that recommendation, and will

publish such a memorandum shortly

after today’s action appears. Included in

the guidance memorandum will be a

preliminary list of various actions that

States might take to alleviate adverse

implementation impacts on small

business while at the same time

assuring that air quality goals are

achieved. This list will then continue to

be refined as part of the process to

develop the future guidance.

C. Impact on Reporting Requirements

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule

relating to State requirements for the

protection of visibility in speciallyprotected national parks and wilderness

areas have been submitted to OMB for

review under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An

Information Collection Request

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1813.01 and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M

St., SW (Milked 2137); Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

This collection of information has an

estimated reporting burden for the fifty
41156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

States and District of Columbia,

averaging 623 hours per year per State.

The Agency expects the Federal burden

will be approximately 216 hours per

year. The Agency anticipates annual

States costs of about $1.0 million,

approximately $25,000 per State. The

Agency estimates the annual Federal

costs to be approximately $7000. These

estimates include time for reviewing

requirements and instructions,

evaluating data sources, gathering and

maintaining data, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments by October 20, 1997

regarding these burden estimates or any

other aspect of these collections of

information, including suggestions for

reducing this burden to Chief,

Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M

St., SW. (Mailcode 2137), Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’ The

final rule will be accompanied with

responses to OMB or public comments

on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the Agency must prepare a

budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. The budgetary impact

statement must include: (i)

Identification of the Federal law under

which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a

qualitative and quantitative assessment

of anticipated costs and benefits of the

Federal mandate and an analysis of the

extent to which such costs to State,

local, and tribal governments may be

paid with Federal financial assistance;

(iii) if feasible, estimates of the future

compliance costs and any

disproportionate budgetary effects of the

mandate; (iv) if feasible, estimates of the

effect on the national economy; and (v)

a description of the Agency’s prior

consultation with elected

representatives of State, local, and tribal

governments and a summary and

evaluation of the comments and

concerns presented. Section 203

requires the Agency to establish a plan

for obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

Section 204 requires the Agency to

provide for an effective process for

State, local, and Tribal officials to

provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant

intergovernmental mandates.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the Agency must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The Agency must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative, for State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector, that

achieves the objectives of the rule,

unless the Agency explains why this

alternative is not selected or unless the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

This rule is being developed under

the Federal Clean Air Act. The RIA,

discussed in Unit II.A. above, contains

an assessment of the costs and benefits

of this proposed rule. Federal funds are

available to meet some of the largely

administrative costs to State, local, and

Tribal governments through grants

provided by EPA under the authority of

section 105 of the Clean Air Act.

As reflected in the RIA, the rule is

expected to have a greater effect initially

on the private sector in the western

United States than the eastern U.S.

because certain emissions control

measures under the Clean Air Act acid

rain program are already under way to

reduce sulfur oxides emissions in the

eastern U.S., a major precursor to sulfate

particles, the dominant fine particle

constituent in the eastern U.S. Phase II

of the acid rain trading program will

continue through 2007. The rule is not

expected to have any disproportionate

budgetary effects on any State, local, or

tribal government, or urban or rural or

other type of community. The rule is not

expected to have a material effect on the

national economy.

In developing the proposed rule, EPA

has provided numerous opportunities

for consultation with interested parties,

including State, local, and tribal

governments. These opportunities

include meetings and discussions under

the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee,

Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate

Matter, and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs, and the

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission. The EPA’s consideration

of the recommendations from these two

groups is discussed extensively in Unit

I.C. of the preamble. The principal

comments of State, local, and Tribal

groups are also documented in the

Subcommittee’s Initial Report on

Subcommittee Discussions (April 1997)

and the GCVTC’s Recommendations on

Improving Western Vistas. Being

comprised of State and Tribal

governments, the GCVTC issued

recommendations on a wide range of

topics, including emission management

alternatives, technical findings, and

areas for further research. The EPA also

will have a public comment period of at

least 60 days on the proposed rule, as

well as a public hearing, in order to

allow for additional meaningful input

into the development of the regulation.

The Agency is considering two main

options for presumptive reasonable

progress targets in developing the rule.

EPA believes that because the rule also

includes the flexibility for States to

propose alternate reasonable progress

targets based on certain criteria, one of

which is the costs of compliance, the

proposed rule meets the UMRA

requirement in section 205 to select the

least costly and burdensome alternative

in light of the statutory mandate to issue

regulations that make reasonable

progress toward the national visibility

protection goal. EPA also has provided

a technical rationale in the preamble for

defining the presumptive reasonable

progress target rate equal to 1.0

deciview improvement in the most

impaired days over 10 or 15 years.

E. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires that

each Federal agency make achieving

environmental justice part of its mission

by identifying and addressing, as

appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of its programs,

policies, and activities on minorities

and low-income populations. These

requirements have been addressed to

the extent practicable in the RIA cited

above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides,

Transportation, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: July 18, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41157

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION

PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 51 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421,

7470–7479, 7491, 7492, 7601, and 7602.

Subpart P—Protection of Visibility

2. Section 51.300 is amended as

follows:

a. Adding a colon at the end of the

words ‘‘this subpart are’’ in paragraph

(a) introductory text and adding a

semicolon in place of the comma at the

end of paragraph (a)(1).

b. Revising ‘‘§ 51.24’’ to read

‘‘§ 51.166’’ in paragraph (a)(2);

c. Adding a sentence to the end of

paragraph (a)(2);

d. Adding a heading to paragraph

(b)(1) and revising paragraph (b)(1)

introductory text;

e. Revising paragraph (b)(2)

introductory text;

f. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3), to

read as follows:

§ 51.300 Purpose and applicability.

(a) * * *

(2) * * * This subpart sets forth

requirements addressing visibility

impairment in its two principal forms:

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ impairment

(i.e., impairment attributable to a single

source/small group of sources) and

regional haze (i.e., widespread haze

from a multitude of sources which

impairs visibility in every direction over

a large area).

(b) * * * (1) General applicability.

The provisions of this subpart

pertaining to implementation plan

requirements for assuring reasonable

progress in preventing any future and

remedying any existing visibility

impairment are applicable to:

* * * * *

(2) The provisions of this subpart

pertaining to implementation plans to

address reasonably attributable visibility

impairment are applicable to the

following States:

* * * * *

(3) The provisions of this subpart

pertaining to implementation plans to

address regional haze visibility

impairment are applicable to all States

as defined in section 302(d) of the Clean

Air Act except Guam, Puerto Rico,

American Samoa, and the Northern

Mariana Islands.

3. Section 51.301 is amended as

follows:

a. Adding the words ‘‘(or the

Secretary’s designee)’’ after the word

‘‘area’’ to paragraph (g);

b. Revising ‘‘§ 51.24’’ to read

‘‘§ 51.166’’ in paragraph (p);

c. Adding the words ‘‘light

extinction,’’ after the phrase ‘‘in terms

of’’ in paragraph (q);

d. Adding the words ‘‘light

extinction,’’ to the beginning of the

parenthetical ‘‘(visual range, contrast,

coloration)’’ in paragraph (x);

e. Adding new paragraphs (z) through

(cc), to read as follows:

§ 51.301 Definitions.

* * * * *

(z) Reasonable progress target means

for the purposes of addressing regional

haze visibility impairment: an

improvement in the average of the

twenty percent most impaired days each

year, equivalent to an improvement

(decrease) of [Option A: 1.0 deciview

per 10 years or Option B: 1.0 deciview

per 15 years], and no degradation (less

than 0.1 deciview increase) in the

average of the twenty percent least

impaired days each year.

(aa) Regional haze visibility

impairment means any humanly

perceptible change in visibility (light

extinction, visual range, contrast,

coloration) from that which would have

existed under natural conditions that is

caused predominantly by a combination

of many sources, over a wide geographic

area. Such sources include, but are not

limited to, major and minor stationary

sources, mobile sources, area sources,

fugitive emissions, and forestry and

agricultural practices.

(bb) Deciview (dv) means the metric,

based on light extinction, used for an

atmospheric haze index, such that

uniform changes in haziness correspond

to the same metric increment across the

entire range from pristine to highly

impaired haze conditions. Deciview

values are calculated by multiplying by

10 the natural logarithm of 1/10th of the

atmospheric light extinction coefficient

expressed in units of inverse

megameters.

(cc) State means State as defined in

section 302(d) of the Clean Air Act.

4. Section 51.302 is amended as

follows:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);

b. In paragraph (a)(2)(i) by revising

‘‘§ 51.4’’ to read ‘‘§ 51.102’’;

c. Revising ‘‘§ 51.4’’ to read ‘‘§ 51.102’’

in paragraph (a)(2)(ii);

d. Adding the word ‘‘revision’’ after

the word ‘‘plan’’ at the end of paragraph

(a)(2)(ii);

e. Revising ‘‘§ 51.5’’ to read § 51.103’’

in paragraph (a)(3);

f. Revising paragraph (b);

g. Adding the words ‘‘reasonably

attributable’’ after the word ‘‘exists’’ in

paragraph (c)(1);

h. Revising paragraph (c)(2)

introductory text;

i. Adding the phrase ‘‘, including a

schedule’’ after the word ‘‘measures’’ in

paragraph (c)(2)(i);

j. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and

(c)(2)(v);

k. Adding the words ‘‘reasonably

attributable’’ after the phrase ‘‘For any

existing’’ in paragraph (c)(4)

introductory text;

l. Adding the words ‘‘or revision’’

after the word ‘‘approval’’ at the end of

the sentence in paragraph (c)(4)(iv);

m. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5), to

read as follows:

§ 51.302 Implementation control

strategies.

(a) * * *

(1) (i) Each State identified in

§ 51.300(b)(2) must have submitted, not

later than September 2, 1981, an

implementation plan revision meeting

the requirements of this subpart

pertaining to reasonably attributable

visibility impairment.

(ii) Each State identified in

§ 51.300(b)(3) must submit, by [date one

year from publication of final rule

revisions to this subpart], an

implementation plan revision meeting

the requirements set forth in this

subpart addressing regional haze

visibility impairment, including

provisions for submittal of future

implementation plan revisions in

accordance with § 51.306(c), with the

exception of requirements related to

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and

(c)(4) of this section, § 51.304 and

§ 51.305(a).

* * * * *

(b) State and Federal Land Manager

coordination. (1) The State must

identify to the Federal Land Managers,

in writing and by [date 30 days from the

date of publication of the final rule

revisions to this subpart], the title of the

official to which the Federal Land

Manager of any mandatory Class I

Federal area can submit a

recommendation on the implementation

of this subpart including but not limited

to:

(i) Identification of reasonably

attributable and regional haze visibility

impairment in any mandatory Class I

Federal area(s);

(ii) Identification of elements for

inclusion in the visibility monitoring

strategy required by § 51.305; and

(iii) Identification of elements for

inclusion in the long-term strategy and

its periodic revisions required by

§ 51.306.

(2) The State must provide

opportunity for consultation, in person
41158 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and at least 60 days prior to holding any

public comment on proposed

implementation plan revisions, with the

Federal Land Manager on the proposed

SIP revisions required by this subpart.

This consultation must include the

opportunity for the affected Federal

Land Managers to discuss their:

(i) Recommendations on the methods

for estimating natural conditions and

levels of impairment of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area; and

(ii) Recommendations on the

development and implementation of the

long-term strategy.

(3) The plan or plan revisions must

provide procedures for continuing

consultation between the State and the

Federal Land Manager on the

implementation of the visibility

protection program required by this

subpart.

(c) * * *

(2) The implementation plan must

contain the following to address

reasonably attributable and regional

haze visibility impairment:

* * * * *

(iv) A monitoring strategy as required

in § 51.305.

(v) A requirement for revision of the

plan, including revisions to the

monitoring strategy required in § 51.305

and the long-term strategy required in

§ 51.306, no later than four years from

the date of the plan revision required in

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, and

no later than every 3 years thereafter.

* * * * *

(5) Plan revisions for regional haze

visibility impairment. The

implementation plan due pursuant to

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section by

[date one year from the date of the

Federal Register publication of the final

rule] must contain:

(i) A list of existing stationary

facilities in the State, and a plan and

schedule for evaluating, by [date 3 years

from the date of Federal Register

publication of the final rule], the best

available retrofit technology and

corresponding potential emission

reductions for those existing stationary

facilities the State determines may

reasonably be anticipated to contribute

to regional haze visibility impairment in

any mandatory Class I Federal area

located within or outside the State.

(ii) Revisions as necessary for the

State to meet the requirements of

section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act as

they pertain to implementation of

measures to address regional haze

visibility impairment.

5. Section 51.305 is amended as

follows:

a. Revising the first sentence in

paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Redesignating existing paragraph

(b) as paragraph (c);

c. Adding new paragraph (b), to read

as follows:

§ 51.305 Monitoring.

(a) For the purposes of addressing

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment, each State containing a

mandatory Class I Federal area where

visibility has been identified as an

important value (i.e., each State

identified in § 51.300(b)(2)) must

include in the plan a strategy for

evaluating visibility in any mandatory

Class I Federal area by visual

observation or other appropriate

monitoring techniques. * * *

(b) For the purposes of addressing

regional haze visibility impairment, the

State must include in the plan required

under § 51.302(a)(1)(ii) a monitoring

strategy for characterizing regional haze

visibility impairment that is

representative of all mandatory Class I

Federal areas within the State. The

strategy must be revised no later than

four years from the date of the plan

revision required in § 51.302(a)(1)(ii),

and no later than every three years

thereafter. The strategy must be

coordinated as appropriate with Federal

Land Managers, other States, and EPA,

and must take into account such

guidance as is provided by the Agency.

(1) The plan must provide for

establishment, within 12 months, of any

additional monitoring sites needed to

assess whether reasonable progress

targets are being achieved for all

mandatory Class I Federal areas within

the State.

(2) The plan must include a

requirement to assess the relative

contribution to regional haze visibility

impairment at each mandatory Class I

Federal area in the State by emissions

from within and outside the State.

(3) A State required to submit a plan

under § 51.302(a)(1)(ii) and having no

mandatory Class I Federal areas must

include in its plan procedures by which

monitoring data will be used to

determine the contribution of emissions

from within the State to regional haze

visibility impairment in any mandatory

Class I Federal area.

(4) The plan must provide for the

reporting of all visibility monitoring

data to EPA at least annually for each

mandatory Class I Federal area in the

State having such monitoring. The State

should follow reporting procedures

found in applicable EPA guidance. To

the extent possible, reporting of

visibility monitoring data shall be

accomplished through electronic data

transfer techniques.

* * * * *

6. Section 51.306 is amended as

follows:

a. Adding introductory text to

paragraph (a);

b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);

c. Revising paragraphs (c)

introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4);

d. Redesignating paragraphs (d)

through (g) as new paragraphs (e)

through (h);

e. Adding new paragraph (d);

f. Amending the newly redesignated

paragraph (e) by adding the words ‘‘on

reasonably attributable impairment and

regional haze impairment’’ after the

word ‘‘impacts’’ in the first sentence, by

revising ‘‘§ 51.24’’ to read ‘‘§ 51.166’’,

and by revising ‘‘§ 51.18’’ to read

‘‘§ 51.165’’;

g. Amending newly redesignated

paragraph (f)(5) by removing the word

‘‘and’’ at the end of the paragraph;

h. Amending newly redesignated

paragraph (f)(6) by removing the period

at the end of the paragraph and adding

‘‘, and’’ in its place;

i. Adding a new paragraph (f)(7);

j. Revising newly redesignated

paragraph (g), to read as follows:

§ 51.306 Long-term strategy.

(a) For the purposes of addressing

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment and regional haze visibility

impairment:

(1) Each plan required under

§ 51.302(a)(1) (i) and (ii) must include a

long-term (10–15 years) strategy for

making reasonable progress toward the

national goal specified in § 51.300(a).

This strategy must cover any existing

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment the Federal Land Manager

certifies to the State at least 6 months

prior to plan submission, or 6 months

prior to the due date for subsequent

long-term strategy revisions as required

by this section, unless the State

determines that this impairment is not

reasonably attributable to a single

source or small group of sources. Any

impairment determined by the State not

to be reasonably attributable impairment

must be addressed as regional haze

impairment according to the provisions

in this section. The long-term strategy

must address any integral vista which

the Federal Land Manager has adopted

in accordance with § 51.304.

* * * * *

(c) The plan must provide for periodic

revision of the long-term strategy no

later than four years from the date of the

plan revision required in

§ 51.302(a)(1)(ii), and no later than every

three years thereafter. This process for

developing the periodic plan revision

must include consultation with the

appropriate Federal Land Managers, and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41159

a State report to the public and the

Administrator on progress toward the

national goal, including:

(1) The progress achieved in

remedying existing impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area, including an evaluation of

whether the reasonable progress target

was achieved for each mandatory Class

I Federal area addressed by the plan

since the last plan revision;

(2) The ability of the long-term

strategy to prevent future impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area, including an evaluation of

whether the reasonable progress target

will be achieved for each mandatory

Class I Federal area addressed by the

plan until the next plan revision;

* * * * *

(4) Additional measures, including

the need for SIP revisions, that may be

necessary to assure reasonable progress

toward the national goal and

achievement of the reasonable progress

target for any mandatory Class I Federal

area;

* * * * *

(d) Regional haze long-term strategy.

The plan required under

§ 51.302(a)(1)(ii) must include a longterm strategy that addresses regional

haze visibility impairment for each

mandatory Class I Federal area within

the State and for each mandatory Class

I Federal area located outside the State

which may be affected by emissions

within the State, including provisions

requiring the following:

(1) Not later than [date 12 months

from the date of Federal Register

publication of final rules] the State, in

consultation with the appropriate

Federal Land Managers, must define the

procedure to be used for estimating the

visibility under natural conditions

expressed in deciviews, in each

mandatory Class I Federal area, for the

average of the twenty percent most

impaired days and for the average of the

twenty percent least impaired days for

a representative year. In the long-term

strategy revision due after determination

of the procedure, the State must

complete the procedure and establish

the natural conditions estimate. For

each long-term strategy revision due

after establishment of the natural

conditions estimate, the State shall

consider, in consultation with the

Federal Land Manager, any new data

since the last long-term strategy revision

that would alter the established estimate

of natural conditions and propose

appropriate changes as part of the plan

revision.

(2) Not later than [date 12 months

from the date of Federal Register

publication of the final rules], the State,

in consultation with the appropriate

Federal Land Managers, must determine

for each mandatory Class I Federal area

a procedure for establishing current

visibility conditions expressed in

deciviews, for the average of twenty

percent most impaired days each year,

and for the average of the twenty

percent least impaired days each year

using the existing visibility monitoring

network taking into account the

monitoring techniques described in EPA

guidance. For mandatory Class I Federal

areas without representative data, the

plan shall identify procedures to be

followed to establish current visibility

conditions not later than [date 5 years

from Federal Register publication of

final rules].

(3) No later than [date 5 years from

the date of Federal Register publication

of final rules] and as part of each longterm strategy revision due thereafter, the

State must:

(i) Identify visibility under

representative natural conditions for the

average of the twenty percent most and

least impaired days for each mandatory

Class I Federal area;

(ii) For any mandatory Class I Federal

area where current conditions for the

average of 20 percent most impaired or

20 percent least impaired days exceed

natural background by one deciview or

more, include, in the plan, emission

management strategies to meet the

reasonable progress target for the period

covered by the long-term (10–15 years)

strategy. At a minimum, these emission

management strategies must include:

(A) Provisions to address the BART

requirement for those existing stationary

facilities determined to be causing or

contributing to regional haze visibility

impairment, in accordance with

§ 51.302(c)(4) (ii) through (v).

(B) Other measures necessary to

obtain the portion of emission

reductions from sources located within

the State, developed based upon all

available information, to achieve the

reasonable progress target for each

mandatory Class I Federal area in the

State or affected by emissions from the

State. These measures should be

consistent with strategies developed in

conjunction with other States through

regional planning processes to address

related air quality issues and clearly

identify the emissions changes expected

to occur that will produce the expected

improvement in visibility. The portion

of emissions contribution being

addressed by a State’s plan revision and

the technical basis for the

apportionment should be clearly

specified.

(4) States not achieving the reasonable

progress target for any mandatory Class

I Federal area over the three year time

period since establishment of the

strategy or the prior plan revision (i.e.,

State more than 10 percent deficient in

meeting the reasonable progress target

for either the most or least impaired

days) must provide in the plan revision

a review of emissions reduction

estimates relied on in the development

of the prior long-term strategy revision.

If expected emissions reductions

occurred, then the State must at a

minimum provide an assessment of

meteorological conditions,

completeness of emissions sources

subject to strategies, and other factors

that likely influenced the relationship

between emissions and visibility

conditions. If expected emissions

reductions were not achieved, the State

shall revise emissions management

strategies as appropriate to achieve the

presumptive reasonable progress target.

(5) For establishment of an alternate

reasonable progress target for a

mandatory Class I Federal area, the State

must provide a justification for the

alternate target demonstrated to the

satisfaction of EPA. Any justification for

an alternate reasonable progress target

must address the following factors: the

availability of source control

technology, the costs of compliance

with the reasonable progress target, the

energy and non-air quality

environmental impacts of compliance,

the existing pollution control measures

in use at sources, the remaining useful

life of sources, the degree of

improvement of visibility which may

reasonably be anticipated to result from

application of control technologies or

other measures. In no event shall an

alternate progress target allow visibility

to degrade over the planning period

covered. The State shall consult with

the Federal Land Managers and all other

States the emissions from which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment in

the affected mandatory Class I Federal

area in considering development of an

alternate target.

(6) States preparing nonattainment

plans for fine particulate matter (PM2.5)

may submit the plan requirements

under paragraph (d)(3) of this section by

but no later than the required date for

submittal of the State’s PM2.5 attainment

control strategy plan.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(7) The anticipated net effect on

visibility due to projected changes in

point, area, and mobile source

emissions over the next 10–15 years.
41160 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(g) The plan must explain why the

factors in paragraph (f) of this section

and other reasonable measures were or

were not evaluated as part of the longterm strategy.

* * * * *

§ 51.307 [Amended]

8. Section 51.307 is amended as

follows:

a. Revising ‘‘§ 51.24’’ to read

‘‘§ 51.166’’ in paragraph (a) introductory

text;

b. Revising ‘‘§ 51.24’’ to read

‘‘§ 51.166’’ in paragraph (a)(2);

c. Revising ‘‘§ 51.24’’ to read

‘‘§ 51.166’’ in paragraph (c).

9. In addition to the previous

amendments, in the sections listed in

the first column remove the reference

listed in the middle column and add the

reference listed in the third column in

its place:

Section Remove Add

51.301(v) ................................................................................... section 303 ................................................................................ § 51.303.

51.302(c)(2)(i) ............................................................................ section 305 ................................................................................ § 51.305.

51.302(c)(2)(i) ............................................................................ section 306 ................................................................................ § 51.306.

51.302(c)(2)(i) ............................................................................ section 300(a) ........................................................................... § 51.300(a).

51.302(c)(4)(i) ............................................................................ section 304(b) ........................................................................... § 51.304(b).

51.303(a)(1) ............................................................................... section 302 ................................................................................ § 51.302.

51.303(c) ................................................................................... section 303 ................................................................................ § 51.303.

51.303(d) ................................................................................... section 303 ................................................................................ § 51.303.

51.303(g) ................................................................................... section 303 ................................................................................ § 51.303.

51.303(h) ................................................................................... section 303 ................................................................................ § 51.303.

51.304(c) ................................................................................... section 306(c) ........................................................................... § 51.306(c).

51.306(c)(6) ............................................................................... section 303 ................................................................................ § 51.303.

51.306(e) ................................................................................... section 307 ................................................................................ § 51.307.

51.307(b)(1) ............................................................................... section 304 ................................................................................ § 51.304.

51.307(b)(1) ............................................................................... section 304(d) ........................................................................... § 51.304(d).

51.307(c) ................................................................................... section 300(a) ........................................................................... § 51.300(a).

[FR Doc. 97–19546 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P