RECElVEU -- &;'EL 

AIR PLANNING SEC. 

08SEP23 PW l: 26 

STATE OF ARKANSAS 

MIKE BEEHI: 

(;OVFRNOR 

July 29,2008 

Richard Greene, Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency- Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Mail Code 6RA 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Dear Mr. Greene: 

The State of Arkansas is hereby submitting a State Implementation Plan (SIR$ to? 

address requirements for regional haze visibility protection in mandatory federal Clm I 

areas. This SIP contains the necessary measures to ensure that the tate of ~rkanss is

working toward the national goal for visibility contained in 42 U. C .C. 7491-Visibility 

protection for federal Class I areas. It fulfills requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 51, 

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, Subpart 

P- Protection of Visibility. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) regulations require states to submit SIPs to make "reasonable progress" in 

reducing visibility impairment in federal Class I areas resulting from anthropogenic 

pollution. The CAA, 169A(a)(l), "declares as a national goal the prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory federal 

Class I areas, where impairment results from man-made air pollution." Class I areas are 

national parks, containing more than 6,000 acres, and wilderness areas, containing more 

than 5,000 acres, which Congress has recognized as significant sites. Arkansas has two 

such areas: the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area in the Ozark National Forest and the 

Caney Creek Wilderness Area in the Ouachita National Forest. 

The Regional Haze Rule focuses on older emission sources that have not been 

regulated under other provisions of the Clean Air Act. Such older sources that could 

contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas may be required to install Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Regional Haze SIPs must contain such emission 

limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal, including requiring installation, 

operation, and maintenance of BART, as determined by the State on certain existing 

stationary sources. 
The EPA Regional Haze Rule strongly encourages states to work together in 

regional partnerships to reduce haze. As a member of the Central Regional Air Planning 

Association (CENRAP), Arkansas has worked closely with Kansas, Louisiana, Iowa, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well as with federal agencies, 

tribal areas, and other interested parties to improve air quality in our region and the 

country. 

The State of Arkansas hereby submits to the EPA that it has met the requirements 

for regional haze visibility protection in mandatory federal Class I areas under 40 C.F.R. 

551.308. We are enclosing two hard copies and one electronic copy of the State 

Implementation Plan for your review. 

We look forward to your prompt review of this SIP submission. If you have any 

questions, please contact Mike Bates, Air Division Chief of the Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality, at 5301 Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, AR 7221 8-53 17, 

or by phone at (501) 682-0750. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

ike Beebe 

cc: Mike Bates, Chief - Air Division, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Enclosure 
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP Appendices - Volume 1 of 6 

September 09, 2008 

 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Appendices for the 

State of Arkansas 

Regional Haze Rule 

State Implementation Plan 

Appendix Volume 1 

Appendices 1.1-6.2
Appendix 1.1 

Regional Haze Regulations –Final Rule 
federal register

Thursday

July 1, 1999

Part II

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 51

Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule
35714 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL–6353–4]

RIN 2060–AF32

[Docket No A–95–38]

Regional Haze Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Section 169A of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) sets forth a national goal for

visibility which is the ‘‘prevention of

any future, and the remedying of any

existing, impairment of visibility in

Class I areas which impairment results

from manmade air pollution.’’ There are

156 Class I areas across the country,

including many well-known national

parks and wilderness areas, such as the

Grand Canyon, Great Smokies,

Shenandoah, Yellowstone, Yosemite,

the Everglades, and the Boundary

Waters. Regional haze is visibility

impairment caused by the cumulative

air pollutant emissions from numerous

sources over a wide geographic area.

The EPA promulgated regulations in

1980 to address visibility impairment

that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to one

or a small group of sources, but EPA

deferred action on regional haze

regulations until monitoring, modeling,

and scientific knowledge about the

relationship between pollutants and

visibility effects improved. In 1993, the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

concluded that ‘‘current scientific

knowledge is adequate and control

technologies are available for taking

regulatory action to improve and protect

visibility.’’

On July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41138), EPA

published proposed amendments to the

1980 regulations to set forth a program

to address regional haze visibility

impairment. The EPA also published a

notice of availability of additional

information on the proposed regional

haze regulation on September 3, 1998.

This notice took comment specifically

on new implementation plan timelines

set forth in the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century, Public Law

105–178, and on a proposal from the

Western Governors’ Association (WGA)

for addressing the recommendations of

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission (GCVTC) in the final rule.

The EPA received more than 1300

comments overall on the proposal and

notice of availability.

Today’s final rule calls for States to

establish goals and emission reduction

strategies for improving visibility in all

156 mandatory Class I national parks

and wilderness areas. Specific

provisions are included in the rule

allowing nine western States to

implement the recommendations of the

GCVTC within the framework of the

national regional haze program. In

addition, EPA encourages States to work

together in regional partnerships to

develop and implement multistate

strategies to reduce emissions of

visibility-impairing fine particle

pollution.

DATES: The regulatory amendments

announced herein take effect on August

30, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The public docket

for this action is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:00

a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday excluding legal holidays, at the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), Attention:

Docket A–95–38, Room M–1500, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,

phone 202–260–7548, fax 202–260–

4400, email: A-and-RDocket@epamail.epa.gov. A reasonable

fee for copying may be charged. The

regional haze regulations are subject to

the rulemaking procedures under

section 307(d) of the CAA. The

documents relied on to develop the

regional haze regulations have been

placed in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general questions regarding this notice,

contact Richard Damberg, U.S. EPA,

MD–15, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711, telephone (919) 541–5592, email:

damberg.rich@epa.gov.

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 Confidential

Business Information, is available for

inspection from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 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.

World Wide Web sites have been

developed for overview information on

visibility issues and related programs.

These web sites can be accessed from

Uniform Resource Locator (URL):

http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Today’s Final Rule

II. Background Information on the Regional

Haze Program

A. Regional Haze

B. How Today’s Final Rule Responds to the

CAA

C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation—

Commitment to a Regional Haze Program

D. Sources of Scientific Information and

Policy Recommendations on Regional

Haze

E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS for

PM

F. Regional Planning and Integration with

Programs to Implement the NAAQS for

Ozone and Particulate Matter

III. Discussion of National Program

Requirements and Response to

Comments

A. Scope of Rule—Extending Coverage to

All States

B. Timetable for Submitting the First

Regional Haze SIP

C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions

Reductions

D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan

Principles

E. Determination of ‘‘Baseline,’’ ‘‘Natural’’

and ‘‘Current’’ Visibility

F. Reasonable Progress Goals

G. Long-Term Strategy

H. Best Available Retrofit

Technology(BART)

I. Monitoring Strategy and Other

Implementation Plan Requirements

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year

Progress Reports

K. Coordination with Federal Land

Managers

IV. Treatment of the GCVTC

Recommendations

A. Background

B. General Requirements of Section 51.309

C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State and

Tribal Implementation Plans

D. Requirements for States Electing Not To

Follow All Provisions of the Section

51.309(e)

E. Annex to the GCVTC Report

F. Additional Class I Areas

V. Implementation of the Regional Haze

Program in Indian Country

A. Background on Tribal Air Quality

Programs

B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze

Program in Indian Country

VI. Miscellaneous Technical Amendments to

the Existing Rule

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

(Executive Order 12866)

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act—Impact on

Reporting Requirements

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Environmental Justice—Executive Order

12898

F. Congressional Review Act

G. Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks—Executive Order 13045

H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership— Executive Order 12875
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35715

1U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate

Matter. Office of Research and Development,

National Center for Environmental Assessment.

EPA/600/P–95/001bF. Research Triangle Park, NC.

1996.

2H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 204 (1977).

3National Park Service. Air Quality in the

National Parks: A Summary of Findings from the

National Park Service Air Quality Research and

Monitoring Program. Natural Resources Report 88–

1. Denver, CO, July 1988.

4Areas 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 Class I area includes subsequent

changes in boundaries, such as park expansions.

(CAA section 162(a)). States and tribes may

designate additional areas as Class I, but the

requirements of the visibility program under section

169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class

I Federal areas,’’ and they do not directly address

any additional areas.

5 ‘‘Deciview’’ is a visibility metric discussed

further in unit III.C. of today’s notice, and defined

in section 51.301(bb) of the rule. Higher deciview

values indicate greater levels of visibility

impairment.

6See National Acid Precipitation Assessment

Program. Acid Deposition: State of Science and

Technology. Report 24, Visibility: Existing and

Historical Conditions—Causes and Effects, Table

24–6. Washington, DC 1991. See also U.S. EPA. Air

Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Office of

Research and Development, National Center for

Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P–95/001bF.

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1996.

7For the purposes of this preamble, the term

‘‘Class I area’’ will be used to describe the 156

mandatory Class I Federal areas identified in

section 51.301(o) and in part 81, subpart D of this

title.

8H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at 205

(1977).

9 ‘‘Reasonably attributable’’ visibility impairment,

as defined in section 51.301(s), means ‘‘attributable

by visual observation or any other technique the

State deems appropriate.’’ It includes impacts to

Class I areas caused by plumes or layered hazes

from a single source or small group of sources.

10H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 204 (1977).

11 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and section

51.300–307.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Overview of Today’s Final Rule

This preamble provides the details

and rationale for the final regional haze

rule. Unit II includes background

information on regional haze and on the

legal and scientific basis for today’s

action. Unit III describes the provisions

of the national requirements for regional

haze and includes a discussion of the

comments received on the July 1997

proposal. Unit IV discusses specific

regional provisions for 16 western Class

I areas that were the subject of a 1996

report by the GCVTC. Unit V is a

discussion of issues related to

implementation of the rule by Indian

tribes. Unit VI summarizes several

technical amendments to existing

visibility regulations in order to

coordinate those requirements with the

requirements of today’s final rule. Unit

VII discusses how today’s final

rulemaking is in compliance with the

requirements of various executive

orders and statutes.

II. Background Information on the

Regional Haze Program

A. Regional Haze

Regional haze is visibility impairment

that is produced by a multitude of

sources and activities which emit fine

particles and their precursors and which

are located across a broad geographic

area.1 Twenty years ago, when initially

adopting the visibility protection

provisions of the CAA, Congress

specifically recognized that the

‘‘visibility problem is caused primarily

by emission into the atmosphere of SO2,

oxides of nitrogen, and particulate

matter, especially fine particulate

matter, from inadequate[ly] controlled

sources.’’ 2 The fine particulate matter

(PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust)

that impairs visibility by scattering and

absorbing light can cause serious health

effects and mortality in humans, and

contribute to environmental effects such

as acid deposition and eutrophication.

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.3 Average visual

range in many Class I areas 4 in the

Western United States is 100–150

kilometers (13.6–9.6 deciviews), 5 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 (25 deciviews or

more), or about one-fifth of the visual

range that would exist under estimated

natural conditions. 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

policymakers from Federal, State and

local agencies, industry and

environmental organizations.

B. How Today’s Final Rule Responds to

the CAA

The visibility protection program

under sections 169A, 169B, and

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to

protect Class I areas 7 from impairment

due to manmade air pollution. Congress

adopted the visibility provisions in the

CAA to protect visibility in these ‘‘areas

of great scenic importance.’’ 8 The

current regulatory program addresses

visibility impairment in these areas that

is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ 9 to a

specific source or small group of

sources. In adopting section 169A, the

core visibility provisions adopted in the

1977 CAA Amendments, Congress also

expressed its concern with visibility

problems caused by pollutants that

‘‘emanate from a variety of sources.’’ It

noted the problem of ‘‘hazes’’ from

‘‘regionally distributed sources,’’ 10 and

concluded that additional provisions

were needed to remedy ‘‘the growing

visibility problem.’’ The purpose of

today’s final rule is to revise the existing

visibility regulations 11 in order to

integrate provisions addressing regional

haze impairment. Today’s final rule

establishes a comprehensive visibility

protection program for Class I areas.

Figure 1 is a map indicating the

locations of the Class I areas.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U
35716 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35717

12The States and one territory having at least one

Class I area are listed in section 51.300(b)(2). These

States and one territory are as follows: Alabama,

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin

Islands, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

For a specific list of Class I areas located in each

state or territory, see 40 CFR 81.401–437.

13 45 FR 80086.

14National Research Council Committee on Haze

in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting

Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

National Academy Press, 1993, p. 11.

15State of Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d 883, 885

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

vexing problem of regional haze emanates directly

from the CAA, which ‘declares as a national goal

the prevention of any future, and the remedying of

any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I

areas which impairment results from manmade air

pollution.’ ’’) (citation omitted).

16U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of

Visibility Research, Office of Research and

Development, EPA/600/R–95/021, February 1995.

See also 60 FR 8659 notice announcing the report

availability and how to obtain copies (Feb. 15, 1995.

17U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 CAA

Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA

Report to Congress, October 1993 (EPA–452/R–93–

014).

18CAA section 169B(d)(2)(C).

19 56 FR 57522, November 12, 1991.

20 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission, Recommendations for Improving

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

1996 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘GCVTC Report’’).

21CAA section 169B(e)(1).

C. The 1980 Visibility Regulation—

Commitment to a Regional Haze

Program

Section 169A of the CAA, 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 Class I areas which

impairment results from manmade air

pollution.’’ The EPA’s initial visibility

regulations, developed in 1980, address

visibility impairment that is ‘‘reasonably

attributable’’ to a single source or small

group of sources. Under the 1980 rules,

the 35 States and 1 territory containing

Class I areas 12 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

any existing and preventing any future

impairment in the Class I areas;

(4) Adopt certain measures to assess

potential visibility impacts due to new

or modified major stationary sources,

including measures to notify Federal

land managers (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

Class I areas.

The 1980 rules addressing

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility

impairment were designed to be the first

phase in EPA’s overall program to

protect visibility. The EPA explicitly

deferred national rules addressing

regional haze impairment until some

future date:

* * * when improvement in monitoring

techniques provides more data on sourcespecific levels of visibility impairment,

regional scale models become refined, and

our scientific knowledge about the

relationships between emitted air pollutants

and visibility impairment improves.13

The EPA believes that the technical

tools and our scientific understanding of

visibility impairment are now

sufficiently refined to move forward

with a national program addressing

regional haze in Class I areas. The EPA’s

position is supported by the NAS 1993

report, Protecting Visibility in National

Parks and Wilderness Areas. One of the

principal conclusions of this report is

that ‘‘current scientific knowledge is

adequate and control technologies are

available for taking regulatory action to

improve and protect visibility.’’ 14

Section II.D. describes a number of other

studies and information now available

which provide the technical basis to

move forward with a regional haze

program.

In addition, EPA finds the visibility

protection provisions of the CAA to be

quite broad. Although EPA is addressing

visibility protection in phases, the

national visibility goal in section 169A

calls for addressing visibility

impairment generally, including

regional haze.15

Further, Congress added section 169B

as part of the 1990 Amendments to the

CAA to focus attention on regional haze

issues; it calls for EPA to issue regional

haze rules within 18 months of receipt

of the final report from the GCVTC. In

addition, section 169B includes

provisions for EPA to conduct visibility

research with the National Park Service

and other Federal agencies, to develop

an interim findings report on the

visibility research,16 to develop a Report

to Congress on expected visibility

improvements due to implementation of

other air pollution programs,17 and to

provide periodic reports to Congress on

trends in visibility improvements.

Section 169B also provides the authority

to the Administrator to establish

visibility transport commissions in

response to a petition from two or more

States, or on her and/or his own motion.

To date, EPA has not received any

petitions from groups of States

requesting formation of a visibility

transport commission.

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 this commission

was to assess scientific and technical

information pertaining to adverse

impacts on visibility at the Park from

existing emissions and projected growth

in emissions. The statute specifically

called for a report to EPA

recommending measures to remedy

such impacts and to address long-term

strategies for addressing regional haze.18

In 1991, EPA established the GCVTC,19

and the GCVTC issued its final report in

June 1996.20 The recommendations of

the GCVTC and their incorporation as

potential SIP requirements into the final

rule, are discussed in greater detail in

unit IV of the preamble.

Finally, section 169B(e) calls for the

Administrator to consider past research

and the recommendations of visibility

transport commissions in carrying out

the ‘‘regulatory responsibilities under

section 169A, including criteria for

measuring ‘reasonable progress’ toward

the national goal.’’ 21 The EPA is

required by the CAA to meet these

regulatory responsibilities within 18

months of receiving the GCVTC report.

Today’s final rule fulfills EPA’s

responsibility under section 169A,

pending since 1980, to put in place a

national regulatory program that

addresses both reasonably attributable

and regional haze visibility impairment.

Today’s action is also EPA’s response to

the GCVTC report as anticipated by

section 169B.

D. Sources of Scientific Information and

Policy Recommendations on Regional

Haze

In developing today’s revisions to the

visibility regulations, EPA has taken

into account a significant body of

scientific information and policy

recommendations on visibility issues

that have been developed over more

than 20 years. This unit highlights key

sources of information upon which the

final regional haze rule is based.

For many years, visibility impairment

has been considered the ‘‘best

understood and most easily measured
35718 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

22Council on Environmental Quality, Visibility

Protection for Class I Areas: The Technical Basis,

Washington, DC, 1978.

23National Research Council, NAS Committee on

Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

Protecting Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993,

p. 23.

24National Acid Precipitation Assessment

Program (NAPAP), Acid Deposition: State of

Science and Technology. Report 24, Visibility:

Existing and Historical Conditions—Causes and

Effects, Washington, DC, 1991.

25U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report

to Congress; Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, EPA–450/5–79–008, October 1979.

26Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patters and

Long-Term Variability of the Chemical Composition

of the Haze in the U.S.: An Analysis of Data from

the IMPROVE Network, Fort Collins, CO,

Cooperative Institute for Research in the

Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 1996. See

also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Temporal Patters

and the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the

United States: An Analysis of Data From the

IMPROVE Network, 1988–1991, Fort Callins, CO,

1993.

27U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions

Trends Report, 1996, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, EPA 454/R–97–013, January 1998.

See also U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and

Emissions Trends Report, 1997, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 454/R–98–

016, January 1999.

28Atmospheric Environment, Proceedings of EPA

Symposium on Plumes and Visibility—

Measurements and Model Components, November

1980, Atmos. Environ., 15:1785–2646. See also

Bhardwaja, P.J., ed., Visibility Protection: Research

and Policy Aspects. Transactions of APCA

Specialty Conference, September 1986, Grand

Tetons National Park, WY. Air Pollution Control

Assoc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1987. See also Mathai, C.V.,

ed., Visibility and Fine Particles. Transactions of

AWMA specialty conference, October 1989, Estes

Park, CO. Air and Waste Management Assoc.,

Pittsburgh, PA, 1990.

29National Acid Precipitation Assessment

Program (NAPAP), Acid Deposition: State of

Science and Technology, Report 24, Visibility:

Existing and Historical Conditions—Causes and

Effects, Washington, DC, 1991.

30National Research Council, NAS Committee on

Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

Protecting Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press,

Washington, DC, 1993.

31U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA

Report to Congress, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, EPA–452/R–93–014, October 1993.

effect of air pollution.’’ 22 Visibility

degradation has also been recognized as

an indicator of multiple human-health

effects and environmental effects

resulting from air pollution all over the

world.23 Visibility conditions have been

monitored and evaluated for many

years, using airport visibility data

collected from the 1940’s to the

present.24

In October 1979, EPA published a

Report to Congress describing the state

of the science on visibility.25 The report,

required under section 169A(a)(3),

described available methods for

visibility monitoring, modeling, and

assessment of strategies to make

progress toward the national goal. This

report was developed in advance of the

1980 visibility regulations. As noted

above, EPA deferred action on regional

haze until monitoring techniques,

modeling capabilities, and the

understanding of the pollutants

affecting visibility were improved. In

1986, the IMPROVE (Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments) visibility monitoring

program was initiated in 30 Class I

areas. The IMPROVE program has been

coordinated through a cooperative,

multiagency approach with

participation by EPA, the FLMs, and

States. Through the IMPROVE program,

significant progress has been made in

understanding the effect of various

pollutants on current visibility

conditions and trends, in developing

well-accepted monitoring protocols, and

in developing a sound approach for

calculating light extinction values from

aerosol and humidity data. The

IMPROVE program has issued two

major reviews of the monitoring data

collected to date,26 and numerous

technical papers have been developed

using data collected by the network.

In addition, in 1996 EPA began to

include a chapter on visibility trends,

based on data collected throughout the

IMPROVE network, in the National Air

Quality and Emissions Trends Report in

1996.27 Data from 1988 to the present

are analyzed for the best 20 percent,

middle 20 percent, and worst 20 percent

days of the annual distribution, and

aggregated for eastern and western sites.

Annual summary data are also

presented for each individual site in an

appendix.

Visibility research continued

throughout the 1980’s and is

documented in many published articles

and the proceedings of three major

visibility conferences.28 In addition, the

NAPAP completed a comprehensive

review of the state of the science of

visibility in 1991.29 This peer-reviewed

report reached a number of important

conclusions, including: (1) Light

scattering is dominated by fine particles;

(2) sulfates are the dominant source of

light extinction in the east, and one of

several major sources of extinction in

the west; (3) rural visibility varies

significantly between the east and west;

(4) average natural visibility conditions

are 150 kilometers visual range (9.6

deciviews) in the east and 230

kilometers visual range (5.3 deciviews)

in the west; and (5) haze trends in the

eastern United States have been

dominated by sulfur emission trends

since the late 1940’s.

The NAS 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 1993

report by this Committee contributed

significantly to the state of the science

regarding regional haze visibility

impairment.30 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 instead, strategies should be

adopted to consider simultaneously the

effect of many sources 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.

Also in 1993, EPA developed its

Report to Congress on the projected

effects on visibility in Class I areas due

to implementation of the 1990 CAA

Amendments. 31 The report concluded

that conditions on the worst visibility

days are expected to improve by

approximately 3 deciviews by 2010

across the most impaired portions of the

Eastern United States. Most of this

improvement is expected in the 1995–

2005 timeframe due to sulfur dioxide

reductions under the acid rain program.

In the Southwestern United States, the

visibility change was predicted to be

less than 1 deciview in most Class I

areas except San Gorgonio Wilderness

(which is located downwind of Los

Angeles), for which a 1–2 deciview

improvement is expected.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35719

32U.S. EPA, Interim Findings on the Status of

Visibility Research, Office of Research and

Development, EPA/600/R–95/021, February 1995.

33These repdorts have already been mentioned in

this section: the 1993 NAS report, the 1993

IMPROVE report (Sisler et al.), the 1993 EPA Report

to Congress, and the 1991 NAPAP Report to

Congress.

34 56 FR 57523

35CAA Section 169B(d).

36A 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.

37National Research Council, NAS Committee on

Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

Protecting Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press,

Washington, DC, 1993, p. 11.

38 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997).

39See section 160(1); H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 205

(1977).

As required by section 169B(a)(2) of

the CAA, EPA issued a report in 1995

on interim findings on the status of

visibility research completed since

1990.32 This report reviewed four major

visibility related reports published since

1990,33 provided citations of published

research papers, and summarized

research under way by the GCVTC, four

Federal agencies, and the Electric Power

Research Institute. As noted above, the

GCVTC issued a report in June 1996

containing recommendations for

protecting visibility at 16 Class I areas

on the Colorado Plateau. Based on

EPA’s discretionary authority under

section 169B(c), 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.34

The GCVTC was charged with

assessing information about visibility

impacts in the region and making policy

recommendations to EPA to address

such impacts. The CAA called for the

GCVTC 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. 35 The CAA specifically

provided for the GCVTC’s report to

address the following measures: (1) The

establishment of clean air corridors, 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; 36

and (3) the promulgation of regulations

addressing regional haze.

In unit IV of the proposal, EPA

discusses the major recommendations of

the GCVTC. The GCVTC’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 GCVTC’s

recommendations also distinguish

between recommended actions and

policy or strategy options for

consideration. Unit IV addresses how

EPA took these recommendations, as

well as the body of technical

information developed by the GCVTC,

into account in developing the final

rule.

Response to comments. Some

commenters on the regional haze

proposal suggested that EPA had not

provided an adequate scientific or legal

justification for developing a regional

haze program. The commenters asserted

that the science of regional haze is not

understood well enough to develop

regulations at this time. In addition,

some commenters claimed that EPA has

not provided adequate technical

guidance for implementation of the rule,

and that providing such guidance is a

legal prerequisite to promulgating a

regional haze rule. The EPA does not

agree with these claims.

First, EPA believes it has relied upon

a substantial amount of scientific

evidence to support development of the

regional haze program. Many of the

important studies, reports, and other

scientific and technical information on

which the regional haze rule is based

are referenced earlier in this section. In

particular, the NAS Committee on Haze

in National Parks and Wilderness Areas

concluded that ‘‘Current scientific

knowledge is adequate and control

technologies are available for taking

regulatory action to improve and protect

visibility.’’ 37 Thus, EPA believes that its

decision to move forward with

promulgation of the regional haze

program is reasonable, particularly in

light of the fact that the Agency’s

obligation to address regional haze

originated more than 20 years ago with

passage of the 1977 CAA Amendments.

Second, as discussed in the response

to comments, today’s final rule provides

the States with the necessary guidelines

to implement a regional haze program.

The EPA believes that the supposition

that all technical guidance associated

with a program be developed before a

rule can be promulgated is unfounded.

The EPA recognizes the importance of

timely implementation guidance and is

committed to providing such guidance,

as appropriate, for the regional haze

program.

The EPA does not interpret sections

169A and 169B as requiring all

technical guidance to be issued by the

Agency before the rule is finalized. The

EPA is committed to working closely

with the States and other interested

parties in developing effective guidance

documents within a reasonable period

of time after promulgation of the final

regional haze rule.

E. Relationship to Secondary NAAQS

for PM

Today’s final rule is an important

element in EPA’s overall approach to

protecting visibility under the CAA. In

July 1997, EPA established national

secondary ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for particles with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) as

part of its final decision on revision of

the existing NAAQS for particulate

matter under section 109(d) of the

CAA.38 The secondary standards were

based on EPA’s determination that the

levels selected were ‘‘requisite to protect

the public welfare’’ against visibility

impairment on a nationally uniform

basis as provided in section 109(b).

Consistent with the purposes of section

169A, however, EPA recognized that

such nationally uniform standards

would not eliminate all visibility

impairment in all parts of the country.39

The visibility impacts remaining in

Class I areas are addressed by today’s

final rule.

Today’s final rule has additional

benefits, as EPA expects the regional

strategies implemented as part of the

regional haze program to improve

visibility outside of Class I areas as well.

Thus, the regional haze program should

contribute to the improvement of local

visibility impacts outside of Class I

areas that may persist after attainment of

the secondary standards.

F. Regional Planning and Integration

With Programs to Implement the

NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate

Matter

The regional haze program is being

promulgated in a manner that facilitates

integration of emission management

strategies for regional haze with the

implementation of programs for new

NAAQS for ozone and PM. This is being

done because of the existing scientific

evidence that these air quality problems

have common precursor pollutants,

emission sources, atmospheric

processes, spatial scales for transport,

and geographic areas of concern.
35720 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

40Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate Matter,

and Regional Haze Implementation Programs, Final

Report on Subcommittee Discussions, May 1998.

41See the November 17, 1998 draft of

Implementation Guidance for the Ozone and

Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze

Program. EPA’s internet site for an electronic

version of this guidance: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/tlpgm.html.

Because of the key role of regional

pollutant transport in contributing to

haze at Class I areas, most of which are

in remote locations, the regional haze

program recognizes the value of

multistate coordination for regional

haze program planning and

implementation. Consistent with the

recommendations of the Clean Air Act

Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on

Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional

Haze Implementation Programs,40 EPA

strongly encourages States to undertake

multistate regional planning efforts

addressing regional haze in a way that

coordinates technical analyses and

strategy development with the NAAQS

to the maximum extent possible.

Examples of ongoing coordination

among States to address visibility issues

include the Western Regional Air

Partnership (WRAP) and the Southern

Appalachian Mountain Initiative.

The EPA believes that States (and

tribes, at their discretion), in

partnership with other interested

stakeholders, should consider

conducting future regional air quality

planning efforts to address the

implementation of the ozone and PM

NAAQS and regional haze program. We

encourage States to continue to work

together to establish common protocols

and approaches for emissions inventory

development, emissions tracking,

application of regional models, and

development of effective emission

reduction strategies.

The EPA plans to participate early

and actively in regional planning efforts.

The EPA recognizes that we must

provide early input on issues and to

make our views known as issues arise.

The EPA has a responsibility to

independently review the adequacy of

implementation plans in the public

rulemaking process and to consider all

public comments received on a plan in

determining if it meets applicable

requirements. However, it is equally

important that EPA be open in letting

participants know of our views and

concerns throughout the process.

The EPA will soon issue final

guidance on such regional planning

efforts for the purposes of implementing

the ozone, particulate matter, and

regional haze implementation

programs.41 Also, as a part of EPA’s

1999 fiscal year budget, Congress

provided $4 million dollars to support

regional planning activities. EPA is

currently involved with the States in a

process to define the appropriate size

and composition of regional planning

bodies. The final planning guidance will

provide a discussion of several

important issues related to regional

planning efforts. These issues include:

• Taking credit for emissions

reductions in other States;

• Important principles for future

regional planning efforts;

• The technical assessment process;

and

• The strategy development process.

Some important principles discussed in

the guidance for conducting regional

planning efforts include the following

points.

• Regional planning efforts should be

a product of State (and, at the discretion

of any tribe, tribal) leadership and, thus,

should be led by States (and tribes), not

EPA. Representatives should have the

authority to speak for their

organizations.

• States (and tribes at their discretion)

should be prepared to make strong,

early commitments to implementing the

outcome of the regional process to

ensure that SIP submittal dates are met.

• Participants in regional planning

efforts should set up a work plan to

carry out their work. The work plan

should contain clearly stated products

of the process, dates for completion of

those products and mechanisms for

funding the needed analyses.

• The technical assessment process

should include steps for problem

definition, development of emissions

inventories, and development of tools to

evaluate strategy alternatives.

• In the strategy development

process, participants should strive to

develop a consensus about (1) the set of

regional emissions reductions strategies

needed to attain the NAAQS or make

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the

national visibility goal in Class I areas,

and (2) the degree to which each State

and relevant source category should be

required to reduce emissions to

implement the recommended strategies.

III. Discussion of National Program

Requirements and Response to

Comments

• Scope of Rule—Extending Coverage

to All States

Proposed rule. In the regional haze

proposal, EPA proposed to amend

section 51.300(b)(3) to extend coverage

to all States (excluding certain

territories) for the purpose of addressing

regional haze visibility impairment.

This approach differed from the 1980

visibility regulations for ‘‘reasonably

attributable’’ impairment, which

required the 35 States and the Virgin

Islands containing Class I areas to

submit SIP revisions and to revise them

periodically to assure reasonable

progress toward the national visibility

goal. Thus, under the proposal, the

following additional States and the

District of Columbia would be required

to submit visibility SIPs: Nebraska,

Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois,

Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, New York,

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, and Maryland. The

territories of Puerto Rico, Guam,

American Samoa, and the Northern

Mariana Islands were not included

because their distance from any Class I

area significantly exceed the distance

that their emissions could be expected

to be transported in order to contribute

to visibility impairment in any Class I

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 Class I

areas also located within their own

jurisdiction.

In the proposal, EPA also

recommended that all States initially

participate in regional planning efforts

to more precisely characterize which

States are contributing to visibility

impairment in other States, as well as

the magnitude of such contributions.

States could then develop strategies for

making reasonable progress in Class I

areas throughout the region. The EPA

noted that as a result of this process, all

States may not have to adopt control

strategies. At the same time, EPA cited

the 1993 NAS report, which observed

that the requirement for a State to revise

its implementation plan if it ‘‘may

reasonably be anticipated’’ to contribute

to visibility impairment 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].’’

Thus, EPA proposed that, at a

minimum, all States should be required

to develop visibility SIPs in order to

‘‘prevent any future impairment’’ as

called for by the national goal in section

169A(a)(1).

Contracts received. The EPA received

a number of comments on the proposed

applicability provisions. Many

commenters approved of EPA’s

approach to require SIPs from all States.

Those who did not agree with the scope

of the program provided a number of

reasons for their opposition. Some

commenters recognized the need for a

regional haze program, but stated that

EPA must first conduct or review
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35721

42Central Arizona Water Conservation District v.

EPA, 990 F.2d 1531 (1993). 43 990 F.2d at 1541.

44Refer to unit II of this final rule for additional

background on the long-range transport of pollution

contributing to regional haze.

45See Unit II, Background Information. See also

July 29, 1997 memorandum to regional haze docket

A–95–38, ‘‘Supporting Information for Proposed

Applicability of Regional Haze Regulations,’’ by

Richard Damberg, EPA, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards.

46U.S. EPA, Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report

to Congress, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, EPA–450/5–79–008, October 1979.

additional scientific analyses in order to

provide justification for requiring

additional States to submit visibility

SIPs. Other commenters felt that in the

proposed applicability provisions, EPA

exceeded its statutory authority by

extending the regional haze program to

States that have not been demonstrated

to ‘‘cause or contribute’’ to visibility

impairment. Some commenters

suggested that EPA rely on States with

Class I areas to engage nearby States, as

appropriate, in regional planning efforts.

Some commenters in States containing

Class I areas suggested that, for their

particular Class I areas, there was no

demonstrated visibility problem. They

asserted that because visibility levels

should already be deemed acceptable,

there was no need for a regional haze

program in their States. Other

commenters felt that EPA should

include specific criteria (e.g., distance,

emissions, and visibility impact cutoffs)

for excluding States or geographic areas

from consideration as contributing to

regional haze visibility impairment.

Final rule. Consistent with the

proposal, EPA has concluded in today’s

final rule that all States contain sources

whose emissions are reasonably

anticipated to contribute to regional

haze in a Class I area and, therefore,

must submit regional haze SIPs. The

rationale for this finding is discussed in

more detail below.

In making this finding, EPA

considered three factors: (1) The specific

statutory language in the CAA; (2) the

weight of evidence demonstrating longrange transport of fine particulate

pollution that affects visibility in Class

I areas; and (3) current monitored

conditions in Class I areas across the

country. The EPA’s consideration of

each of these factors is discussed below.

Two key provisions in section 169A

support EPA’s finding that all States

must develop SIPs for regional haze.

Section 169A(b)(2) requires EPA to

promulgate regulations to require SIPs

from those States where the emissions

‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to cause

or contribute to any impairment of

visibility’’ in a mandatory Class I

Federal area. The EPA believes that this

provision does not require the Agency

to provide absolute certainty regarding

the effect of emissions from the State on

visibility in a particular Class I area.

The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the

language, ‘‘may reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility,’’ in a case

involving identical language in section

169A(b)(2)(A) relating to BART.42 The

EPA believes that the court’s

interpretation of this phrase may be

appropriately used in regard to program

applicability as well. In its decision, the

court found that the language ‘‘may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute’’ establishes an ‘‘extremely

low triggering threshold’’ for requiring a

source to control emissions, adding that

‘‘the NAS correctly noted that Congress

has not required ironclad scientific

certainty establishing the precise

relationship between a source’s

emission and resulting visibility

impairment. * * *’’ 43 In considering

whether additional States should be

subject to the visibility program, EPA

believes the court’s reasoning supports

adoption of the predicate requirement

that States develop the necessary

provisions in their implementation

plans to determine whether and to what

extent control of emissions from sources

is needed. That is, given that the court

believed this ‘‘low triggering threshold’’

was sufficient to require a source to

control its emissions under BART, EPA

believes it is reasonable that a similarly

low or even lower threshold applies to

whether States should be required to

engage in air quality planning and

analysis as a prerequisite to determining

the need for control of emissions from

sources within their State. The EPA

believes this is particularly appropriate

since the requirement for SIPs does not

mandate the actual control of emissions

from any source without further

technical analysis by the State.

Accordingly, EPA believes the concept

of an ‘‘extremely low triggering

threshold’’ can also apply in

determining which States should submit

SIPs for regional haze.

Section 169A(a)(1) sets forth a

national goal of ‘‘the prevention of any

future, and the remedying of any

existing, impairment of visibility in

Class I areas which impairment results

from manmade air pollution.’’ Thus, in

addition to requiring a program to

reduce existing impairment, the CAA

requires SIPs to be established in order

to prevent future impairment. This

preventative component of the national

goal requires that States have the

framework in place to address future

growth in emissions from new sources

or other activities that could impair

visibility. For this reason, the EPA does

not believe that it is appropriate to

establish criteria for excluding States or

geographic areas from consideration as

potential contributors to regional haze

visibility impairment.

As noted in the proposal, EPA is not

specifying in this final rule what

specific control measures a State must

implement in its initial SIP for regional

haze. That determination can only be

made by a State once it has conducted

the necessary technical analyses of

emissions, air quality, and the other

factors that go into determining

reasonable progress. As discussed in

section II(F), because of the regional,

multistate nature of visibility

impairment in Class I areas,44 EPA

recommends that these analyses and the

determination of the extent of emissions

reductions needed from individual

States be developed and refined through

multistate planning efforts using the

best available technical tools, such as

regional-scale modeling. The EPA also

recommends the coordination of

resulting strategies for regional haze

with strategies needed to attain the

PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA anticipates that

as a result of the more refined analyses

required by this rule, some States may

conclude that control strategies

specifically for protection of visibility

are not needed at this time because the

analyses may show that existing

measures are sufficient to meet

reasonable progress goals. The EPA is

requiring States to document their

analyses, including any consultations

with other States in support of their

conclusions that further controls are not

needed at this time. The EPA believes

that there is more than sufficient

evidence to support our conclusion that

emissions from each of the 48

contiguous States may be reasonably

anticipated to cause or contribute to

visibility impairment in a Class I area.

As stated in EPA’s proposal, a large

body of evidence demonstrates that

long-range transport of fine PM

contributes to regional haze and other

related effects such as acid rain. In the

preamble to the proposal and in the

relevant docket, EPA cited numerous

studies that contribute to this body of

evidence.45 Indeed, EPA recognized the

role of long-range transport in relation

to visibility impairment 20 years ago in

its 1979 Report to Congress on

visibility.46

Among the more important studies on

which EPA relied are the 1991 report

from the NAPAP, the 1993 NAS report

Protecting Visibility in National Parks
35722 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

47See 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. See also 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.

48National Acid Precipitation Assessment

Program. Acid Deposition: State of the Science and

Technology. Report 24, Visibility: Existing and

Historical Conditions—Causes and Effects,

Washington, DC, 1991.

49National Research Council, NAS Committee on

Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

Protecting Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C., 1993.

50 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.

51 GCVTC, Recommendations for Improving

Western Vistas, Report to the U.S. EPA, June 1996.

52Sisler, J. et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns

and Long-Term Variability of the Chemical

Composition of the Haze in the United States: An

Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network, Fort

Collins, CO, Cooperative Institute for Research in

the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 1996.

See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Temporal

Patterns and the Chemical Composition of the Haze

in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the

IMPROVE Network, 1988–1991, Fort Collins, CO,

1993.

53U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA

Report to Congress, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, EPA–452/R–93–014, October 1993.

and Wilderness Areas, EPA studies

using the regional acid deposition

model (RADM), the 1996 GCVTC report

Recommendations for Improving

Western Vistas, and two contractor

reports prepared for EPA.47 All of these

reports are available in the docket. They

were referenced and discussed in EPA’s

proposal and in an additional

memorandum to the docket. The

NAPAP report included a

comprehensive technical review of

historical visibility trends.48 The NAS

report found that the range of fine

particle transport is on the order of

hundreds or thousands of kilometers.49

Analyses using the RADM have

estimated that sulfate and nitrate

deposition receptors are influenced by

sources located up to 600–800

kilometers away.50 In its deliberations

and in its final report, the GCVTC

acknowledged the role of long-range

transport from sources and activities

located across a very large geographic

area, and its effect on the Class I areas

on the Colorado Plateau.51

Finally, two contractor modeling

reports prepared for EPA provided

information that preliminarily

demonstrated that each State not having

a Class I area had emissions

contributing to impairment in at least

one downwind Class I area. Some State

commenters asserted that the contractor

reports referenced in the proposal show

relatively low contributions from all or

part of their States toward visibility

impairment in a nearby Class I area. As

a result, these commenters suggested

that EPA had sufficient information to

reach a conclusion that all or part of

their States could be excluded from the

regional haze program. The EPA

disagrees with these comments for two

reasons.

First, the EPA did not base its

proposed applicability provisions only

on the referenced contractor reports.

The EPA based its decision on the

assessments provided by these reports

as well as a number of other studies and

sources of information. Second, as

explained above, EPA believes that all

States must have a visibility SIP to

prevent, at a minimum, future

impairment of visibility. While EPA

agrees that portions of some States may

not need to implement additional

measures, at this time, to improve

visibility impairment in any Class I area,

the EPA believes that more refined

future assessments will be needed to

support such a finding. Additionally,

the EPA believes that a State wishing to

demonstrate that it does not contribute

to visibility impairment in any Class I

area will need to provide information

showing that it has consulted with other

potentially affected States to assist EPA

in assuring that the State’s

demonstration is not contradicted by

evidence presented by other States.

Current monitoring information for

Class I areas shows that all of the

monitored sites in the central and

eastern parts of the country have

visibility impairment levels exceeding

estimated natural conditions for the 20

percent most impaired days, some by

more than 20 deciviews. Although the

degree of impairment varies, the data

demonstrate that no existing site has

reached the goal in section 169A(a)(1) of

the CAA for ‘‘remedying * * * any

existing impairment of visibility.’’ 52

In light of this finding, EPA disagrees

with the commenter who asserted that

because visibility levels in its State are

already ‘‘acceptable,’’ there is no need

for the State to implement a regional

haze program. The section 169A

national goal of the visibility program,

a condition of no human-caused

impairment, does not provide for

judgments of acceptable visibility levels

which are poorer than natural

conditions in Class I areas. Through

adoption of section 169A(a)(1), Congress

established natural visibility conditions

as the overall goal.

The data also show that in the

monitored locations in the central and

eastern United States, sulfate is the key

contributor to visibility impairment,

responsible for between 45–90 percent

of light extinction due to aerosols on the

20 percent most impaired days. This

fact is significant because the broad,

regional scale of long-range transport of

sulfate has already been acknowledged

in many studies done for the acid rain

program. Based on these data, it appears

that although the acid rain program is

expected to improve visibility by

approximately 3 deciviews in the most

impaired Class I areas in the Eastern

United States by 2005,53 further regional

reductions in SO2 emissions may be

needed after the acid rain program is

complete to assure continued visibility

improvement toward the national goal.

Thus, EPA finds it is reasonable to

require SIPs from the States without

Class I areas which are located in the

central and eastern parts of the United

States since many, if not all, are

expected to have sources contributing to

regional loadings of SO2 emissions, even

after implementation of the acid rain

program is completed.

For all of the reasons stated above,

EPA has concluded in today’s final rule

that EPA’s statutory authority and

scientific evidence are sufficient to

require all States to develop regional

haze SIPs to ensure the prevention of

any future impairment of visibility, and

to conduct further analyses to determine

whether additional emission reduction

measures are needed to ensure

reasonable progress in remedying

existing impairment in downwind Class

I areas.

B. Timetable for Submitting the First

Regional Haze State Implementation

Plan (SIP)

This final rule establishes a schedule

setting forth deadlines by which the

States must submit their first regional

haze SIPs and subsequent revisions to

that first SIP. In this unit, we discuss the

deadlines for the first regional haze SIP,

the concerns raised in comments

regarding these deadlines, and recent

legislation affecting the deadlines. The

requirements for periodic revisions to

this first regional haze SIP are discussed

below in unit III.J.

Proposed rule. The proposed rule,

consistent with section 169B(e)(2) of the

CAA, would have required States to

submit revisions to their SIP to address

regional haze within 12 months of the

effective date of the rule. We had

intended that these 12-month SIP
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35723

54 63 FR 46952.

55H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d. Sess.

519 (1998), reprinted in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N., No. 6

at 196.

56See TEA–21, Section 4102(c)(1).

57We expect that some States will want to move

expeditiously with some designations, leading to

submissions and final action on some areas as early

as late 2002 or early 2003. Where this is the case,

this would lead to earlier regional haze SIP

submittal deadlines as well.

submittals serve as program planning

SIPs in which the States would review

existing regulatory authorities and

provide the framework for a number of

future actions.

Comments received. Commenters

expressed the view that 12 months was

an insufficient time period to meet the

proposed requirements for the program

planning SIP. Moreover, commenters

were concerned that the 12-month SIP

requirement was not well coordinated

with similar program planning for the

new PM2.5 standard.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA–21). After the close of the

comment period for the July 1997

proposal, Congress passed the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA–21), Public Law 105–178.

The TEA–21 superseded the statutory

requirement for a 12-month SIP

deadline and established a specific

schedule for regional haze SIP

submissions. In a September 3, 1998

notice of availability, EPA provided the

public with an opportunity to comment

on how the regional haze rule should

address the TEA–21 requirements.54

The TEA–21 provisions establish a

timetable for the regional haze SIPs by

first creating certain deadlines for PM2.5

monitoring and area designations, and

then by linking those deadlines to

further deadlines for the regional haze

program. The TEA–21 amendments, in

section 4102(a), require EPA to fund a

PM2.5 monitoring network. In section

4102(b), EPA and States are required to

put this network in place by no later

than December 31, 1999.

Section 4102(c)(1) of TEA–21

establishes deadlines for States to use

the data collected by the network for

purposes of formally designating areas

as attaining the PM2.5 standard or as

nonattainment or unclassifiable. Section

4102(c)(1) states:

(1) The Governors shall be required to

submit designations referred to in section

107(d)(1) of the CAA for each area following

promulgation of the July 1997 PM2.5 national

ambient air quality standard within 1 year

after receipt of 3 years of air quality

monitoring data performed in accordance

with any applicable Federal reference

method for the relevant areas.

Section 4102(c)(2) of TEA–21 contains

the following language which links the

timing requirements for the visibility

program to the PM2.5 designation

process:

(2) For any area designated as

nonattainment for the July 1997 PM2.5

national ambient air quality standard in

accordance with the schedule set forth in this

section, notwithstanding the time limit

prescribed in paragraph (2) of section 169B(e)

of the CAA, the Administrator shall require

State implementation plan revisions referred

to in such paragraph (2) to be submitted at

the same time as State implementation plan

revisions referred to in section 172 of the

CAA implementing the revised national

ambient air quality standard for fine

particulate matter are required to be

submitted. For any area designated as

attainment or unclassifiable for such

standard, the Administrator shall require the

State implementation plan revisions referred

to in such paragraph (2) to be submitted 1

year after the area has been so designated.

The preceding provisions of this paragraph

shall not preclude the implementation of the

agreements and recommendations set forth in

the GCVTC Report dated June 1996.

To accompany the statutory changes

contained in the TEA–21 law, Congress

released a Conference Report. With

respect to the visibility provisions of

TEA–21, the Conference Report states:

The Conferees recognize that the Regional

Haze regulation has not been finalized and

the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is still considering

the views of various stakeholders. The

Conferees agree with EPA’s public statements

that the schedule for the State

Implementation Plan due pursuant to section

169B(e)(2) of the * * * [Clean Air] * * *

CAA should be harmonized with the

Schedule for State Implementation Plan

submissions required for PM2.5 ambient air

quality standard promulgated in July, 1997.55

This new statutory language has two

effects. First, it supersedes the section

169B requirement for EPA to require

States to submit SIPs within 12 months

of the promulgation of today’s final rule.

Second, it spells out a timetable for SIP

revisions that is linked to the dates of

attainment/nonattainment designations

for PM2.5. It is important to note that the

timetable is based on the designation of

areas within a State. Thus, under the

legislation, one State could have

multiple SIP submission deadlines

depending on the dates of designation of

each area within the State. This issue,

and how EPA intends to address it, is

further discussed later in this unit.

According to a Presidential

memorandum dated July 16, 1997, the

EPA and States must collect 3 years of

monitoring data in order to have a

sufficient basis for designations. This

point is reiterated in TEA–21.56 Routine

collection of monitoring data begins in

1999. Hence, we expect the

requirements of TEA–21, section

4102(c)(1), to result in the following:

Submissions of designation requests

by States. States must submit

designations within 1 year of the date

that 3 years of PM2.5 data are available.

Because widespread monitoring for

PM2.5 is being implemented between

January 1999 and December 31, 1999,

we expect 3 years of data to be collected

by December 31, 2001 for most areas

and no later than December 31, 2002 for

the remaining areas. Taking into

account additional time (not more than

6 months) for quality assurance and

certification of the data, we expect 3

years of data to be available for States

to use for designations between July

2002 and July 2003. In the TEA–21

amendments, States have up to 1 year to

submit designations. Thus, we expect

that the required date for submittal of

designations generally will occur

between July 2003 and July 2004.57

EPA action on State designations. The

EPA is required to act upon the

designations no later than 1 year after

the date States are required to submit

the designations, but not later than

December 31, 2005 in any case. If States

submit their designations between July

2003 and July 2004, EPA would be

required to designate areas between July

2004 and July 2005.

For areas designated as attainment or

unclassifiable, the TEA–21 amendments

require that States must submit SIPs for

regional haze within 1 year after EPA

publishes the designations. As a result,

for these areas, regional haze SIPs are

likely to be due generally between July

2005 and July 2006.

For areas designated as nonattainment

for fine particulate matter, the TEA–21

amendments require States to submit

SIP revisions addressing regional haze

‘‘at the same time as States submit SIPs

as required by section 172 of the CAA

implementing the July 1997 revision to

the national ambient air quality

standard for fine particulate matter.’’

Section 172(b) of the CAA requires SIPs

no later than 3 years after EPA publishes

the nonattainment designation. If EPA

designates areas nonattainment between

July 2004 and July 2005, the regional

haze SIPs for areas designated as

nonattainment and the PM2.5

nonattainment SIPs would both be due

no later than the July 2007 to July 2008

timeframe.

The date for startup of PM2.5

monitoring may vary in different parts

of a given State. Accordingly, the EPA

expects that States may not be able to

submit designation requests at the same

time for the entire State. Rather, EPA
35724 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

58See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 550, 105th Cong., 2d.

Sess. 517.

59The option for regional planning provided by

section 51.308(c) is not available for Alaska,

Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands. Class I areas within

their boundaries are not affected by emissions from

any other State. As a result, regional planning will

not be needed to develop regional haze SIPs for

these areas.

expects that it is possible that

individual ‘‘areas’’ within a given State

may be designated at different times.

Even if areas were all designated at the

same time, in many States some areas

will likely be designated attainment,

with others designated nonattainment.

In either case, the TEA–21 deadlines

would require separate regional haze

SIPs for each of these areas to be

submitted at different times.

While the language in TEA–21

establishing the timetable for

submission of regional haze SIPs is

generally clear, the transportation

legislation does not address the

situation where States are participating

in a regional planning effort that

incorporates numerous areas. On its

face, TEA–21 requires the submission of

separate regional haze SIPs on an areaby-area basis with varying deadlines

that could range over a period of several

years. As noted above, however,

regional haze is the result of emissions

from a number of sources located over

a broad geographic area. Because of the

long-range transport of pollutants

causing regional haze, EPA believes that

well-coordinated regional planning

efforts are needed to make progress

toward natural visibility conditions. As

EPA noted in the September 3, 1998

notice of availability, we do not believe

that Congress intended to inhibit

regional planning efforts by requiring

area-by-area submittals. In light of this,

EPA requested comment on

incorporating an optional approach into

the final rule to facilitate regional

planning.

Notice of availability of additional

information. The optional approach

EPA described in the September 3, 1998

notice of availability would allow States

which commit to participating in

regional planning efforts to postpone

addressing certain of the requirements

of the regional haze program. Under this

approach, States would have the option

to first submit SIPs which contain

commitments to specific integrated

regional planning efforts but which do

not set forth control strategies. States

committing to regional planning would

subsequently submit SIP revisions

containing control strategies for

attainment, unclassifiable, and

nonattainment areas at the same time.

This would allow multiple areas within

a single planning region to have

coordinated deadlines for regional haze

control strategies. In the supplemental

notice, we noted that this approach

could have the effect of delaying control

strategy plan submittal dates for some

areas, but we believe that such an

option will support more effective

coordination between the PM2.5 and

regional haze programs, will support

coordinated regional planning for both

programs, and will be consistent with

the statement of congressional intent.

Comments received. Some

commenters argued that TEA–21 does

not authorize EPA to defer

implementation of the regional haze

program in this way. The basis for this

argument is the claim that the 1-year

deadline in section 169B(e)(2) applies

only to regulations promulgated

pursuant to the report of a visibility

transport commission. These

commenters claim that EPA is obligated

under section 169A to provide for more

expedited implementation of measures

to assure reasonable progress.

The final rule. The regulations made

final today are issued under the

authority of CAA sections 169A and

169B. As discussed in unit II.C above,

EPA in 1980 explicitly deferred issuing

regulations to address regional haze

until our scientific and technical

knowledge was better developed. In

1990, Congress amended the CAA by

adding section 169B. This section

authorizes the establishment of

visibility transport commissions which,

among other things, must issue a report

addressing ‘‘the promulgation of

regulations under [section 169A] to

address long range strategies for

addressing regional haze.’’ Section 169B

further establishes explicit timeframes

in which EPA must, taking into account

any reports of visibility transport

commissions, issue regulations under

section 169A, and in which States must

respond by submitting revised SIPs.

Congress modified the timeframe for SIP

submission in TEA–21 to ensure the

ability of EPA to harmonize the

implementation of today’s final rule

with the requirements for the new PM2.5

NAAQS.58 Today’s final rule carries out

EPA’s obligation under sections 169A

and 169B to issue regulations

addressing regional haze according to

the timeframe as set forth in section

169B as modified by TEA–21.

The final rule includes the deadlines

for SIP submittals set forth in TEA–21

and incorporates an optional set of

requirements for States which commit

to participate in regional planning.

Commenters generally agreed with

EPA’s view in the notice of availability

that it is important to ensure that the

PM2.5 program and regional haze

program are fully integrated. The EPA

believes that the approach taken in the

final rule supports effective

coordination between these programs,

while also facilitating regional planning.

In the final rule, the timetable for SIP

submittals is set forth in section

51.308(b) and (c). Section 51.308(b)

directly codifies the TEA–21 timetable.

Section 51.308(c) provides States that

have committed to participate with

other States in a regional planning

process the option of choosing to defer

submittal of a SIP which addresses the

substantive requirements of the regional

haze program. States are not required to

exercise the option provided by section

51.308(c), but those which do must meet

the deadlines set forth in that section for

submitting a SIP which addresses the

distinct requirements in section

51.308(c) and a SIP revision which

addresses the substantive requirements

of the regional haze program.59

As a first step, States electing to

participate in regional planning must

submit a SIP demonstrating the State’s

ongoing participation in a regional

planning process. This SIP must address

all areas in the State and is due on the

earliest date by which an

implementation plan affecting any area

within the State would be due under the

TEA–21 deadlines. Unless an entire

State is designated as nonattainment,

this SIP will be due 1 year after EPA

designates any area within the State as

attainment or unclassifiable. This SIP

submission must contain a number of

specific elements to demonstrate the

State’s commitment to the regional

planning process and to ensure that by

the date of the SIP submittal, the States

in the regional planning body have

taken the necessary steps to initiate the

regional planning process.

The following briefly summarizes the

required elements of the first SIP

submittal called for under the optional

approach for regional planning:

Need for regional planning. In the

SIP, the State must demonstrate the

need for regional planning. The State

must make this demonstration by

showing that emissions from sources

within the State contribute to visibility

impairment in Class I areas in another

State, or by showing that other States

contribute to visibility impairment in

the Class I areas in the State. The EPA

does not intend for this to be an overly

complex analysis.

Description of regional planning

organization. The State must also

submit a detailed description of the

regional planning process. In its SIP, the

State must show that the participating
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35725

60Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ‘‘Development

and Applications of a Standard Visual Index,’’

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

1994. 61 62 FR 41145.

States have a credible regional planning

process in place which all parties are

committed to follow. We have outlined

general principles for regional planning

organizations in a document entitled

Implementation Guidance for the

Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter

(PM) National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) and the Regional

Haze Program, which discusses features

of effective regional planning

organizations, including a discussion of

organization and representation issues,

issues related to developing workplans

and schedules, and issues related to

ensuring that technical efforts are

consistent. This document is available

on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

Enforceable commitment to submit

coordinated control strategy by 2008.

The regional planning SIP must include

provisions requiring the State to submit

a SIP revision meeting all of the

requirements of the regional haze rule.

This SIP revision is due by the latest

date an area within the planning region

would be required to submit an

implementation plan under TEA–21,

but in no event any later than December

31, 2008. The SIP must require that the

SIP revision is developed in

coordination with the other States in the

regional planning body and that it fully

addresses the recommendations of that

body.

List of BART-eligible sources. The

State must identify those sources from

one of 26 source categories and placed

into operation between 1962 and 1977

that are potentially subject to BART.

This information will enable the State

and regional planning organization to

begin evaluating options for meeting the

BART requirement or for implementing

an emissions trading program or

alternative measure that achieves greater

reasonable progress.

Summary of timetable for submission

of the first regional haze SIPs. The

following table is a summary of the

deadlines for submitting the first

regional haze SIPs.

For this case . . . . . . States must submit the first regional

haze SIPs no later than: . . . and the SIP must meet . . .

Areas designated as attainment or

unclassifiable for PM2.5.

1 year after EPA publishes the designation

(generally 2004–2006).

ALL requirements of section 51.308(d) and

(e).

Areas designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 ... At the same time as PM2.5 SIPs are due

under section 172 of the CAA. (That is, 3

years after EPA publishes the designation,

generally 2006–2008).

ALL requirements of section 51.308(d) and

(e).

States participating in multistate regional planning efforts for combined attainment and nonattainment areas.Two phases: .....................................................

Commitment to regional planning due 1 year

after the EPA publishes the first designation

for any area within the State, and.

The regional planning requirements listed in

section 51.308(c).

Complete implementation plan due at the

same time as PM2.5 SIPs are due under

section 172 of the CAA. (That is, 3 years

after EPA publishes the designation).

The ‘‘core requirements’’ listed in section

51.308(d) and BART requirements in section 51.308(e).

States following the recommendations of the

GCVTC, as contained in section 51.309 of

the final rule.

December 31, 2003 ......................................... SIPs must meet the specific provisions for

Grand Canyon Transport Region States listed in section 51.309.

C. Tracking Deciviews and Emissions

Reductions

Visibility impairment is caused by

particles and gases in the atmosphere.

Some particles and gases scatter light,

while others absorb light. The net effect

is called ‘‘light extinction.’’ The result of

these processes is a reduction of the

amount of light from a scene that is

returned to the observer, creating a hazy

condition.

Proposed rule. In the proposal, EPA

established a regulatory framework by

which a State would establish a

‘‘reasonable progress target’’ for each

Class I area within its borders for the

purpose of improving visibility on the

worst visibility days over the next 10 or

15 years. The States would implement

emission management strategies to

improve visibility in these Class I areas.

The proposal also called for the States

to monitor progress in improving

visibility over time. The EPA proposed

that visibility targets and tracking of

visibility changes over time be

expressed in terms of the ‘‘deciview’’

haze metric. The proposal also called for

the tracking of pollutant emissions to

supplement the tracking of monitored

visibility changes for use in periodically

reviewing State progress in achieving

visibility targets. The proposal included

the definition of the deciview metric for

tracking visibility. The proposal also

called for a review of emissions

reductions achieved as part of the longterm strategy.

Deciview. The proposal explained that

the deciview is an atmospheric haze

index that expresses changes in

visibility. This visibility metric

expresses uniform changes in haziness

in terms of common increments across

the entire range of visibility conditions,

from pristine to extremely hazy

conditions.60 Because each unit change

in deciview represents a common

change in perception, the deciview scale

is like the decibel scale for sound. The

proposal also stated that ‘‘A one

deciview change in haziness is a small

but noticeable change in haziness under

most circumstances when viewing

scenes in Class I areas.’’ 61

The proposal discussed that an

advantage to using the deciview over

other scales is that it can be used to

express changes in visibility impairment

in a way that corresponds to human

perception in a linear, or one for one,

manner. For example, this metric is

designed such that a change of 3

deciviews in a highly impaired

environment would be perceived as

roughly the same degree of change as a

3 deciview change in a relatively clear

environment. As noted in the preamble

to the proposed regulation, the deciview

is mathematically related to other

common metrics used to describe

visibility: the light extinction coefficient

and visual range. However, the deciview

metric can be used to compare changes

in perception in a way that the other

two metrics cannot. This feature makes

the deciview a more useful metric for

regulatory purposes. For example, a 5-
35726 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

62Tracking of visibility is addressed in section

51.308(d) and 51.308(g). Tracking of emissions

reductions is addressed in section 51.308(g).

63Section 169B(e)(1).

64Pitchford, M. and Malm, W., ‘‘Development

and Applications of a Standard Visual Index,’’

Atmospheric Environment, V. 28, no. 5, March

1994.

65U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate

Matter, Research Triangle Park, NC, National Center

for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research

and Development, July 1996.

66U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review

of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific

and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. July

1996.

67Sisler, J., et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns

and Long-Term Variability of the Composition of

the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data

from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative Institute

for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State

University, 1996. See also Sisler, J., et al., Spatial

and Temporal Patterns and the Chemical

Composition of the Haze in the United States: An

Analysis of Data From the IMPROVE Network,

1988–1991, Fort Collins, CO, 1993.

68National Research Council, Protecting

Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

1993, p. 354.

69Congressional Research Service, Regional Haze:

EPA’s Proposal to Improve Visibility in National

Parks and Wilderness Areas, November 17, 1997, p.

17.

mile change in visual range can in some

cases be very significant, such as from

5 to 10 miles in an impaired

environment (equal to a change of 6.9

deciviews), whereas a 5-mile change

may not be perceptible in a less

impaired environment, such as from 95

to 100 miles (equal to a change of 0.5

deciviews). The following sections

discuss the comments received on

specific issues and how such issues are

addressed in the final rule.

Tracking emissions versus visibility.

Many commenters supported the use of

the deciview metric to track changes in

visibility improvement as a key aspect

of the program. These commenters

agreed with EPA’s proposal that under

a visibility-oriented program, progress

in fact should be tracked in terms of a

visibility-based metric. Others felt the

program could be successfully

implemented by tracking emissions only

because this approach would not be

greatly affected by meteorological

variations as would an approach based

on ambient monitoring.

The final rule provides for the

tracking of both visibility improvement

and emissions reductions.62 The final

rule presents visibility improvement

and tracking of emissions as linked

elements of the program. The EPA has

retained the use of the deciview metric

for tracking changes in visibility. The

EPA believes the tracking of actual

visibility improvements is necessary to

be responsive to the goals of the CAA.

Section 169A(a) of the CAA sets forth

the national goal of the ‘‘prevention of

any future, and the remedying of any

existing, impairment of visibility in

Class I areas which impairment results

from manmade air pollution.’’ The CAA

also requires EPA to establish

regulations to be implemented by the

States to ensure that ‘reasonable

progress’ is made toward the national

goal. In addition, section 169B(e) of the

CAA calls for EPA to carry out its

‘‘regulatory responsibilities under

section 169A, including criteria for

measuring ‘reasonable progress’ toward

the national goal.’’ 63

The EPA believes that tracking of

emissions reductions is also an

important component of the regional

haze program. The mechanism for

achieving improvements in visibility

will be the implementation of

enforceable emissions reduction

measures that have been adopted as part

of the SIP. Tracking emissions will

provide a good indicator of whether

adopted measures are reducing

emissions and is thus a useful indicator

of progress in reducing visibility

impairment. The tracking of emissions

without concurrently tracking changes

in visibility, however, would be

problematic because of the variable

effect on visibility of each of the

principal constituents of PM, the more

significant light scattering efficiency of

fine PM versus coarse PM, and the

generally greater effect of nearby versus

distant sources on visibility impairment.

Since the national goal is expressed in

terms of air quality (i.e., visibility)

rather than emissions, we believe that it

is very important to require the

quantitative tracking of visibility

impairment as an integral element in

measuring reasonable progress. Because

ambient monitoring data are subject to

meteorological fluctuations, EPA

designs standards and requirements for

analysis of monitoring data to limit the

effects of unusual meteorological events.

For regional haze, we have provided in

this final rule for the tracking of

visibility trends based on 5-year

averages of annual deciview values for

the most impaired and least impaired

days. We believe that this approach

responds to commenters’ concerns

about significant unusual fluctuations in

annual average values for the best and

worst days due to unusual

meteorological conditions in any

particular year. However, it is also

important to note that EPA has long

held that normal meteorological

variations should be explicitly

accounted for in air quality analyses and

control strategy design. Air quality

improvement plans should be able to

assure protection of public health and

welfare under the normal and

foreseeable range of meteorological

conditions.

Tracking visibility in deciviews. Some

commenters disagreed with the use of

the deciview to measure changes in

visibility, claiming that the deciview

metric has not been adequately

reviewed for use in a regulatory

program. The EPA disagrees with this

assertion. The EPA believes the

deciview metric has been adequately

reviewed for use in the regional haze

program. The deciview concept was

introduced in 1994 in an article

appearing in the peer-reviewed journal

Atmospheric Environment.64 It was

presented in the 1996 Criteria Document

for the PM NAAQS as a valid metric for

characterizing visibility impairment.65

The EPA also recognized the deciview

as an appropriate metric for regulatory

purposes in chapter 8 of the 1996 Staff

Paper for the PM NAAQS review.66 Both

of these documents were reviewed and

accepted by the Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee. Visibility

conditions at Class I areas have been

characterized in terms of deciview in

summary reports on the IMPROVE

visibility monitoring network.67

The EPA also supports use of the

deciview metric because it satisfies one

of the recommendations of the NAS

Committee on Haze in National Parks

and Wilderness Areas. In its 1993 report

on visibility, the NAS recommended the

development of an index that takes into

account both measurement of physical

changes (i.e., changes in air quality)

with elements of human perception.68

Further, a report on the regional haze

proposal by the Congressional Research

Service found that the deciview index

‘‘conforms closely’’ 69 to the NAS

recommendation cited above.

Some commenters stated that the final

rule should not suggest that a one

deciview change is the threshold of

perception in all cases for all scenes.

The EPA agrees with the comment that

a one deciview change should not be

considered the threshold of perception

in all cases for all scenes. The EPA

believes that visibility changes of less

than one deciview are likely to be

perceptible in some cases, especially

where the scene being viewed is highly

sensitive to small amounts of pollution.

The EPA also acknowledges the

technical point made by some

commenters that for other types of

scenes with other site-specific
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35727

70For example, where the sight path to a scenic

feature is less than the maximum visual range.

71See Sisler, et al., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns

and Long-Term Variability of the Composition of

the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data

from the IMPROVE Network. Cooperative Institute

for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State

University, 1996.

72 Id.

conditions,70 a change of more than 1

deciview might be required in order for

the change to be perceptible. However,

EPA wishes to emphasize that the

overall goal of the regional haze

program is not to track changes in

visibility for only certain vistas at a

specific Class I area. Rather, the program

is designed to track changes in regional

visibility for the range of possible views

of sky and terrain found in any Class I

area, and to assure progress toward the

national goal. For this purpose, EPA

supports the use of the deciview metric

as calculated from ambient monitoring

data for tracking changes in regional

visibility. The monitoring network is

not designed to track changes in

visibility for specific views in each

Class I area. Rather, the network is

designed to characterize visibility

conditions that, for each site, are

representative of a fairly broad

geographic region. The EPA believes

this approach is consistent with the

nature of regional haze, which is

defined as a uniform haze caused by

numerous sources covering a broad area.

Thus, although a 1 deciview change

may not be the threshold of perception

in all situations, the fundamental

advantage of using the deciview

remains: the deciview metric expresses

uniform changes in haziness in terms of

common increments across the entire

range of visibility conditions, from

pristine to extremely hazy conditions.

The metric provides a useful means of

expressing changes in visibility caused

by changes in air quality while also

providing a scale that relates visibility

to perception. The final rule maintains

the deciview as the principle visibility

metric used in establishing reasonable

progress goals, in defining baseline,

current, and natural conditions, and in

tracking changes in visibility conditions

over time. States may choose to express

visibility changes in terms of other

metrics, such as visual range or light

extinction, as well as in terms of

deciview. The definition in the final

rule was modified slightly to provide

additional clarity.

Light extinction calculated from

aerosol data. Some other commenters

did not support EPA’s proposed

approach to calculating light extinction

based on monitored fine particle data

(referred to as ‘‘reconstructed light

extinction’’ in the proposal). These

commenters preferred other methods,

such as direct measurement of light

scattering or light extinction with an

optical device. While such methods are

desired in comprehensively monitoring

visibility impairment, the EPA supports

the use of a common approach for

calculating visibility changes based on

monitored fine particle data as the

primary monitoring method for tracking

visual air quality.

Such an approach has been

established and implemented for many

years by the IMPROVE Steering

Committee. The IMPROVE approach

uses a set of standard assumptions,71

which have been tested and found to be

reasonable, in calculating light

extinction and deciviews from changes

in air quality. Two important aspects of

the approach are: (1) Standard rates of

light extinction per unit mass of

visibility-impairing pollutants (e.g.,

sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon,

elemental carbon, and crustal material);

and (2) standard effects of humidity on

sulfate and nitrate.

Through extensive analysis of

empirical data, a value (or ‘‘dry

extinction coefficient’’) has been

developed for each aerosol component

which represents the amount of light

extinction (expressed in inverse

megameters) caused by each microgram/

m3 of that component. Light extinction

is calculated by multiplying the aerosol

mass for each component by its

extinction coefficient and summing the

products. Because sulfates and nitrates

become more efficient at scattering light

as humidity increases, the values for

these two components are also

multiplied by a relative humidity

adjustment factor. It has been shown

that annual and seasonal light

extinction values developed according

to this method correlate well with

averages of optical measurements of

light extinction for the same locations.72

The EPA plans to issue future guidance

describing the details of calculating

visibility changes in this manner and

tracking visibility over time.

Although light extinction can be

measured directly by certain optical

devices (i.e., transmissometers and

nephelometers), EPA supports an

approach based on the mass of PM

components derived from ambient

monitoring for calculating light

extinction for two main reasons. First,

this approach provides for the tracking

of actual changes in the components of

air pollution, and the information

obtained from analysis of the chemical

composition of PM is critical to the air

quality modeling and strategy

development processes. By

understanding the chemical

composition of particulate matter, we

can better define the manmade and

natural components contributing to

overall light extinction. Second, direct

measurements of visibility from some

optical instruments (e.g.,

transmissometer) are more frequently

disrupted by precipitation events (i.e.,

rain or snow) than are aerosol

measurements.

For all of the reasons discussed above,

the final rule provides for the tracking

of visibility and emissions reductions.

The deciview will be the principal

visibility metric for use in implementing

the regional haze program. The

deciview will be used for expressing

reasonable progress goals, defining

baseline, current, and natural

conditions, and tracking changes in

visibility conditions over time. The

definition of deciview in the final rule

in section 51.301(bb) was modified

slightly to provide additional clarity and

state that deciview values are to be

derived from calculated light extinction

based on aerosol measurements in

accordance with EPA guidance.

D. Regional Haze Implementation Plan

Principles

Section 169A of the CAA calls for

States to develop implementation plans

ensuring reasonable progress toward the

national goal, including emission limits,

schedules of compliance and other

measures as necessary. At a minimum,

the CAA calls for SIPs to include a longterm strategy and provisions for BART

for certain major stationary sources. We

would like to emphasize several

overarching themes for the specific

implementation plan requirements in

the final rule:

• Regional haze regulations and State

implementation plans must address all

of the statutory requirements outlined in

169A and 169B of the CAA. Regional

haze requirements must address a

number of specific statutory

requirements, including ‘‘criteria for

reasonable progress,’’ long-term

strategies addressing all types of sources

and activities, and best available retrofit

technology for certain stationary

sources. The implementation plan

requirements in the final rule are

designed to ensure that all of these

statutory requirements will be met.

• Tracking ‘‘reasonable progress’’

should involve the tracking of both

emissions and visibility improvement.

Regional haze implementation plans

must include provisions for tracking the

implementation of enforceable emission

management strategies designed to make

reasonable progress toward the national
35728 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

73National Research Council, Committee on Haze

in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Protecting

Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

National Academy Press, 1993.

visibility goal. Emission control

measures will be the component that

will be enforceable to ensure reasonable

progress. Measuring reasonable progress

should involve tracking the actual

emissions achieved through

implementation of such strategies, and

the tracking of visibility for the most

impaired and least impaired days using

established monitoring and data

analysis techniques.

• Strategies for improving visibility

should address all types of sources.

Section 169A provides for State longterm strategies to address all types of

sources and activities emitting

pollutants that contribute to visibility

impairment in Class I areas, including

stationary, mobile, and area sources.

Implementation plans also must give

specific attention to certain stationary

sources built between 1962 and 1977

and provide for meeting the BART

provisions for these sources.

• Successful implementation of the

regional haze program will involve longterm regional coordination among

States. Pollution affecting the air quality

in Class I areas can be transported long

distances, even hundreds of kilometers.

Therefore, States will need to develop

strategies in coordination with one

another, taking into account the effect of

emissions from one jurisdiction to air

quality in another. In addition, as noted

by the NAS study, ‘‘achieving the

national visibility goal will require a

substantial, long-term program.’’ 73

Accordingly, the regional haze program

requires the periodic review by each

State of whether ‘‘reasonable progress’’

is being achieved and revisions of

implementation plans as needed to

continue progress toward the national

visibility goal.

E. Determination of ‘‘Baseline,’’

‘‘Natural’’ and ‘‘Current’’ Visibility

Background. The fundamental goal of

the visibility program, as provided by

Congress, is the prevention of future

visibility impairment and the remedying

of existing impairment in Class I areas.

Thus, the regional haze program must

track progress toward the national goal.

In order to facilitate this tracking

process, the proposed rule required each

State having one or more Class I areas

to establish, and update as necessary,

three important visibility parameters for

the best and worst visibility days at each

Class I area within the State. Each

parameter is discussed in detail below.

• Baseline conditions—Baseline

conditions represent visibility for the

best and worst days at the time the

regional haze program is established.

Baseline conditions are calculated using

multiyear averaging.

• Natural conditions—As specified in

the CAA, estimated natural conditions,

or the visibility conditions that would

be experienced in the absence of

human-caused impairment, constitute

the ultimate goal of the program. Under

the regional haze program, natural

conditions need to be estimated for the

20 percent best and worst days.

• Current conditions—Current

conditions for the best and worst days

are calculated from a multiyear average,

based on the most recent years of

monitored data. This value would be

revised at the time of each periodic SIP

revision, and would be used to

illustrate: (1) The amount of progress

made since the last SIP revision, and (2)

the amount of progress made from the

baseline period of the program.

Baseline Conditions

Proposed rule. The preamble to the

proposal discussed an approach for

determining baseline visibility

conditions for the haziest 20 percent

and clearest 20 percent of days that

would allow using a minimum of 3

years of monitored data, and up to a

maximum of 9 years of data.

Comments received. The EPA

received some comments suggesting that

it would be more equitable to use a

standardized time period to establish

baseline values for all Class I areas

across the country. Other commenters

supported the use of baseline values

based on a varying number of years from

site to site. Some commenters also

supported the establishment of baseline

conditions based on a period of time

longer than 3 years because a 3-year

period could be significantly influenced

by unique meteorological

circumstances.

Final rule. After considering public

comments on the baseline issue, EPA

has determined that the most

appropriate ‘‘baseline period’’ would be

a fixed, 5-year period extending from

calendar year 2000 through calendar

year 2004. The EPA concluded that a

standard baseline period provides for

greater national consistency in

establishing this important value, and

therefore, is preferable to a provision

allowing the baseline period to be a

variable number of years. Using a

common number of years and data

points to calculate the baseline value for

each site is consistent with fundamental

statistical principles and will provide

for easy comparison of data from

multiple sites as the program is

implemented.

The EPA also concluded that it would

be preferable to have a baseline value

based on more than 3 years in order to

establish a more robust baseline value.

The EPA agrees with commenters that a

5-year period, rather than a 3-year

period, provides for a more stable

treatment of the inherent variability in

emissions and meteorology. This

approach decreases the probability that

the baseline period will be unduly

affected by unusual or

nonrepresentative events.

In deciding upon the specific baseline

period of 2000–2004, the Agency took

into account the fact that EPA has

obtained funding to provide several

hundred monitors to the States for the

purposes of characterizing PM2.5

concentrations in urban and rural areas

nationally. In accordance with the part

58 monitoring provision enabling

IMPROVE protocol aerosol monitors to

be used to characterize PM2.5 conditions

at background and transport sites, the

IMPROVE network will be expanding

from 30 to more than 100 sites by the

end of 1999 in order to characterize both

background PM2.5 levels and visibility

impairment levels in Class I areas. Thus,

EPA concluded that the baseline period

should begin in 2000, after monitoring

coverage for Class I areas is expanded

significantly.

The approach to calculating baseline

values will also provide for more stable

values because the frequency of

monitoring samples in the IMPROVE

network will increase in 1999 to one

sample every 3 days. In this way, the

frequency of sampling for IMPROVE

will be consistent with the PM2.5

monitoring approach. Thus, annual

values should become more robust since

17 percent more samples will be

collected each year. Baseline conditions

must be determined in terms of

deciviews for the years 2000–2004 for

the ‘‘most impaired days’’ and the ‘‘least

impaired days.’’ The final rule defines

these values as the average of the 20

percent of monitored days with the

highest or lowest light extinction values,

expressed in deciviews. The EPA will

issue guidance for calculating baseline

visibility conditions based on ambient

monitoring data. The baseline value is

determined by calculating the average

deciview value for the 20 percent most

(or least) impaired days for each of the

5 years (2000 through 2004), and by

averaging those five values.

The final rule also calls for baseline

conditions to be established by the State

for any Class I area without on-site

monitoring by using ‘‘representative’’

monitoring data for the site. In the SIP,

the State will need to provide an

adequate demonstration supporting the
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35729

74 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and

Prescribed Fires, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, May 1998.

75See unit III.B. for a detailed discussion of the

TEA–21 provisions and their affect on the timing

for implementation of the regional haze program.

76See National Acid Precipitation Assessment

Program. Acid Deposition: State of Science and

Technology. Report 24, Visibility: Existing and

Historical Conditions—Causes and Effects, Table

24–6. Washington, DC. 1991.

77The NAPAP estimates were cited in both the

Criteria Document and EPA Staff for the PM

NAAQS.

use of any ‘‘representative’’ data. The

EPA will issue guidance to help the

States address this issue. The IMPROVE

Steering Committee (comprised of

representatives from EPA, States, and

FLMs) is working to develop acceptable

criteria to configure the expanded

visibility monitoring network in such a

way that virtually all Class I areas will

either have an aerosol monitor or will be

characterized by a ‘‘representative’’ site.

The IMPROVE Steering Committee,

including State representatives, will

complete the process for identifying

representative sites before monitoring

for the expanded network begins in the

year 2000. For this reason, it is expected

that most States needing to rely on

representative data from another site

will be able to meet the requirement of

section 51.308(d)(4) by referencing the

Visibility Monitoring Guidance

Document, which will be released

shortly after promulgation of this rule,

and other technical support materials

developed by the IMPROVE Steering

Committee to support the determination

of representative sites.

Finally, States that submit SIPs for

regional haze by 2003 under section

51.309 (further discussion in unit IV)

must determine baseline conditions

based on the most recent 5-year period

for which monitoring data are available

for the Class I area. For an area without

monitoring data, the State may use data

from another representative Class I area.

Natural Visibility Conditions

Proposal. The proposed rule called for

each State having a Class I area, in

consultation with the appropriate FLMs,

to: (1) Develop a procedure to estimate

natural conditions for the 20 percent

most impaired and least impaired days

at each Class I area within the State; and

(2) provide this estimate with the State’s

first SIP revision for regional haze (in

the 2003–2005 timeframe as stated in

the proposal). The estimates for natural

conditions would be expressed in

deciviews. The preamble cited as a

default annual average, estimates of

natural visibility that were included in

the 1991 NAPAP chapter on visibility.

When converted to deciview values,

these annual average estimates are 9.6

deciviews in the Eastern United States

and 5.3 deciviews in the Western

United States.

Comments received. A number of

commenters noted that there are several

factors which can make the

determination of natural conditions

difficult. For example, organic aerosols

resulting from biogenic sources,

windblown dust, and natural causes of

fire all contribute to natural visibility

conditions. Several commenters

emphasized the difficulty in

determining the estimated contribution

of naturally-caused fire to natural

conditions. Some commenters suggested

that EPA provide guidance on how to

estimate natural conditions.

Final rule. The EPA understands that

estimating natural visibility conditions

can involve many technically complex

issues. The EPA is committed to

working with the States, tribes, and

FLMs on this issue to develop technical

guidance on estimating natural visibility

conditions. The EPA expects that these

estimates may be refined over time. In

addition, after the regional haze rule is

promulgated, and in advance of SIP due

dates, EPA plans to revise the Interim

Air Quality Policy on Wildland and

Prescribed Fires 74 to address a number

of issues, including the contribution of

fire to natural visibility conditions.

Consistent with the proposal, the final

rule retains the requirement that each

State provide an adequate estimate of

natural visibility conditions for best and

worst visibility days in each Class I area

within the State. These estimates will be

due at the time the State submits its

initial control strategy SIP for regional

haze. However, because the requirement

for a SIP revision within 12 months of

promulgation has been overridden by

the provisions of TEA–21, there no

longer is a requirement for States to

separately submit to EPA recommended

procedures for estimating natural

conditions in advance of their control

strategy SIPs.75

The EPA recommends that the States

work closely with the FLMs, tribes, and

EPA in developing and documenting in

their SIPs appropriate methods for

estimating natural conditions. Estimates

of natural visibility conditions are

needed to aid all interested parties,

including the general public, in

understanding how ‘‘close’’ or ‘‘far’’ a

particular Class I area is in relation to

the ultimate goal of the program.

Understanding the estimated relative

contributions of natural PM constituents

(such as organic carbon and crustal

material) also can help the States and

tribes in understanding the extent of the

contribution from manmade

components, and thus can help in

designing appropriate emission

management strategies in the future.

With each subsequent SIP revision, the

estimates of natural conditions for each

Class I area may be reviewed and

revised as appropriate as the technical

basis for estimates of natural conditions

improve.

The EPA believes that, as a starting

point, it will be appropriate to derive

regional estimates of natural visibility

conditions by using estimates of natural

levels of visibility-impairing

pollutants 76 in conjunction with the

IMPROVE methodology for calculating

light extinction from measurements of

the five main components of fine

particle mass (sulfate, nitrate, organic

carbon, elemental carbon, and crustal

material). By using this approach with

appropriate assumptions for annual

average relative humidity, EPA

estimates natural conditions for the

worst visibility days to be

approximately 11–12 deciviews in the

east and 8 deciviews in the west. The

EPA supports use of these estimating

techniques as a valid starting point

because they rely on peer-reviewed

estimates of the natural composition of

fine particle mass,77 and analysis of data

from the IMPROVE program’s wellestablished approach, refined over the

past 10 years or more, for calculating

light extinction from monitored PM

constituents.

Because these values are expressed in

regional terms only, further refinement

of these estimates will need to take

place in the future on a site-specific

basis. However, because current

conditions at most Class I areas with

existing IMPROVE monitoring exceed

the above estimates by at least several

deciviews (with some of the more

impaired Class I areas having values

that exceed estimated natural conditions

by 20 deciviews or more), EPA does not

believe that such refined values are

necessary for the initial 10-year program

implementation period. As the

difference between current and natural

conditions for a particular Class I area

becomes smaller, it will be important to

develop more precise techniques for

estimating natural conditions.

Current Conditions

Proposal. The proposed rule required

the State to revise its long-term strategy

every 3 years and to compare current

conditions to the visibility conditions

existing at the time of its previous longterm strategy revision. Current

conditions would be established for the

most impaired and least impaired days,

and would be expressed in deciviews.
35730 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

78See the section on Baseline Conditions for a

discussion of the rationale for selecting a 5-year

period.

Comments received. Many

commenters supported EPA’s approach

to periodic tracking of changes in

visibility to determine reasonable

progress. Some commenters felt that

averaging 5 years of data, rather than 3,

would be preferable.

Final rule. Section 51.308(f)(1) of the

final rule retains the requirement for

each State, at the time of any SIP

revision, to determine the current

visibility conditions for the most

impaired and least impaired days for

each Class I area within the State.

Current conditions are to be based on

the 5 most recent years of monitoring

data available at the time a SIP revision

or progress report is submitted. The

approach for calculating current

conditions is similar to the approach for

calculating baseline conditions

discussed above: the value is

determined by calculating the average

for the 20 percent most impaired days

for each of the 5 most recent years for

which quality-assured data are

available, and then by calculating the

average of those five values.78

Sections 51.308(f)(1) and 51.308(g)(3)

of the final rule also require the State to

calculate the difference between current

conditions and several other parameters

so that this information can be taken

into account when the State is revising

its SIP and considering new reasonable

progress goals. A discussion of these

calculations is provided in unit III.J of

this preamble addressing periodic SIP

revisions and progress reports.

Summary

The following summary table further

illustrates the uses of ‘‘baseline,’’

‘‘natural,’’ and current conditions in the

regional haze program.

Term What does it mean? How is it used in the regional haze program?

‘‘Baseline conditions’’ ......................................... Visibility (in deciviews) for the 20 percent

most-impaired days, and for the 20 percent

least-impaired days, for the years 2000

through 2004.

‘‘Baseline’’ conditions are used in two ways:

(1) For the first regional haze SIPs, due in

about 2006–2008, baseline conditions are

the reference point against which visibility

improvement is tracked.

(2) For subsequent SIP updates (in the year

2018 and every 10 years thereafter), baseline conditions are used to calculate

progress from the beginning of the regional

haze program.

‘‘Natural conditions’’ ........................................... The level of visibility (in deciviews) for the 20

percent most-impaired days, and for the 20

percent least-impaired days, that would

exist if there were no manmade impairment..

‘‘Natural conditions’’ represents the absence

of visibility impairment due to humancaused emissions, the ultimate goal of the

regional haze program.

‘‘Current conditions’’ ........................................... ‘‘Visibility (in deciviews) for the 20 percent

most-impaired days, and for the 20 percent

least-impaired days, for the most recent 5-

year period.

For the initial planning SIPs, ‘‘current’’ and

‘‘baseline’’ conditions are the same.

For subsequent 5-year progress reports, ‘‘current conditions’’ describe the amount of

progress that has been made at the midcourse review point halfway through an implementation cycle.

For subsequent comprehensive regional haze

SIPs (beginning in 2018 and every 10 years

thereafter), ‘‘current conditions’’ will be used

to show how much progress has been

made relative to the ‘‘baseline,’’ and will

serve as the reference point for tracking

progress for the next implementation period.

F. Reasonable Progress Goals

The previous section discussed three

important visibility parameters for

tracking ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward

the national visibility goal. In this

section, EPA describes the requirements

of section 51.308(d)(1) of the final rule

for States to establish ‘‘reasonable

progress goals’’ for each Class I area

within the State. In addition, this

section also discusses important

analyses and other factors for States to

take into consideration in setting these

goals.

Proposed rule. In the proposed rule,

EPA presented a framework for a longterm program under which continued

progress would be achieved in Class I

areas toward the national visibility goal.

The EPA proposed presumptive

‘‘reasonable progress targets,’’ expressed

in terms of deciviews, for the purposes

of improving visibility on the 20 percent

worst days and allowing no degradation

of visibility on the 20 percent best days.

Two options were presented for the

presumptive target for the most

impaired days: (1) A rate of

improvement equivalent to 1.0 deciview

over a 10-year period, and (2) a rate of

improvement equivalent to 1.0 deciview

over a 15-year period. For the least

impaired days, EPA proposed a target of

no degradation, defined as less than a

0.1 deciview increase.

The EPA noted that the 10- and 15-

year time periods for tracking

improvement were consistent with

section 169A(b)(2)(B), which calls for

States to develop long-term strategies

covering 10 to 15 years. The EPA also

emphasized the importance of achieving

a perceptible change in visibility over

the time period of a long-term strategy.

In addition, EPA stated that gradual

improvements in visibility as defined by

reasonable progress targets were

consistent with the GCVTC definition of

reasonable progress, which is

‘‘achieving continuous emissions

necessary to reduce existing impairment

and attain steady improvement of

visibility in mandatory Class I areas.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35731

79 GCVTC Report, June 1996, p. x.

80See CA A section 169A(g)(1) and 169A(g)(2).

See also 62 FR 41145–41148. 81See section 51.308(d)(1).

82U.S. EPA, Effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments on Visibility in Class I Areas: An EPA

Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, EPA–452/R–93–014, 1993.

83Calculated by dividing 3 deciviews (per 10

years) into an average of 18 deciviews away from

Continued

* * *’’ 79 As noted in unit III.C., EPA

also proposed to track progress in

relation to the targets through the use of

monitored air quality data and

calculation of light extinction values

from this aerosol data.

The proposal also provided a process

by which a State could establish

alternate reasonable progress targets,

expressed in deciviews, provided the

State justified the alternate target based

on a review of the relevant statutory

factors.80 These factors are:

• 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

existing source subject to such

requirements.

Comments received. A number of

commenters advocated a faster rate of

improvement than the proposed

presumptive rate of 1 deciview every 10

or 15 years since, as proposed, they

claimed it could take more than 200

years to reach the national visibility goal

in some eastern locations. They felt that

this rate of progress should not be

considered ‘‘reasonable.’’ Many of these

commenters supported a rate of

improvement for the worst days equal to

10–20 percent of the current deciview

value (i.e., 3–6 deciviews per 10 years

in an average eastern location with a

worst day value of 30 deciviews, and

1.5–3.0 deciviews for an average

southwestern location with a worst day

value of 15 deciviews). A number of

other commenters interpreted the

proposed rule as requiring an inflexible

visibility ‘‘standard’’ of 1 deciview

improvement every 10 or 15 years. They

maintained that such a standard would

be infeasible to achieve in some areas of

the country, and that EPA had failed to

justify such a presumption through an

analysis of the statutory factors in

section 169A(g). These commenters

wanted the States to have greater

flexibility in setting visibility goals.

Some commenters stated that 1

deciview is not the threshold of

perception in all situations, and that for

this reason the one deciview

presumptive target in the proposal

should be dropped. Other commenters

asserted that the no degradation target

for the best visibility days would

prevent new source growth in some

areas. Some commenters also opposed

the presumptive target because of the

concern that a State could be subject to

a citizen lawsuit for not meeting a

reasonable progress target.

Final rule. In considering how to

address the reasonable progress target

issue in the final rule, EPA was mindful

of the balance that must be maintained

between the need for strategies that will

achieve meaningful improvements in air

quality and the need to provide

appropriate flexibility for States in

designing strategies that are responsive

to both air quality and economic

concerns. After considering the

comments on the ‘‘presumptive target’’

issue, EPA has revised the rule to

eliminate ‘‘presumptive targets.’’ There

is no presumptive target that States are

required to meet to achieve reasonable

progress. States have flexibility in

determining their reasonable progress

goals based on consideration of the

statutory factors. However, as discussed

below, the final rule requires States to

conduct certain analyses to ensure that

they consider the possibility of setting

an ambitious reasonable progress goal,

one that is aimed at reaching natural

background conditions in 60 years.

The final rule calls for States to

establish ‘‘reasonable progress goals,’’ 81

expressed in deciviews, for each Class I

area for the purpose of improving

visibility on the haziest days and not

allowing degradation on the clearest

days over the period of each

implementation plan or revision. The

EPA believes that requiring States to

establish such goals is consistent with

section 169A of the CAA, which gives

EPA broad authority to establish

regulations to ‘‘ensure reasonable

progress,’’ and with section 169B of the

CAA, which calls for EPA to establish

‘‘criteria for measuring reasonable

progress’’ toward the national goal.

This approach is designed to address

the concerns of those commenters

interested in greater State flexibility in

setting visibility goals, as well as the

concerns of those commenters who

believed that the presumptive 1

deciview target approach could actually

provide a disincentive for some States to

pursue more ambitious rates of progress,

particularly for the most impaired Class

I areas in the East. The EPA has taken

this approach in the final rule because

the CAA national visibility goal and

‘‘reasonable progress’’ provisions do not

mandate specific rates of progress, but

instead call for ‘‘reasonable progress’’

toward the ultimate goal of returning to

natural background conditions. Today’s

final rule requires the States to

determine the rate of progress for

remedying existing impairment that is

reasonable, taking into consideration the

statutory factors, and informed by input

from all stakeholders.

Required analysis of rate of progress

which would attain natural conditions

in sixty years. The EPA received

numerous comments expressing the

concern that a rate of progress that

would result in reaching the national

goal in 200 years should not be

considered ‘‘reasonable.’’ These

comments are based on the fact that the

most impaired Eastern United States

Class I areas have current conditions for

the worst days (around 26–31

deciviews) that exceed estimated

natural conditions (approximately 10–

12 deciviews) by 16–20 deciviews or

more. At the proposed presumptive rate

of progress of 1 deciview per 10 years,

it would take 200 years or more to reach

the national visibility goal in many

Eastern Class I areas. In addition,

several commenters felt that rates of

progress should vary between the east

and the west because many parts of the

western United States have much lower

levels of visibility impairment than the

east. For example, they asserted that a

1 deciview improvement over 10 years

may not be very ambitious in an eastern

location, whereas it could be very

ambitious in some of the least impaired

Class I areas in the west.

In order to address the diverse

concerns of commenters on the

proposal, EPA is establishing an

analytical requirement that takes into

account the varying levels of visibility

impairment in Class I areas around the

country while ensuring an equitable

approach nationwide. To determine an

equitable analytical approach, we

considered the CAA amendments of

1990, which require actions to attain air

quality health standards over a 20-year

period for the 1-hour ozone standard,

depending on the severity of the area’s

problem, and over a 10-year period for

new standards, such as the new 8-hour

ozone standard and the PM2.5 standards.

The CAA also requires reductions over

the same time period to address acid

rain. In the eastern United States, EPA’s

analyses show that the reductions from

these and other CAA programs will

result in a rate of improvement

estimated at approximately 3 deciviews

over the period from the mid-1990’s to

about 2005.82 The EPA calculated that if

this rate of improvement could be

sustained, these areas would reach the

national goal in 60 years.83 The EPA
35732 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

natural conditions, and multiplying 6 increments

by 10 years, assuming 10 years to achieve each

increment.

concluded that it would be reasonable

to establish an analytical requirement

based on this rate of progress given that

this rate of improvement is expected to

be achieved due to emissions under

CAA programs.

The EPA also believes that the

analytical requirement of the rate of

improvement needed to reach natural

conditions in 60 years is reasonable

because in the near-term, cost-effective

controls will continue to be available to

reduce emissions that contribute to

visibility impairment in Class I areas

across the country. Recent analyses for

other air quality programs show that

significant emissions can be achieved

through cost-effective control measures.

In addition, in the longer term, it can

be expected that continued progress in

visibility will be possible as industrial

facilities built in the latter half of the

20th century reach the end of their

‘‘useful lives’’ and are retired and/or

replaced by cleaner, more fuel-efficient

facilities. Significant improvements in

pollution prevention techniques,

emissions control technologies, and

renewable energy have been made over

the past 30 years, and continue to be

made. History strongly suggests that

further innovations in control

technologies are likely to continue in

future decades, leading to the ability of

new plants to meet lower emissions

rates.

In light of this analysis of progress

that could potentially be achieved, EPA

has established in section

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) an analytical

requirement for setting reasonable

progress goals that should provide for

greater equity between goals set for the

more impaired Eastern United States

and the less impaired Western United

States. This analytical requirement has

the following four steps.

First, the State (or regional planning

group) must compare the baseline

visibility conditions in the years 2000–

2004 (in deciviews) for the most

impaired days with the natural

background conditions, for each

relevant Class I area. From this

comparison, the State must determine

the amount of progress needed to reach

natural background conditions in 60

years, that is, by the year 2064. For

example, if the baseline visibility is 30

deciviews, and the natural background

is 12 deciviews, then this step would

show the need for an 18 deciview

improvement between 2004 and 2064.

Second, the State must identify the

uniform rate of progress over the 60 year

period that would be needed to attain

natural background conditions by the

year 2064. For the example case noted

above, where 18 deciviews is the

amount for the 60-year period, this

would result in a uniform rate of

progress for each year of (18/60), or 0.3

deciviews for a year.

Third, the State must identify the

amount of progress that would result if

this uniform rate of progress were

achieved during the period of the first

regional haze implementation plan. For

example, if the first implementation

plan covers a 10-year period, then for

the above example, the State would

identify a 3 deciview amount of

progress over that time period.

Fourth, the State must identify and

analyze the emissions measures that

would be needed to achieve this amount

of progress during the period covered by

the first long-term strategy, and to

determine whether those measures are

reasonable based on the statutory

factors. These factors are the costs of

compliance with the measures, the time

necessary for compliance with the

measures, the energy and nonair quality

environmental impacts of the

compliance with the measures, and the

remaining useful life of any existing

source subject to the measures.

In doing this analysis, the State must

consult with other States which are

anticipated to contribute to visibility

impairment in the Class I area under

consideration. Because haze is a

regional problem, States are encouraged

to work together to develop acceptable

approaches for addressing visibility

problems to which they jointly

contribute. If a contributing State cannot

agree with the State establishing the

reasonable progress goal, the State

setting the goal must describe the

actions taken to resolve the

disagreement.

If the State determines that the

amount of progress identified through

the analysis is reasonable based upon

the statutory factors, the State should

identify this amount of progress as its

reasonable progress goal for the first

long-term strategy, unless it determines

that additional progress beyond this

amount is also reasonable. If the State

determines that additional progress is

reasonable based on the statutory

factors, the State should adopt that

amount of progress as its goal for the

first long-term strategy.

If the State determines, based on the

statutory factors, that the identified

uniform rate of progress needed to reach

natural conditions is not reasonable, the

State must provide in its plan

submission the analysis and rationale

supporting this determination. The State

then must provide a demonstration as

part of its SIP submission showing why

a less ambitious goal is reasonable,

based on the statutory factors. The EPA

intends to issue guidance interpreting

the statutory factors and providing

examples of ways in which they may be

applied.

The State must also provide to the

public, in accordance with section

51.308(d)(1)(ii), an assessment of the

number of years it would take to reach

natural conditions if the State continued

to make progress at the alternative rate

of progress it selected. For example, if

average worst day visibility at the class

I area is 18 deciviews from estimated

natural conditions, the uniform rate of

progress needed to reach natural

conditions is 3 deciviews per 10 years.

If the State determined that 3 deciviews

is not reasonable but 2 deciviews is,

then the State would have to include a

statement in its SIP that it would take

90 years to reach natural conditions if

this rate is maintained.

It should be noted that in developing

the first regional haze implementation

plan (and subsequent revisions), there is

a time period of several years between

the time period for which data are

available and the date of plan

submission. The first regional haze

implementation plans for most of the

United States will use the years 2000

through 2004 as the baseline for

monitoring and emission inventories,

while the first implementation plan for

much of the country will not be due

until a deadline that occurs between

2006 to 2008. In identifying the amount

of progress needed by the end of the

implementation period (the third step

described above), States must account

for this time period. Assume, for

example, for the case discussed above

(i.e., a 30 deciview baseline, and a

uniform rate of progress of 0.3

deciviews per year to reach natural

conditions in 60 years) that the first

regional haze SIPs covers the years 2009

through the year 2018. For this case,

there would thus be a 4-year period

(2005 through 2008) that would occur

between the baseline and the date of SIP

submission. The uniform rate of

progress of 0.3 deciviews per year over

this time period would result in 1.2

deciviews of improvement before the

plan submission. Hence, for this

example, in identifying the amount of

progress needed between the baseline

and the end of the implementation

period (i.e., the year 2018), the State

must evaluate strategies that provide for

a total of 4.2 deciviews: 1.2 deciviews

between the last year of the baseline

period and plan submission, and 3

deciviews for the implementation
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35733

84 Data from the IMPROVE network show that for

several sites in the Eastern United States, the

deciview values for the best days are greater than

14 deciviews, which is higher than even the

NAPAP estimate of annual average conditions in

the Eastern United States (9.6 deciviews).

period. The effect of this provision is

that States must be mindful of the

expected activities that take place before

plan submission. Generally, we expect

for the first plan submission period that

progress in visibility improvement will

continue to occur during the 2004 to

2008 period due to implementation of

other CAA programs.

Rationale for the required 60-year

analysis. The EPA has adopted this

analytical requirement for two reasons.

First, a common analytical framework

that recognizes regional differences

meets the concerns of several

commenters by providing greater equity

between the Eastern United States and

Western United States.

Second, EPA believes this analysis

will provide important additional

information for the public to consider as

States establish progress goals. The EPA

believes this analysis will provide for a

more informed and equitable decision

making process by giving the public

information about the level of emissions

needed, related costs, and other factors

associated with improvements in

visibility. The EPA recommends that as

part of this process, the States use

computer-based scene optics modeling

tools to present to the general public the

anticipated change in Class I area

visibility that would result from one

reasonable progress goal versus another.

Consideration of other CAA measures.

In determining the emissions and

visibility improvement achieved during

each implementation period, States

should include all air quality

improvements that will be achieved by

other programs and activities under the

CAA and any State air pollution control

requirements. Therefore, any reasonable

progress goal for a Class I area should

reflect at least the rate of visibility

improvement expected from the

implementation of other ‘‘applicable

requirements’’ under the CAA during

the period covered by the long-term

strategy. Consequently, States must take

into account, at a minimum, the effect

of measures to meet the NAAQS, the

national mobile source program, and

other applicable requirements under the

CAA on Class I area visibility.

While, as noted above, based on our

current understanding, EPA expects in

the eastern United States that the

reductions from measures implementing

the CAA requirements will provide the

visibility improvement and emissions

needed for reasonable progress during

the first regional haze implementation

plan, EPA also recognizes that States

will not be submitting their regional

haze plans for several years. In

developing its submittal, each State will

need to conduct analyses to support its

reasonable progress goals according to

information available at the time the

plan is submitted about benefits from

the existing CAA programs. Each State

should set its goal(s) taking into

consideration input from its

stakeholders and based on the statutory

factors described above. In addition, the

State must also conduct a BART

determination for each source subject to

BART as required in section 51.308(e) of

the rule and described in section III.H.

of the preamble. In considering whether

reasonable progress will continue to be

maintained, States will need to consider

during each new SIP revision cycle

whether additional control measures for

improving visibility may be needed to

make reasonable progress based on the

statutory factors.

Some commenters expressed concern

that the State would be subject to

sanctions or enforcement actions in the

event that a State fails to meet a

reasonable progress target. As noted

above, the reasonable progress goal is a

goal and not a mandatory standard

which must be achieved by a particular

date as is the case with the NAAQS.

Once a State has adopted a reasonable

progress goal and determined what

progress will be made toward that goal

over a 10-year period, the goal itself is

not enforceable. All that is

‘‘enforceable’’ is the set of control

measures which the State has adopted

to meet that goal. If the State’s strategies

have been implemented but the State

has not met its reasonable progress goal,

the State could either: (1) revise its

strategies in the SIP for the next longterm strategy period to meet its goal, or

(2) revise the reasonable progress goals

for the next implementation period. In

either case, the State would be required

to base its decisions on appropriate

analyses of the statutory factors

included in section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)

and (B) of the final rule.

If a State fails to submit an approvable

SIP, or if it fails to implement and

enforce strategies adopted into its SIP,

the State could be subject to sanctions

under the CAA. If the State continues to

fail in meeting its obligations, EPA

could be required to develop and

implement a Federal implementation

plan (FIP).

Allowing no degradation for the best

days. Some commenters supported the

goal of no degradation at a minimum,

but they asserted that in many Class I

areas, particularly in the east, the ‘‘best

days’’ are in fact still quite impaired. In

their view, a rule requiring only

preservation of existing clean days

would not meet the national goal.84

Other commenters stated that a ‘‘no

degradation’’ target for the clearest days

could result in limitations to economic

growth.

The final rule maintains the approach

used in the proposed rule, which

established a goal of no degradation for

the best visibility days. The EPA

believes this approach is consistent with

the national goal in that it is designed

to prevent future impairment, a

fundamental concept of section 169A of

the CAA. The EPA recognizes that the

best days are still impaired in many

Class I area locations, particularly in the

east. The EPA encourages States to

evaluate monitoring data to determine

whether the same types of sources are

affecting both the clear days and the

hazy days. If the relative contribution of

different particle types to light

extinction is similar for both clear and

hazy days, as it is for many sites

currently monitored, then by developing

strategies to improve conditions on the

worst visibility days, the States will

likely improve the entire distribution of

hazy and clear days. Thus, under the

final rule, the clean days for most Class

I areas are expected to improve over

time. Indeed, recent analyses of

visibility trends have shown that at

many Class I areas, deciview values for

the 20 percent least impaired days are

declining.

If at a Class I area the average

conditions for clear days degrades over

time, the State must provide in the next

plan revision an explanation of why this

happened, a set of measures designed to

reverse this trend, and a plan for

implementation during the next 10-year

period. The State should review the

effectiveness of these measures in

subsequent 5-year progress reviews.

Integral vistas. The scenic vistas

enjoyed by visitors to many parks often

extend to important natural features

outside these parks. The 1980 rules

included a provision whereby the States

could identify specific vistas for

protection. For this reason, EPA

solicited comment on whether the

integral vistas concept should be

extended to the regional haze program.

Some commenters supported

reopening the vista identification

program because such vistas are a

significant resource of a Class I area.

Several others opposed extending the

program for a variety of reasons.
35734 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

85The IMPROVE network is described in unit

III.I. of the preamble.

86 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21,

1990) (statement of Sen. Adams).

87 GCVTC Report, p. x.

The final regional haze rule does not

extend the integral vista concept to the

regional haze program. As noted earlier

in the background section of this

preamble, regional haze is caused by a

multitude of sources across a broad

geographic area, and it can create a

uniform haze in all directions. The

regional haze program is designed to

bring about improvements in regional

visibility for the range of possible views

of sky and terrain found in any Class I

area. Accordingly, the program does not

protect only specific views from a Class

I area. To address haze, regional

strategies will be needed, and emissions

resulting from these strategies are

expected to improve visibility across a

broad region, not just within a Class I

area. Thus, although the regional haze

program does not include a specific

provision regarding integral vistas, the

long-term strategies developed to meet

reasonable progress goals would also

serve to improve scenic vistas viewed

from and within Class I areas.

Use of 20 percent most-impaired days

and 20 percent least-impaired days. The

final rule maintains the approach

discussed in the proposal of improving

the most-impaired visibility days (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 aerosol

monitoring in the IMPROVE network 85

(once every 3 days), and the number of

samples that would be available for

analysis annually (122 possible samples

per year). The EPA believes that

calculating annual ‘‘best’’ and ‘‘worst’’

conditions on the basis of an average of

the 20 percent best and worst visibility

days represents a reasonable approach

to characterizing the typical best and

worst conditions without having these

values unduly influenced by a single

anomalous data point.

The EPA’s basis for maintaining the

proposed approach is supported by the

CAA and its legislative history, and by

the approach used by the GCVTC in its

technical assessment work and in its

definition of reasonable progress. The

EPA believes that a rule that requires

strategies for improving the worst days

and allowing no degradation on the

clean days is consistent with the

national visibility goal in section 169A

of the CAA, which calls for preventing

any future impairment (protecting

clearest days) and remedying any

existing impairment (improving the

already impaired days). This approach

is also supported by the legislative

history of the 1990 CAA and the

reasonable progress definition. 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.’’ 86 The GCVTC

interpreted ‘‘reasonable progress’’ to be

‘‘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.’’ 87 In

today’s final rule, EPA is similarly

providing for ‘‘attaining a steady

improvement in visibility’’ and

‘‘preventing degradation of clean air

days’’ through the requirement to

improve the haziest days and prevent

degradation of the clearest days.

Tracking progress based on 5-year

averages. To determine whether

reasonable progress in improving

visibility is being achieved, States will

need to collect and analyze air quality

data each year and review progress at 5-

year intervals. Because the regional haze

program represents a long-term effort to

improve visibility in Class I areas, EPA

believes that monitoring and

assessments of progress should not be

unduly influenced by short-term events

or unusual meteorological conditions,

but should reflect trends in air quality

which are robust and insensitive to

minor fluctuations. For this reason, the

final rule calls for measuring progress

by tracking changes in 5-year average

deciview values for the haziest and

clearest days, and comparing these

current conditions against baseline

conditions as well as impairment levels

at the time of the last SIP revision. (See

unit III.E above for further discussion

about establishing baseline and current

conditions based on 5-year averages.)

G. Long-Term Strategy

Proposed rule. Under Section

169A(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA’s visibility

regulations must require States to

include in their SIPs ‘‘such emission

limitations schedules of compliance and

other measures as may be necessary to

make reasonable progress toward

meeting the national goal specified in

* * * [section 169A(a)] * * *’’ In

section 169A(b)(2)(B), the CAA requires

that these SIPs must include a ‘‘longterm (ten to fifteen years) strategy for

making reasonable progress toward

meeting the national goal.’’ The EPA

interprets the term ‘‘long-term strategy’’

as the control measures that are needed

to ensure reasonable progress, together

with a demonstration that those

measures will provide for reasonable

progress during the 10 to 15 year period.

The proposed rule required the State to

develop a long-term strategy for regional

haze with the initial regional haze SIP,

and to provide for regular updates.

(Issues regarding updates of the longterm strategy are discussed below in

unit III.J).

The proposal also required States to

consider a specific list of factors when

they developed their long-term

strategies for regional haze. Under the

proposal, in developing long-term

strategies for regional haze, States

would be required to consider the six

items listed in section 51.306(e) of the

1980 rule, and the five items listed in

section 51.306(g) of the 1980 rule. We

proposed to add a seventh item to

section 51.306(e), ‘‘the anticipated effect

on visibility due to projected changes in

point, area and mobile source emissions

over the next 10 years.’’

Comments received. Public

commenters on the long-term strategy

requirement expressed concerns that the

proposed rule had over-emphasized

stationary source contributions, and had

under-emphasized contributions from

minor sources, area sources, mobile

sources and prescribed fires. Other

commenters expressed concerns that

control strategies would be ineffective

in cases where contributions from

international sources were causing

visibility impairment. Commenters also

emphasized that States be able to take

credit in their long-term strategies for

the effects of existing CAA programs.

We did not receive any comments on

the specific list of factors to consider in

developing long-term strategies.

Final rule. As discussed further below

in unit III.J of today’s notice, the final

rule requires control strategies to cover

an initial implementation period

extending to the year 2018, with a

reassessment and revision of those

strategies, as appropriate, every 10

years. The final rule, in section

51.308(d)(3), includes a requirement for

regional haze SIPs to include a longterm strategy. The long-term strategy

must include specific enforceable

measures that are sufficient to meet the

‘‘reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35735

I areas affected by emissions from the

State.

Multistate contributions—

requirements for consultation and

apportionment. As noted in section

51.308(d)(3)(i), when a State’s emissions

are reasonably anticipated to cause or

contribute to impairment in a Class I

area located in another State or States,

the rule requires that the State consult

with the other State or States in order

to develop coordinated emission

management strategies. Regarding the

Class I areas within the State, section

51.308(d)(3)(i) also requires States to

consult with any other State having

emissions that are reasonably

anticipated to contribute to impairment

in any Class I area within the State.

For Class I areas where the State and

other States cause or contribute to

impairment in a mandatory Class I area,

section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that the

State must demonstrate that it has

included in its implementation plan all

measures necessary to obtain its share of

the emissions needed to meet the

progress goal for the area. Section

51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that States

must document the technical basis,

including modeling, monitoring and

emissions information, that it uses to

determine its apportionment of

emission reduction obligations for the

Class I areas the State affects. It is

important that EPA and stakeholders

understand the modeling, monitoring

and emission information that the State

used to support its conclusion that the

long-term strategy provides for

reasonable progress.

The EPA expects that much of the

consultation, apportionment

demonstrations, and technical

documentation will be facilitated and

developed by regional planning

organizations. We expect, and

encourage, these efforts to develop a

common technical basis and

apportionment for long-term strategies

that could be approved by individual

State participants, and translated into

regional haze SIPs for submission to

EPA. While States are not bound by the

results of a regional planning effort, nor

can the content of their SIPs be dictated

by a regional planning body, we expect

that a coordinated regional effort will

likely produce results the States will

find beneficial in developing their

regional haze implementation plans.

Any State choosing not to follow the

recommendations of a regional body

would need to provide a specific

technical basis that its strategy

nonetheless provides for reasonable

progress based on the statutory factors.

At the same time, EPA cannot require

States to participate in regional

planning efforts if the State prefers to

develop a long-term strategy on its own.

We note that any State that acts alone

in this regard must conduct the

necessary technical support to justify

their apportionment, which generally

will require regional inventories and a

regional modeling analysis.

Additionally, any such State must

consult with other States before

submitting its long-term strategy to EPA.

Consideration of all anthropogenic

sources. In the final rule, we have

clarified in section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) that

the State should consider all types of

anthropogenic sources including

stationary, minor, mobile, and area

sources in developing its long-term

strategy. The State should review all

such sources in identifying the emission

reduction measures to be included in

the strategy. In addition, we provide the

following points of clarification:

Minor sources. Because of the focus of

the BART provision on major stationary

sources, EPA believes that commenters

may have the impression that EPA has

concluded that minor sources with

emissions, below the BART cutoff of

250 tons per year, are not significant

contributors to regional haze. This is not

the case. The EPA believes that States

should take the cumulative emissions

from minor sources into account in

developing their regional haze long-term

strategies. For example, if growth in

minor source emissions for a particular

category had a substantial impact on

emission trends and a corresponding

effect on regional haze in a given

geographic area, States should consider

emission control strategies for such

source categories as part of their longterm strategies.

Mobile sources. In cases where

pollutants emitted by mobile sources

contribute to regional haze, States must

include in their SIPs mobile source

emissions inventories representing

current conditions, as well as

comparisons of those emissions with

future emissions projected for the end of

the covered by the long-term strategy. It

will be particularly important for States

to address the effects of population

growth and accompanying increases in

vehicle miles traveled on their ability to

provide for reasonable progress. The

EPA agrees with commenters that

national mobile source emission

standards also will be an important

factor in projecting mobile source

emissions. The EPA intends to support

States in their efforts to estimate mobile

source emissions (including the effects

of Federal rules) of pollutants that lead

to regional haze.

Area sources. States also need to

develop emission inventories and

conduct analyses to understand the

importance of area sources. For

example, the GCVTC report cited

emissions from road dust as a possible

contributor to impairment. Depending

on the nature of the visibility problem,

road dust and other area sources may at

times make a significant contribution to

visibility impairment. States should

include area sources in emission

inventories and control strategy

analyses as warranted.

Fire. Commenters expressed a number

of concerns with respect to the

appropriate consideration of emissions

from fire in the development of longterm strategies.

The EPA notes that fire emissions

have both a natural and a manmade

component. In addressing fire emissions

in long-term strategies, EPA believes

that States must take into account the

degree to which fire emissions cause or

contribute to ‘‘manmade’’ visibility

impairment and its contribution to

natural background conditions.

Reducing ‘‘manmade’’ visibility

impairment is the focus of sections

169A and 169B of the CAA. The EPA

recognizes the natural role of fire in

forest ecosystems, and the fact that

forest fuels have built up over many

years due to past management practices

designed to protect public health and

safety through fire suppression.

Research has shown that these practices

have led to an increased risk of

catastrophic wildfire as well as reduced

forest health. In response to this

situation, the Federal land management

agencies, as well as some States and

private landowners, have recommended

the increased use of prescribed fire in

order to return certain forest ecosystems

to a more natural fire cycle and to

reduce the risk of adverse health and

environmental impacts due to

catastrophic wildfire.

The EPA also recognizes that fire of

all kinds (wildfire, prescribed fire, etc.)

contributes to regional haze, and that

there is a complex relationship between

what is considered a natural source of

fire versus a human-caused source of

fire. For example, the increased use of

prescribed fire in some ecosystems may

lead to PM emissions levels lower than

those that would be expected from

catastrophic wildfire. Given that the

purpose of prescribed fire in many

instances is to restore natural fire cycles

to forest ecosystems, it would be

appropriate to consider some portion of

prescribed fire as ‘‘natural.’’

Consequently, in determining natural

background for a Class I area, EPA

believes States should be permitted to

consider some amount of fire in the

calculation to reflect the fact that some
35736 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

prescribed fire effects serve merely to

offset what would be expected to occur

naturally. The EPA will work with the

FLMs, States and other stakeholders to

develop guidance on ways in which fire

can be considered in the determination

of natural background, and in the

determination baseline and current

conditions.

Commenters asserted that in the

proposed rule, EPA ignored the

contribution of fires and thus

overlooked the most important hazecontributing emission source in many

Class I areas. The EPA agrees that fire

is an important emission source to

include in the analysis, but current data

do not show that fire is the predominant

source of visibility impairment in any

Class I area. Annual data from the

IMPROVE network show that elemental

carbon (which we generally use as the

main indicator of emissions from fire

and other combustion sources such as

diesel emissions), accounts for only

about 3–7 percent of PM2.5 mass on the

worst visibility days in eastern sites. In

western sites, elemental carbon

accounts for about 4–7 percent of total

PM2.5 mass on the worst days. The

contribution from fires can be

substantial over short-term periods, but

fires occur relatively infrequently and

thus have a lower contribution to longterm averages. Fire events making

substantial contributions to haze in a

given Class I area have occurred

relatively infrequently, and as a

practical matter will contribute less than

sources for which emissions are more

continuous. As noted previously, the

final rule requires States to develop

long-term strategies for regional haze

that address 5-year averages of the 20

percent worst days. These 5-year

averages will also be used in evaluating

monitoring results. The frequency with

which fires occur will effect the

importance of their emissions on

predicted future 5-year averages for

visibility conditions on the 20 percent

worst days.

Commenters expressed concerns with

the expected increase in emissions from

prescribed burning on Federal lands.

Specifically, the commenters asserted

that States would not be able to address

emission increases from these

prescribed burns, and that stationary

sources would be required to

compensate for the increased amount.

The EPA believes these commenters

are mistaken in their view of State’s

authority to address emissions from

prescribed Federal burns. Pursuant to

section 118 of the CAA, when States

impose requirements on sources,

Federal agencies must comply with

those requirements in the same manner,

and to the same extent, as any

nongovernmental entity. States therefore

have the authority to address emissions

from prescribed Federal burns in the

same manner, and to the same extent,

they regulate prescribed fires generally.

Additionally, to the degree that States

determine in the development of longrange strategies that the manmade

component of fire is a significant

contributor to regional haze, States have

a substantial degree of flexibility under

the CAA and in the final rule. The final

rule provides States flexibility in

determining the amount of progress that

is ‘‘reasonable’’ in light of the statutory

factors, and also provides flexibility to

determine the best mix of strategies to

meet the reasonable progress goal they

select. Nothing in the final rule requires

States to develop long-term strategies

that reduce emissions from other

sources by amounts equivalent to any

increases from the manmade fraction of

prescribed fires. We do expect that

States consider and analyze the full

range of available control measures and

that they consider the causes of

visibility impairment when evaluating

the potential measures to include in

their long-term strategies.

The EPA encourages the development

of smoke management programs

between air regulators and land

managers as a means to manage the

impacts of wildland and prescribed

burning. The sources of information

described above, as well as other

developmental efforts currently

underway, provide effective, flexible

approaches to smoke management.

Where smoke impacts from fire are

identified as an important contributor to

regional haze, smoke management

programs should be a key component of

regional and State regional haze

planning efforts and long-term

strategies.

There are a number of sources of

information on mitigation approaches

for fire emissions, including: (1) The

EPA Interim Air Quality Policy on

Wildland and Prescribed Burning, (2)

fire-related strategies developed by the

GCVTC and (3) the best available

control methods (BACM) document for

prescribed burning. In the Interim Air

Quality Policy on Wildland and

Prescribed Burning, EPA, in

collaboration with a national

stakeholder group comprised of Federal,

State, and private land managers, State

air regulators, environmental groups,

tribes, and others, developed a

framework for managing the impacts of

smoke from increased prescribed fire

programs across the country. This

policy describes the elements and

process of smoke management planning

that air regulators and land managers

can use to reach agreement on

development of smoke programs. The

GCVTC included a number of long-term

strategies for fire in its report and

recommendations, including emissions

tracking and emission goals for fire,

smoke management programs, and full

consideration for alternatives to fire.

The GCVTC’s strategy is illustrative of

the available mitigation approaches for

emissions from fire that other States

may consider. The GCVTC’s approach is

contained in section 51.309(d)(6) of the

final rule and discussed further in unit

IV.C of this notice. The BACM

document, Prescribed Burning

Background Document and Technical

Information Document, EPA–450/2–92–

003, is organized to discuss various

aspects of State smoke management

programs. The document includes

information on how States administer

and enforce programs for burn/no-burn

days, and information on various topics

including emission inventories, cost

estimation, and public information

programs.

Transboundary emissions from

sources outside the United States. Some

Class I areas located near international

borders are particularly prone to

influence by emissions beyond the

United States border. Commenters

expressed concerns that EPA should

take into account that States are not able

to control international sources in

reviewing a State’s proposal for a

reasonable progress target. Additionally,

commenters urged EPA to work with

Mexico and Canada to reduce emissions

from sources that States determine to be

significant contributors to regional haze

in their Class I areas.

The EPA agrees that the projected

emissions from international sources

will in some cases affect the ability of

States to meet reasonable progress goals.

The EPA does not expect States to

restrict emissions from domestic sources

to offset the impacts of international

transport of pollution. We believe that

States should evaluate the impacts of

current and projected emissions from

international sources in their regional

haze programs, particularly in cases

where it has already been well

documented that such sources are

important. At the same time, EPA will

work with the governments of Canada

and Mexico to seek cooperative

solutions on transboundary pollution

problems.

Factors to consider for long-term

strategies. In section 51.308(d)(3)(v) (A)

through (G) in the final rule, we have

incorporated a list of seven factors that

States must consider in developing

long-term strategies. The final rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35737

88H.R. Rep. No. 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 155

(1977) (emphasis added).

89See CAA sections 169A (b)(2)(A) & (g)(7).

includes six factors in the July 1997

proposal that are derived from section

51.306(e) of the existing rule, and the

additional item, ‘‘the anticipated net

effect on visibility due to projected

changes in point, area, and mobile

source emissions over the period

addressed by the long-term strategy’’

that was specifically added by the July

1997 proposal. We have decided not to

include the five proposed items that are

derived from section 51.306(g), because

four of these items are included on the

list of ‘‘reasonable progress’’ factors in

section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) of the final

rule, and because we believe that the

fifth factor ‘‘effect of new sources’’ is

part of ‘‘projected changes in point

source emissions.’’

In their regional haze SIP

submissions, States must describe how

each of these seven factors is taken into

account in developing long-term

strategies. We believe it is useful to

clarify several of these factors, and

EPA’s expectations on how SIPs can

address them.

Item (A): Emissions due to ongoing air

pollution control programs, including

measures to address reasonably

attributable visibility impairment.

It is expected that for some areas of

the country, such as parts of the eastern

United States, emissions achieved for

the acid rain program and for meeting

the PM2.5 NAAQS, will lead to

substantial improvements in visibility

as well. Item (A) makes clear that States

must take these other emissions into

account in developing their long-term

strategies for regional haze. We expect

that some States may be able to

demonstrate reasonable progress based

on these emissions alone, particularly

for the first 10-year period.

Item (B): Measures to mitigate the

impacts of construction activities.

Item (B) requires that in developing

long-term strategies, States must

consider the impacts of construction

activities. States, for example, should

include these activities in emission

inventories used for long-term strategy

development.

Item (C): Additional measures and

limitations and schedules for

compliance to achieve the reasonable

progress goal.

Where emissions from ongoing

requirements, addressed by item (A), are

not sufficient to achieve the reasonable

progress goal, States must identify

additional measures that will ensure

that the goal will be met. Schedules for

compliance for these additional

measures must be included in the SIP,

and measures considered for inclusion

must be identified in the SIP

submission.

Item (D): Source retirement and

replacement schedules.

Item (D) requires the consideration of

source retirement and replacement

schedules in developing the long-term

strategies, particularly, where these

schedules would have a significant

impact on regional emission loadings

and on a State’s ability to achieve

reasonable progress.

Item (E): Smoke management

techniques for agricultural and forestry

management purposes including plans

as they currently exist within the State

for these purposes.

Item (E) highlights the widely

recognized importance of prescribed

burning programs on regional haze.

Issues related to fire and forestry

management practices are discussed

above.

Item (F): Enforceability of emissions

limitations and control measures.

States must ensure that control

measures are written in a way that EPA

and citizens may enforce as a practical

matter. Guidance on practical

enforceability issues is readily available

in EPA policy guidance memoranda, for

example Guidance on Limiting Potential

to Emit in New Source Permitting, June

13, 1989.

Item (G): The anticipated net effect on

visibility due to projected changes in

point, area, and mobile source

emissions over the next 10 years.

Item (G) requires that States must

address the anticipated net effect on

visibility due to projected changes in

point, area, and mobile source

emissions over the next 10 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. These

changes in emissions would also

include the changes due to measures

developed specifically for the regional

haze program.

Relationship to long-term strategies

under the existing rule. The final rule

provides for coordination of the longterm strategies to address regional haze

impairment with any existing long-term

strategies under the 1980 visibility rule.

Some long-term strategies are already in

place to address reasonably attributable

visibility impairment under the existing

1980 regulation. Coordination of the two

programs is addressed in section

51.306(c) of the final rule. This section

clarifies two points. First, that the

provisions of existing long-term

strategies will continue to apply until

regional haze strategies are in place.

Second, once the first regional haze

strategy is in place, the final rule, in

section 51.306(c) requires the State to

develop a coordinated long-term

strategy which address both reasonably

attributable impairment and regional

haze.

H. Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART)

Background. One of the principal

elements of the visibility protection

provisions of the CAA is the provision

in section 169A addressing the

installation of BART for certain existing

sources. The conference committee

report accompanying the 1977 CAA

amendments indicates that a major

concern motivating the adoption of the

visibility provisions was ‘‘the need to

remedy existing pollution in the Federal

mandatory class I areas from existing

sources.’’ 88 The BART provision in

section 169A(b)(2)(A) demonstrates

Congress’ intention to focus attention

directly on the problem of pollution

from a specific set of existing sources.

This provision provides that EPA’s

regulations to protect visibility must

require States to revise their SIPs to

contain such measures as may be

necessary to make reasonable progress

toward the national visibility goal,

including a requirement that certain

existing stationary sources procure,

install, and operate the ‘‘best available

retrofit technology.’’

The CAA defines the sources

potentially subject to BART as major

stationary sources, including

reconstructed sources, from one of 26

identified source categories which have

the potential to emit 250 tons per year

or more of any air pollutant, and which

were placed into operation between

August 1962 and August 1977.89 This

set of sources potentially subject to

BART was defined in the 1977 CAA and

will not be modified by rule. The 26

source categories are:

(1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric

plants of more than 250 million British

thermal units per hour heat input,

(2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal

dryers),

(3) Kraft pulp mills,

(4) Portland cement plants,

(5) Primary zinc smelters,

(6) Iron and steel mill plants,

(7) Primary aluminum ore reduction

plants,

(8) Primary copper smelters,

(9) Municipal incinerators capable of

charging more than 250 tons of refuse

per day,
35738 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

90Section 51.301(c).

91 Id.

92See EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Guidelines for Determining Best

Available Retrofit Technology for Coal-Fired Power

Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities,

EPA–450/3–80–009b, November 1980.

(10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric

acid plants,

(11) Petroleum refineries,

(12) Lime plants,

(13) Phosphate rock processing plants,

(14) Coke oven batteries,

(15) Sulfur recovery plants,

(16) Carbon black plants (furnace

process),

(17) Primary lead smelters,

(18) Fuel conversion plants,

(19) Sintering plants,

(20) Secondary metal production

facilities,

(21) Chemical process plants,

(22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than

250 million British thermal units per

hour heat input,

(23) Petroleum storage and transfer

facilities with a capacity exceeding

300,000 barrels,

(24) Taconite ore processing facilities,

(25) Glass fiber processing plants, and

(26) Charcoal production facilities.

In section 51.301(e) of the 1980

visibility regulations, a source meeting

the above criteria was defined as an

‘‘existing stationary facility.’’ In today’s

regional haze rule, EPA has added the

definition of a ‘‘BART-eligible source’’

in section 51.301(hh) that is identical to

the definition of ‘‘existing stationary

facility.’’ This new definition is used

throughout the regional haze rule and

preamble in order to avoid the potential

misinterpretation of the ‘‘existing

stationary facility’’ definition as

representing a collection of sources

broader than the subset of sources

potentially subject to BART.

The regulations issued in 1980 define

BART as ‘‘an emission limitation based

on the degree of reduction achievable

through the application of the best

system of continuous emission

reduction for each pollutant which is

emitted’’ by a BART eligible facility.90

The BART emission limitation must be

established, on a case-by-case basis,

taking into consideration the following

factors:

• 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 from the use of such

technology.91

The EPA published guidelines in 1980

which outline the general procedures

for States to follow in analyzing sources

and establishing BART emission

limits.92 These guidelines apply to

situations in which visibility

impairment in the Class I area is

determined to be ‘‘reasonably

attributable’’ to a single source or a

small group of sources.

Proposed rule. The proposed regional

haze rule discussed a process for

addressing BART in the context of

regional haze and requested comment

on how the requirement should be

implemented. The first step in this

process was a requirement that the State

identify all sources potentially subject

to BART early in the planning process.

The second step required the State to

submit a plan and schedule for

evaluating BART and the corresponding

potential emissions for those existing

sources which may reasonably be

anticipated to contribute to regional

haze visibility impairment. The notice

proposed to provide 3 years for

completing this evaluation so that the

results could be taken into

consideration by States as they develop

coordinated strategies for attaining the

PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS.

In setting out the proposed approach

to the BART requirement, EPA proposed

that the test for determining whether a

BART-eligible source ‘‘may reasonably

be anticipated to contribute’’ to regional

haze should be evaluated in the context

of the overall emissions reduction

strategy. The EPA also noted that it

believed that a similar approach should

be taken in addressing ‘‘the degree of

improvement in visibility which may

reasonably be anticipated’’ from the

imposition of BART controls. The EPA

proposed a cumulative approach

because of the nature of the regional

haze problem (i.e., the cumulative

product of emissions from many sources

over a broad area) and because of the

time and expense necessary to try to

determine, one source at a time, the

percentage contribution of each BARTeligible source to regional haze. In

addition, EPA noted the substantial

technical difficulties associated with

estimating the degree of visibility

improvement resulting from a single

source. The EPA broadly requested

comments on effective approaches for

States and sources to meet the BART

requirement under the regional haze

program in the most appropriate

manner, and in particular how BART,

once determined, should be

implemented.

Comments received. Commenters

identified a number of issues

concerning how EPA should address the

BART requirement under the regional

haze program. Some commenters

asserted that the BART requirement

simply should not apply under the

regional haze program. These

commenters argued that the

procurement, installation, and operation

of BART is not explicitly required under

section 169B, and that section 169B is

the primary statutory authority for the

regional haze program. Other opponents

of the BART requirement contended

that the proposal placed too much

emphasis on stationary sources, and on

BART sources in particular, as opposed

to other sources of visibility-impairing

pollutant emissions, such as mobile and

area sources. The commenters

contended that BART should not be the

principal control strategy employed

under the regional haze program.

Another group of commenters

supported EPA’s proposed approach for

addressing the BART requirement.

Some pointed out that while existing

stationary sources are not the only

contributors to regional haze,

controlling these sources is an essential

element of a national regional haze

program. These commenters also

supported the approach of evaluating

BART-eligible sources collectively to

determine their overall contribution to

visibility impairment within a given

airshed. Several commenters

recommended that BART be equivalent

to, or more stringent than, new source

performance standards (NSPS) for sulfur

dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Some

commenters suggested allowing an

emissions cap-and-trade program to

meet the BART requirement. One

commenter described a process whereby

States would conduct an assessment of

the availability of retrofit controls for all

BART-eligible sources in a region,

calculate the cumulative emissions

possible from application of BART to

eligible sources, establish a cap for each

visibility-reducing pollutant, and

implement a 10-year program to achieve

emissions equivalent to the emissions

cap.

Response to comments. The EPA

disagrees with the commenters who

argued that the BART requirements

should not apply to the regional haze

program. The statutory authority for

developing a regional haze program

emanates from section 169A of the CAA,

and any SIPs that are to be developed

under a regional haze program must

include provisions that meet the

requirements of this section, including

the requirement that certain sources

procure, install, and operate BART.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35739

93See CAA section 169A(g)(6); see also Maine v.

Thomas, 874 F.2d.883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) (‘‘EPA’s

mandate to control the vexing problem of regional

haze emanates directly’’ from CAA section 169A).

94H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 204

(1977).

95 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980).

96See 136 Cong. Rec. S2878 (daily ed. March 21,

1990) (statement of Sen. Adams) (‘‘[t]he authority to

establish visibility transport regions and

commissions is a supplement to the administrators

[sic] obligation under current law. * * * The

Administrator may not delay requirements under

section 169A because of the appointment of a

commission for a region under section 169B’’)

(daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Rep. Wyden)

(‘‘[n]either the original House language nor the

Senate language adopted in conference repealed or

lessened EPA’s obligations under the 1977 law’’).

97 See Central Arizona Water Conservation

District v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).

98See 56 FR at 50178.

99Central Arizona Water Conservation District v.

EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).

Since 1977, section 169A of the CAA

has authorized EPA to address regional

haze. Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA

establishes as the national visibility

protection goal ‘‘the prevention of any

future, and the remedying of any

existing, impairment of visibility in

Class I areas which impairment results

from manmade air pollution.’’ Visibility

impairment is defined broadly in the

CAA and includes that caused by

regional haze.93 This language does not

distinguish between reasonably

attributable impairment and regional

haze, but provides for visibility

protection generally. This reading of the

statute is consistent with the legislative

history; in adopting section 169A,

Congress evinced its intent to address

impairment caused by ‘‘hazes’’ and the

potential corresponding need to control

a ‘‘variety of sources’’ and ‘‘regionally

distributed sources.’’ 94 While EPA

deferred addressing regional haze in

1980 when it promulgated the first

phase of visibility regulations, it did so

because of technical obstacles, not

because of a limitation on its legal

authority.95 Indeed, in the 1980 rule,

EPA expressed its intent to address

regional haze in a future rulemaking

under section 169A. Thus, EPA’s

decision to address visibility

impairment in separate phases does not

change the fact that the BART

requirement is an integral part of the

statutory scheme in section 169A.

The provisions in section 169B of the

CAA, adopted in 1990, do not override

EPA’s statutory authority to require

State plans to remedy regional haze.

These provisions grew out of Congress’

frustration that EPA had not more

expeditiously addressed regional haze

under its section 169A delegated

rulemaking authority. Thus, section

169B(e) explicitly requires EPA to carry

out its ‘‘regulatory responsibilities

under section [169A]’’ within a set time

period. The legislative history confirms

that Congress did not intend section

169B to impinge upon EPA’s longstanding authority to address regional

haze visibility impairment,96 including

the authority to require BART.

The EPA believes that commenters

asserting that EPA overemphasized the

control of stationary sources and, in

particular, the role of BART in the

regional haze program misinterpreted

the proposal. The EPA did not intend to

emphasize controls on BART-eligible

sources over, or to the exclusion of,

other sources. While the BART

requirement is limited to a specified

population of major stationary sources,

States will need to consider measures

addressing a wide range of sources and

activities, including mobile sources,

area sources, activities involving fire,

and other major and non-major

stationary point sources in their longterm strategies. The unit on long-term

strategies includes further discussion of

this point.

Final Rule. The final rule requires

each implementation plan to be revised

to contain two basic elements related to

BART. The first is the requirement that

the States submit a list of the ‘‘BARTeligible sources’’ in the State. Second,

the State must determine and include in

the plan the ‘‘best available retrofit

technology,’’ taking into account certain

factors identified in section 169A(g)(2)

of the CAA, for each BART-eligible

source in the State reasonably

anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility.

In recognition of the control and cost

efficiencies that can be achieved

through trading programs and other

alternative measures, EPA is providing

States with the opportunity to adopt

alternative measures in lieu of BART

where such measures would achieve

even greater reasonable progress toward

the national visibility goal. The

overarching requirement of the visibility

protection provisions of section 169A is

to make reasonable progress toward the

national goal of eliminating visibility

impairment. If greater reasonable

progress can be made through an

approach that does not require source

specific application of BART, EPA

believes that approach would comport

with this statutory goal. The EPA

reached this conclusion in determining

the appropriate measures to address

visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon National Park resulting from the

Navajo Generating Station.97 In that

case, EPA ultimately chose not to adopt

the emission control limits indicated by

its BART analysis.98 Instead, as

explained by the Ninth Circuit in

upholding EPA’s final decision, EPA

acted within its discretion in adopting

an alternative emission control standard

‘‘that would produce greater visibility

improvement at a lower cost. Congress’s

use of the term ‘including’ in [section

169A(b)(2)] prior to its listing BART as

a method of attaining ‘reasonable

progress’ supports EPA’s position that it

has the discretion to allow States to

adopt implementation plan provisions

other than those provided by sourcespecific BART analyses in situations

where the agency reasonably concludes

that more ‘reasonable progress’ will

thereby be attained.’’ 99 Under today’s

final rule, States may elect to adopt an

emissions trading program or other

alternative measures in lieu of BART so

long as greater reasonable progress is

made.

List of BART-eligible sources. To

ensure adequate time for developing

long-term strategies to ensure reasonable

progress, we recommend that States

begin identifying and evaluating the list

of potential BART sources as soon as

possible after promulgation of the final

rule. Identifying the BART-eligible

sources will require States to collect

information as to the dates that emission

units at stationary sources were placed

into operation, the pollutants emitted,

and the potential to emit of these units.

We suggest that, at the same time that

they begin refining their emissions

inventories for PM2.5 and its precursors,

States request that stationary sources

provide them with these dates. While

such information is generally available

for electric utilities through data bases

maintained by the Energy Information

Administration, this information is not

normally maintained in national data

bases for the other 25 source categories

subject to BART. However, EPA believes

that much of this information is likely

to be available in States permitting data

bases or other inventories. To assist the

States in this task, we will continue

efforts to identify other helpful sources

of information.

Determination of sources subject to

BART. After the State has identified the

BART-eligible sources, the next step is

determining whether these sources emit

any air pollutant ‘‘which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute’’ to any visibility impairment

in a Federal Class I area. As noted in the

proposal, EPA believes that this

determination should not require

extremely costly or lengthy studies of

the contribution of specific sources to

regional haze. Unlike the 1980

regulatory program, which addresses the
35740 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

100Central Arizona Water Conservaiton District v.

EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1541 (9th Cir. 1993).

101 63 FR 57356, 57376 (Oct. 27, 1998).

102See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for

information on EPA’s modeling guideline for

conducting regional-scale modeling for particulate

matter and visibility.

103See section 51.301(c).

104See CAA section 169A(g)(2).

105Ellerman A. Danny et al., Emissions Trading

Under the U.S. Acid Rain Program: Evaluation of

Compliance Costs and Allowance Market

Performance, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental

Policy Research, 1997.

visibility impairment that is reasonably

attributable to a specific source or small

group of sources, today’s final rule

addresses the problem of visibility

impairment resulting from emissions

from a multitude of sources located

across a wide geographic area. As the

regional haze rule is not limited to

addressing visibility impairment that

can be attributed to a specific source or

small group of sources, EPA believes it

would be inappropriate to focus on the

contribution of one source or a small

group of sources. First, the States will

not face the same need to define the

precise contribution from one particular

source to the visibility problem. Second,

establishing the contribution from one

particular source to the problem of

regional haze would require lengthy and

expensive studies and pose substantial

technical difficulties. The EPA has thus

concluded that a detailed sourcereceptor analysis would not be

appropriate in determining whether a

source ‘‘may reasonably be anticipated

to contribute’’ to regional haze in a Class

I area.

In implementing today’s final rule, a

State should find that a BART-eligible

source is ‘‘reasonably anticipated to

cause or contribute’’ to regional haze if

it can be shown that the source emits

pollutants within a geographic area from

which pollutants can be emitted and

transported downwind to a Class I area.

The EPA believes that this test is an

appropriate one for determining

whether a source can reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to the

problem of regional haze. As the Ninth

Circuit stated in considering this

language:

Congress mandated an extremely low

triggering threshold, requiring the

installment of stringent emission controls

when an individual source ‘‘emits any air

pollutant which may reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility’’ in a Class I Federal

area. 42 U.S.C. sec. 7491(b)(2)(A). The NAS

correctly noted that Congress has not

required ironclad scientific certainty in

establishing the precise relationship between

a source’s emission and resulting visibility

impairment.* * * 100

The approach taken here is consistent

with that taken in the programs for acid

rain and ozone, programs which also

address regional air quality problems

caused by transported pollutants. These

programs do not require a specific

demonstration of each source’s

contribution to the overall problem, but

instead focus efforts on developing costeffective solutions to reducing

emissions over a broad area that is

regional or national in scope. For

example, in the recent NOX SIP call

addressing the regional transport of NOX

emissions (an ozone precursor) in the

Eastern United States, EPA adopted a

‘‘collective contribution’’ approach to

determining whether sources

‘‘contribute’’ to ozone nonattainment in

downwind areas. In this rulemaking,

EPA concluded that because ozone

nonattainment results from the

collective contribution of many entities

over a broad geographic area, even

relatively small (in an absolute sense)

contributions from upwind entities

should be considered to be

‘‘significant.’’ 101

The EPA has concluded that a similar

approach in the regional haze program

is appropriate. Where emissions from a

region are considered to contribute to

regional haze in a Class I area, any

emissions from BART-eligible sources

in that region should also be considered

to cause or contribute to the regional

haze problem. The EPA will issue and

update guidance, including EPA

modeling guidelines,102 to assist the

States in analyzing whether sources

contribute to regional haze.

Establishing source-specific BART

emission limits. The second element of

the BART requirement is for the States

to establish emission limitations for

those BART-eligible sources which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to regional haze. To meet this

requirement, the State must develop

source-specific emission limits which

reflect the application of the best system

of continuous emission reduction for

each pollutant which is emitted by a

source subject to BART.103 As stated

above, the State can also choose to

develop an emissions trading program,

or other alternative measure, that

achieve greater reasonable progress

rather than require source specific

BART emission limits on each source

subject to BART.

In developing source specific

emission limits for BART, the State

must take into consideration the

technology available and a number of

specific factors set forth in the statute.

These factors are the costs of

compliance, the energy and nonair

environmental impacts of compliance,

any existing pollution control

technology in use at the source, the

remaining useful life of the source, and

the degree of improvement in visibility

which may reasonably be anticipated

from the use of such technology. Taking

these factors into account, the State may

conclude that BART is the best level of

emissions reduction that can be

achieved by available retrofit technology

or some other level of control. In some

cases, the State may determine that a

source has already installed sufficiently

stringent emission controls for

compliance with other programs (e.g.,

the acid rain program), such that no

additional controls would be needed for

compliance with the BART requirement.

In establishing BART for a particular

facility, the State must make available

during public review of the SIP at the

State level the materials supporting its

BART determination. The State must

also include this documentation in the

technical support materials

accompanying the SIP.

In establishing source specific BART

emission limits, the State should

identify the maximum level of emission

reduction that has been achieved in

other recent retrofits at existing sources

in the source category. As noted above,

the visibility regulations define BART as

‘‘an emission limitation based on the

degree of reduction achievable through

the application of the best system of

continuous emission reduction.’’ Recent

retrofits at existing sources provide a

good indication of the current ‘‘best

system’’ for controlling emissions. Thus,

for example, recent retrofits for large

utility sources (e.g., sources under the

acid rain program and the Navajo

Generating Station) have commonly

achieved a 90 percent or better rate of

SO2 emissions (at an average cost of

$265 per ton of SO2 removed).105 For

source categories with recently

promulgated NSPS, that standard may

also provide a good indication of the

current ‘‘best system’’ for controlling

emissions. In addition, current

information concerning control

technology performance for many

source categories is available from

EPA’s Clean Air Technology Center,

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc. EPA plans

to issue revised BART guidance to

provide updated guidance to the States

on how to calculate BART for purposes

of regional haze within a year of

promulgation of this rule. The EPA will

be developing this guidance through a

national stakeholder process.

Once the State has identified the

retrofit technology that provides the

maximum degree of continuous
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35741

CAA section 169A(g)(2) (emphasis added).

107For areas designated attainment or

unclassifiable for PM2.5, this SIP will be due 12

months after the areas are designated. For areas

designated as nonattainment, this SIP will be due

no later than 3 years after the area is designated

nonattainment. 108 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (1993).

emission reduction, it should take into

consideration the costs of compliance,

the energy and nonair quality

environmental impacts of compliance,

any existing pollution control

equipment in use at the source, and the

remaining useful life of the source.

Taking these factors into account allows

the State to arrive at an estimate of the

‘‘best system’’ of retrofit control

technology for a particular source and a

corresponding estimate of the likely

emissions which would be achieved by

the imposition of BART. These factors

should be taken into account for each

source subject to BART in order to

compare tradeoffs between the control

efficiencies and costs associated with

various control alternatives.

The remaining factor which the States

must take into account in determining

BART is ‘‘the degree of improvement in

visibility which may reasonably be

anticipated to result from the use of

such technology.’’ In applying this

factor in the context of the regional haze

program, a State should use the degree

of improvement in visibility that would

be expected at each Class I area as a

result of imposing BART, as determined

through the application of the factors

discussed above, on all sources subject

to BART. For the same reasons that the

determination of whether a BARTeligible source may be reasonably

anticipated to cause or contribute to a

visibility problem should be made on a

cumulative basis, EPA believes that a

regional analysis is appropriate for

determining the degree of visibility

improvement that can be achieved

through application of BART. Moreover,

the statute requires the States to

consider ‘‘the degree of improvement in

visibility which may reasonably be

anticipated to result from the use of

such technology.’’ 106 EPA interprets the

language ‘‘from the use of such

technology’’ to refer to the application

of BART level controls to all sources

subject to BART. As a result, EPA

believes that it is reasonable to interpret

this provision as requiring the State to

consider, as part of its source-specific

analysis, the cumulative impact of

applying retrofit controls to all sources

subject to BART to estimate the degree

of visibility improvement which may

reasonably be anticipated to result from

the use of BART.

The EPA also believes that such a

regional analysis provides important

information to the State and to the

public about the magnitude of potential

emissions from sources subject to

BART. This information could be used

to help inform the public debate in

developing reasonable progress goals, in

setting a regional emissions target for a

trading program, and in developing the

overall long-term strategies for making

reasonable progress.

To calculate the degree of

improvement in visibility that would be

expected at each Class I area as a result

of imposing BART on all sources subject

to BART, the State should estimate the

possible emissions reductions resulting

from the application of BART at all

subject sources located within the

region that contributes to visibility

impairment in the Class I area. The State

should work on its own or in

conjunction with other States, such as

in a regional planning body, to

determine the geographic scope of the

region that contributes to each Class I

area. The States should consult with one

another to determine the emission

reductions achievable from sources

subject to BART in other States.

The estimate of possible emission

reductions from sources subject to

BART should be based on the

application of the technology, cost, time

for compliance, energy and nonair

environmental impacts, and remaining

useful life factors discussed above.

Using this estimate, the State will then

need to calculate the resulting degree of

visibility improvement that would be

achieved at Class I areas. The EPA

expects that this exercise will be in the

form of a regional modeling analysis.

The State should use this estimated

degree of visibility improvement in

determining the appropriate BART

emission limitations for specific

sources.

Unless a State commits to regional

planning, a State must include its

source-specific BART determinations in

its initial SIP revision for the area in

which the source is located.107 Where

the State commits to regional planning,

a State may defer submitting its sourcespecific BART determinations

consistent with the timing requirements

described in unit III.B. However, the

State must submit its list of BARTeligible sources at the same time it

submits its committal SIP.

The SIP revision must include the

emission limitations determined to be

BART for sources subject to BART and

a compliance schedule for each source.

Each source subject to the BART

requirement will have to meet the BART

emission limitation within 5 years of

SIP approval, as required under the

CAA. As noted above, within a year,

EPA will be issuing revised BART

guidance to provide States with

assistance in determining BART for

regional haze.

Alternative Measures in Lieu of BART.

In today’s final rule, States may elect to

adopt alternative measures, such as a

regional emissions trading program, in

lieu of BART so long as the alternative

measures achieve more reasonable

progress than would application of

source-specific BART. The EPA believes

that a regional emissions trading

program would be the most efficient

means of achieving BART-level

emission reductions and the emission

reductions needed to meet the States’

reasonable progress goals as

implemented through the States’ longterm strategies.

The EPA believes that this approach

is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s

decision in Central Arizona Water

Conservation District v. EPA.108 In this

case, the court upheld EPA’s exercise of

discretion to adopt an alternative

emission standard that achieved greater

reasonable progress than would have

been achieved through the imposition of

BART. Allowing States to adopt

alternative measures such as an

emissions trading program rather than

to require BART will provide the States

with the flexibility to achieve greater

reasonable progress towards the

national goal at a lower cost, while still

addressing the Congressional concern

that existing sources contributing to

visibility impairment be required to

control emissions appropriately. The

EPA believes that this best fulfills the

overarching statutory requirement in

section 169A(b) that States make

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal, but also ensures that, at

a minimum, the degree of visibility

impairment attributable to BART

sources is addressed by the States

during the first long-term strategy.

Moreover, while an appropriately

designed alternative might result in

differing levels of control at particular

sources than a source-by-source BART

requirement, the environment will

benefit through the achievement of

greater reasonable progress.

As noted above, to take advantage of

the flexibility offered by this provision,

the State must demonstrate that the

alternative measures adopted in lieu of

meeting the BART requirements achieve

greater reasonable progress than would

result from the installation of sourcespecific BART. One way of making this

showing is for a State to show in its SIP

demonstration that the alternative
35742 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

109The State should be able to compare the

degree of visibility improvement through modeling.

For example, for an emissions trading program, the

State may undertake a regional modeling analysis

that simulates least-cost market trades to predict the

geographic distribution of the emission reductions

that could be achieved through a market trading

program and the resultant improvement in visibility

at different Class I areas.

110U.S. Department of Energy, Energy

Information Administration, ‘‘The Effects of Title IV

of the Clean AIr Act Amendments of 1990 on

Electric Utilities: An Update,’’ DOE/EIA–0582(97),

March 1997.

measures will achieve greater emission

reductions and visibility improvement

than would result from meeting the

BART requirements.

In making this showing, States may

rely on the assessments and analyses

developed by regional planning groups

that are formed to address regional haze.

To compare the emissions reductions

and visibility improvement that would

result from application of source

specific BART to that resulting from

implementation of alternative measures,

such as a regional emissions trading

program, the State must estimate the

emissions reductions that would result

from the use of BART-level controls. To

do this, the State could undertake a

source-specific review of the sources in

the State subject to BART, or it could

use a modified approach that simplifies

the analysis.

To simplify the process of arriving at

an estimate of emissions, EPA believes

that one approach that would be

acceptable in place of a source by source

BART analysis would be to consider

some of the BART factors on a categorywide basis. For example, the average

cost per ton of complying with alternate

control technologies and associated

energy and nonair environmental

impacts could be considered on a

category-wide basis. It may be more

appropriate to consider other factors on

a source-by-source basis. For example,

the State could identify the current

control technology in operation at each

source and calculate the emissions that

would be achieved at each source with

a given retrofit control technology or

determine and consider the remaining

useful life of individual sources.

Alternatively, EPA believes it may be

appropriate for the State to combine a

category-wide BART assessment with a

source-specific assessment for certain

sources. For example, if a State can

verify that a source will be retired

within a short period of time, it could

take this into account in determining

BART-level emissions reductions for

that facility while assessing the

remaining sources subject to BART on a

category-wide basis.

The States accordingly have flexibility

in developing a method to determine

the emission reductions that could be

achieved through the application of

BART. Whatever methodology is chosen

by the State to evaluate possible

emissions reductions from BART, the

estimate must reflect at least the

minimum level of emissions reductions

that can be expected. This estimate

becomes the point of comparison for

determining whether an alternative

measure, such as an emission trading

program, achieves greater reasonable

progress toward visibility improvement.

Once the State has arrived at an estimate

of the emissions that would result from

application of source-specific BART, it

should then compare the degree of

visibility improvement expected to be

achieved in Class I areas through the

application of BART to the degree of

visibility improvement projected to be

achieved by the alternative measures

proposed by the State.109 It is not

necessary to go through an additional

analysis of the BART factors in

considering the effects of alternative

measures.

The EPA believes that the most likely

alternative measures adopted by the

States will be an emissions trading

program. There are several advantages

associated with a regional trading

approach in lieu of meeting a sourcespecific BART requirement. First, it

provides flexibility to participating

sources in deciding whether to purchase

credits or to implement on-site emission

reduction strategies, while being

designed to achieve an equivalent level

of emissions. Many commenters felt the

proposal did not provide this type of

flexibility. Second, trading allows

sources to assess the costs of control

technology, alternative fuels, and

process changes across a broad array of

sources and source categories. Thus, a

trading program typically will result in

lower cost per ton of pollutant reduced

than a program which mandates plantspecific technological control. For

example, EPA’s experiences in the acid

rain program have shown that sulfur

dioxide reductions achieved through

market-based programs within the

electric utility sector continue to be

quite cost effective, in the $170—320

per ton range.110 A program which

allows broader trading among sources in

other industrial categories as well

would likely lead to even greater cost

effectiveness for individual sources.

In designing emissions trading

programs that will achieve the requisite

improvement in visibility, States must

ensure that such programs meet several

criteria. First, as noted above, the

legislative history demonstrates

Congress’ recognition of the need to

control emissions from a specific set of

existing sources. Because of the

Congressional focus on control of these

sources, any emissions trading program

must include, at a minimum, the

sources within the trading region

subject to BART. The one exception to

this is where a source has already

installed BART-level pollution control

technology and the emission limit is a

federally-enforceable requirement. In

that case, States may elect to allow a

source the option of not participating in

the trading program.

Second, a trading program adopted in

lieu of BART must be fully

implemented within the period of the

first long-term strategy. To ensure this,

States must provide schedules for

implementing emissions trading

programs with their SIP submittal.

While EPA is allowing States to fully

implement a trading program within the

period addressed by the State’s first

long-term strategy, under section 169A,

BART emission limits are to be

implemented within 5 years. To provide

States with the additional flexibility

they may need to implement a trading

program, EPA has concluded that it is

appropriate for States to have the full

period of the long-term strategy to

achieve the full measure of necessary

emissions. The basis for allowing this

longer implementation period is the

provision that the trading program

achieve greater reasonable progress than

would be achieved by source-specific

application of BART within 5 years of

plan submittal. The EPA will consider

the estimated period of time to

implement the program in determining

whether the alternative measures

‘‘achieve more reasonable progress.’’ In

any event, a trading program adopted in

lieu of BART must be implemented

during the period of the first long-term

strategy.

Third, the reductions in emissions

required of BART sources must be

surplus to other Federal requirements as

of the baseline date of the SIP, that is,

the date of the emissions inventories on

which the SIP relies. In addition,

sources must be required to monitor

their emissions in a way that allows

States and EPA to assure that the

reductions are being achieved. The basic

concept of an emission trading program

is to allow for alternative, cost-effective

ways of achieving equal or greater

overall emissions. To ensure that the

trading program does achieve a greater

overall emission reduction, it is

important that the emission credits are

created by genuine reductions in

emissions. We will be issuing further

guidance to assist States in designing
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35743

their trading programs to ensure that

programs provide such accountability.

Fourth, the regional trading program

may include sources not subject to

BART. Inclusion of such sources

provides for a more economically

efficient and robust trading program.

The EPA believes the program can

include diverse sources, including

mobile and area sources, so long as the

reductions from these sources can be

accurately calculated and tracked.

Fifth, EPA encourages States wishing

to develop such programs to consider

the emission reduction requirements of

other air quality programs. To

implement reductions in a fully

integrated fashion, the State should

consider the extent to which some

sources should be limited in their

ability to trade. Examples of such factors

include the significant contribution to a

local nonattainment situation and the

extent to which trading may assist or

undermine the achievement of greater

progress toward attainment of the

NAAQS or the national visibility goal.

A related issue is the connection

between determinations of BART under

the reasonably attributable regulations

and a trading program adopted in lieu

of BART. The EPA has adopted a

provision in the final rule that allows

States to include a geographic

enhancement in such a trading program

to accommodate reasonably attributable

BART. The purpose for including this

provision is to address concerns

regarding ‘‘hot spots’’—the concern that

some part of visibility impairment in a

specific Class I area is attributable or

uniquely attributable to a single source

or small group of sources because of the

nature and location of the pollution

from the source(s). Should action be

taken by a State (or EPA) to address

reasonably attributable impairment,

these provisions would allow the State

to incorporate methods, procedures, or

processes in a market-based strategy to

accommodate such action.

Sixth, interpollutant trading should

not be allowed until the technical

difficulties associated with ensuring

equivalence in the overall

environmental effect are resolved. Some

other emissions trading programs (e.g.,

trading under the acid rain program)

prohibit emission trades between

pollutants. An emissions trading

program for regional haze might also

need to restrict trades to common

pollutants. Each of the five pollutants

which cause or contribute to visibility

impairment has a different impact on

light extinction for a given particle

mass, making it therefore extremely

difficult to judge the equivalence of

interpollutant trades in a manner that

would be technically credible, yet

convenient to implement in the

timeframe needed for transactions to be

efficient. This analysis is further

complicated by the fact that the

visibility impact that each pollutant can

have varies with humidity, so that

control of different pollutants can have

markedly different effects on visibility

in different geographic areas and at

different times of the year. Despite the

technical difficulties associated with

interpollutant trading today, EPA would

be willing to consider such trading

programs in the future that demonstrate

an acceptable technical approach.

Application for Exemption from

BART. Even where a source may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment,

section 169A(c) allows for the

exemption of any source from the BART

requirements if it can be demonstrated

that the source, by itself or in

combination with other sources, is not

reasonably anticipated to cause or

contribute to significant visibility

impairment. In addition, as specified in

section 169A(c)(2) of the CAA, any

fossil-fuel fired power plant with a total

generating capacity of 750 megawatts or

more may receive an exemption only if

the owner demonstrates that the power

plant is located at such distance from all

Class I areas that it does not, or will not,

in combination with other sources, emit

any pollutant which may be reasonably

anticipated to contribute to significant

visibility impairment.

As with the question of whether a

source can be reasonably anticipated to

cause or contribute to any visibility

impairment, EPA believes that the

question of whether a source causes or

contributes to significant visibility

impairment requires an analysis of the

cumulative effects of emission sources

on a region. Regional modeling will be

one appropriate method to determine

whether a source could qualify for the

exemption from the BART

requirements. If a significant cumulative

impact is demonstrated from the sources

across the relevant regional modeling

domain, then any BART-eligible source

in the region would most likely be

found to be reasonably anticipated to

cause or contribute to significant

visibility impairment.

The proposed regional haze rule was

structured such that the BART

exemption provisions in section 51.303

of the existing visibility regulations

would also apply to sources subject to

BART under the regional haze

regulation. In the final rule, EPA has

taken the same approach. Consistent

with section 51.303, a source may apply

to EPA for an exemption from the BART

requirement. The EPA will grant or

deny an application after providing

notice and opportunity for a public

hearing. Any exemption granted by EPA

must have the concurrence from all

affected Federal land managers.

Timing for Submittal of BART

Elements. Because TEA–21 changed the

schedule for submittal of visibility SIPs,

EPA is not requiring States to submit a

list of BART-eligible sources to EPA

within 12 months, as proposed. Under

the final rule, the emission limits or

other measures to address BART under

the regional haze program must be

included in the State’s initial SIP

submittal(s), as discussed further in unit

III.B of this notice, except where the

State commits to regional planning. In

the case where a State opts to work with

other States to develop a coordinated

approach to regional haze by

participating in a regional planning

process, SIP revisions containing the

BART emission limits or alternative

measures in lieu of BART will be due

generally at the time PM2.5

nonattainment SIPs are submitted, but

in no case later than December 31, 2008.

As discussed in unit III.B, States that

submit a commitment to participate in

regional planning are required to submit

the list of BART-eligible sources as part

of that submittal.

I. Monitoring Strategy and Other

Implementation Plan Requirements

Monitoring Strategy

Proposed rule. In the proposed rule,

we included a requirement for States to

develop a monitoring strategy. We

believe that actual monitoring data are

a critical component of any air quality

management approach to visibility

impairment. Data on individual

components of PM (nitrates, sulfates,

elemental carbon, organic carbon,

crustal material) are crucial to

understanding the causes of visibility

impairment at a given location, and

accordingly are necessary for long-term

strategy development. Reviewing these

data with time, and additional data

provided by monitoring sites, are

necessary to understand whether the

long-term strategies are effective.

Under the proposed rule, an initial

monitoring strategy was due 12 months

after promulgation, with periodic

updates every 3 years thereafter.

Requirements for visibility monitoring

are authorized under section

110(a)(2)(B), requiring SIPs to provide

for the monitoring of ambient air

quality, and under section 169A(b)(2),

which authorizes EPA to establish

regulations requiring SIPs to address

‘‘other measures as may be necessary.’’
35744 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Four separate provisions were

included in the monitoring strategy

requirement: (1) a requirement for States

to provide for additional that is

monitoring ‘‘representative of all Class I

areas,’’ (2) a requirement for States with

Class I areas to assess the relative

contributions of sources within and

outside the State to any Class I area

within the State, (3) requirements for

States without Class I areas to include

a procedure by which monitoring data

will be used to determine the

contribution of emissions from within

the State to Class I areas outside the

State, and (4) a requirement to report all

visibility monitoring data to EPA at least

annually, in accordance with EPA

guidance.

Comments received. Commenters on

this requirement raised a number of

concerns. One concern raised by State

and local agencies was that the costs of

monitoring could be substantial and

urged EPA to provide funding. Other

commenters urged EPA to exercise

flexibility in determining the degree to

which monitors in one Class I area

could be considered representative of

other nearby areas. Other commenters

raised concerns about the feasibility of

monitoring in remote areas and for areas

with difficulty in gaining access to

monitors during the winter.

Commenters also expressed concerns

over the timetable for the monitoring

plan and the requirement for updating

the strategy.

Final rule. Section 51.308(d)(4) of the

final rule includes the requirement for

a monitoring strategy. Under the final

rule, this monitoring strategy is due

with the first regional haze SIP, and it

must be reviewed every 5 years.

Additional sites. Since the 1980’s,

EPA has cooperatively managed and

funded the IMPROVE network with

FLMs and States. Today, the IMPROVE

network of 30 Class I sites (and an

additional network of about 40 sites that

use the IMPROVE methods) collects

data on fine particle concentrations and

on individual particle species. These

individual species (sulfates, nitrates,

elemental carbon, organic carbon,

crustal material) are important for

understanding causes and trends of

visibility impairment at a given

location. The network also employs

optical monitoring methods for the

direct measurement of light extinction,

and scene monitoring methods using 35

millimeter photography.

The EPA is funding the deployment of

several hundred PM2.5 monitors by the

end of calendar year 1999. In order to

meet the requirements for some

monitors to characterize background

conditions and transport patterns, as

well as to more broadly characterize

visibility impairment in Class I areas for

implementation of the regional haze

program, EPA is funding the

deployment of an additional 78

IMPROVE sites for Class I areas by the

end of 1999. As a result of this

anticipated network expansion, we

expect that few, if any, State-funded

monitors will be needed in

implementing today’s final rule. The

IMPROVE Steering Committee is

coordinating closely with the States on

the selection of sites for the expanded

network to help ensure that the new

sites will meet States’ needs for SIP

development. The EPA expects that as

a result of the IMPROVE Steering

Committee process, the expanded

network should provide for data that

can be considered representative of

most if not all Class I areas.

The monitoring strategy must,

however, provide for additional

monitoring sites if the IMPROVE

network is not sufficient to determine

whether reasonable progress goals will

be met. This provision requires States

with Class I areas to work with EPA and

the FLMs to ensure that monitoring

networks provide monitoring data that

are representative of visibility

conditions in each affected Class I area

within the State. We want to clarify that

this provision does not require a

monitor in each Class I area, only that

a monitor be representative of a Class I

area. Accordingly, a monitor in or

adjacent to one Class I area can be

representative of one or more other

Class I areas, based on certain criteria.

Additionally, EPA agrees with

commenters that a few Class I areas may

have severe accessibility problems for

which monitoring may not be feasible.

Use of Monitoring Data to Understand

Contributions to Class I Areas. States

with Class I areas are required to

include in the regional haze SIP a

monitoring strategy that is tailored to a

given representative site. The strategy

must identify the ways that the visibility

monitoring and chemical composition

analysis will be used to understand the

emission sources that contribute to

visibility impairment at a given

monitoring site. Additionally, the

monitoring strategy should identify the

procedures for reviewing monitoring

data and coordinating with other

technical experts. We believe that

continued coordination of visibility

monitoring and chemical composition

analysis among States, FLMs, and EPA

will be important for future regional

planning activities. Analysis of trends in

emissions of those constituents can

assist States in the development of longterm strategies for making reasonable

progress.

The rule also requires monitoring

strategies for States without Class I

areas. We believe it is equally important

for those States to understand and

describe the implications of monitoring

data. First, it is important for those

States to review monitoring information,

including data on the chemical

composition of individual species

concentrations, to help understand the

relative contribution of emissions from

their State to Class I areas in other

States. Second, it is important for these

States to understand and describe how

they will use the monitoring data to

review progress and trends.

Periodic Updates to Strategy. The rule

requires an initial monitoring strategy

and periodic updates. The initial

monitoring strategy is due with a State’s

first SIP submission. Additionally, the

rule requires that the monitoring

strategy be reviewed every 5 years. We

believe that when progress is reviewed

and control strategies are updated, it

will be important to review the

monitoring strategy. For the periodic

updates, 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 sites, as well as the need for

updated guidance on monitoring

protocols.

Monitoring Guidance. The EPA plans

to issue a visibility monitoring guidance

document soon after promulgating this

rule that will be designed to assist the

States in developing monitoring

strategies. The document will include

technical criteria and procedures for

conducting aerosol, optical, and scene

monitoring of visibility conditions in

Class I areas. The protocols of the

IMPROVE network will be included in

this guidance.

Reporting of Monitoring Data

Proposed Rule. The proposed rule

required States to report all visibility

monitoring at least annually for each

Class I area having such monitoring. We

proposed that States report data in

accordance with EPA guidance and

through electronic data transfer

techniques to the extent possible. There

were no adverse comments on this

reporting requirement.

Final Rule. We have retained a

general requirement in section

51.308(d)(4) that States submit as part of

the SIP a monitoring strategy that

addresses the reporting of visibility

monitoring data to EPA. As noted above,

EPA expects that few, if any, additional

State-funded sites will be necessary to
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35745

111 62 FR 41151.

fully implement the regional haze rule.

Where States do choose to fund

additional sites, however, EPA believes

it is important for the States to make

data from these sites available to EPA

and other agencies.

For monitoring sites in the IMPROVE

network, the IMPROVE Steering

Committee oversees network contractors

who quality assure and consolidate data

from chemical composition analysis of

filter samples. Such data are made

available to all interested parties

through various electronic formats and

online websites. Assuming this practice

continues with the IMPROVE Steering

Committee, States will experience little

or no burden in meeting this

requirement for reporting to EPA.

Annual consolidation of these data

will serve several purposes. First, a

central data base will allow the States

and other interested parties to track

progress over time in relation to

reasonable progress goals. It will also

assist the States in understanding

current visibility conditions as well as

past trends. Consolidation of the data

will assist EPA, the State, other

agencies, and the public in reviewing

the effectiveness of the State’s long-term

strategy for regional haze. Additionally,

consolidation of the data will enable

EPA to better characterize national and

regional visibility trends in its annual

air quality trends report. Finally, a

centralized data base will provide for

the 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 chemical composition data

can fill important data gaps in defining

regional concentrations for air quality

modeling analyses.

Requirements Under Section 110(a)(2)

of the CAA. Visibility SIP submittals

must document certain program

infrastructure capabilities consistent

with the requirements of section

169B(e)(2) and section 110(a)(2) of the

CAA. Section 169(B)(e)(2) requires

States to revise their section 110 SIPs to

‘‘contain such emission limits,

schedules of compliance, and other

measures as may be necessary’’ to carry

out regulations promulgated pursuant to

this section. The EPA believes that this

language authorizes EPA to ensure that

States review their existing program

infrastructures to ensure that the types

of elements required by section

110(a)(2) for programs addressing the

NAAQS are also sufficient for adoption

and implementation of SIP measures for

regional haze. The final rule does not

include specific provisions addressing

all elements of section 110(a)(2).

However, section 51.308(d)(4)(iv) of the

final rule requires the State to maintain

and update periodically a statewide

inventory of emissions of pollutants that

contribute to visibility impairment.

Where a State is also revising its SIP

to incorporate changes to address the

PM2.5 NAAQS, many of these revisions

may be sufficient to address both PM2.5

and regional haze. The EPA encourages

States to consider the needs of both

programs when updating the provisions

required by section 110 of the CAA to

minimize any administrative burdens.

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-year

Progress Reports

Proposed Rule. The proposed rule

required States to periodically review

and revise their SIPs every 3 years. The

preamble to the proposal stated that

‘‘[t]he 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 emission

strategies.’’ 111 Each SIP revision would

include a comprehensive review of the

long-term strategy, and a review of

emissions reductions estimates relied on

in the previous plan if the State does not

achieve any reasonable progress target.

The proposal also requested comment

on whether SIP revisions should instead

be required every 5 years. Regarding this

option, EPA also took comment on

whether it should revise the existing

requirement in the ‘‘reasonably

attributable’’ regulations for long-term

strategy reviews from every 3 years to

every 5 years, such that SIP revision

schedules for both regional haze and

reasonably attributable impairment

would be coordinated.

Public Comments. Some commenters

stated that the CAA does not allow EPA

to require periodic SIP revisions.

Several commenters felt that a

requirement to submit comprehensive

SIP revisions every 3 years would be

overly burdensome, and would not

provide enough time to properly

evaluate changes in air quality and

emissions resulting from

implementation of strategies to meet

reasonable progress targets. For this

reason, a number of commenters

supported a 5-year period between SIP

revisions. Several participants in the

GCVTC supported a 5-year review of

progress that meets the procedural

requirements of a SIP revision, but that

also allows for the State to make a

negative declaration if current strategies

are deemed adequate for making

reasonable progress at that time.

Other commenters supported SIP

revisions every 3 years, citing EPA’s

preamble language, which noted that

implementing mid-course corrections

after the 5-year mark may in fact be too

late to correct situations where

impairment is steadily increasing. Some

of these commenters also supported the

3-year cycle for regional haze SIPs since

it would be consistent with the

requirement for 3-year reviews of longterm strategies in the existing 1980

visibility rules.

Authority for Periodic Updates. The

EPA does not agree with commenters

that it lacks the authority to require

periodic SIP revisions. Section

110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA provides that

SIPs are to require ‘‘periodic reports on

the nature and amounts of emissions

and emissions-related data’’ and

‘‘correlation of such reports * * * with

any emission limitations or standards

established pursuant to this chapter.’’

Moreover, section 110(a)(2)(H) requires

SIPs to provide for revision when found

to be substantially inadequate to

‘‘comply with any additional

requirements established under * * *

[the CAA].’’ Both of these provisions

provide EPA with the authority to

require periodic SIP revisions.

The CAA calls for regulations to

protect visual air quality in the Class I

areas in a way that assures prevention

of future impairment in addition to

remedying existing impairment. A onetime review of impairment and

development of strategies to address

that impairment cannot provide such

continuing assurance and, at best, can

only focus on remedying currently

known manmade visibility impairment

within the limits of resources and

technology. A program that did not

anticipate and provide for the need for

future periodic review and revisions,

would not be responsive to the national

goal of preventing any future manmade

visibility impairment.

The requirement for periodic review

of SIP measures also directly responds

to the CAA goal for States to develop

strategies to ensure reasonable progress

toward the national goal of no humancaused impairment. Given that the

statutory factors which States must

consider in determining a reasonable

progress goal include costs of control

and availability of controls, among

others, and given that technology

changes can affect costs and availability

of controls over time, EPA believes that

the requirement for a periodic SIP

revision is appropriate. The periodic

revisions will assure that the statutory

requirement for reasonable progress will
35746 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

112National Research Council, NAS Committee

on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas,

Protecting Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas, National Academy Press, 1993,

page 10.

113Referring to the example in unit III.F, if the

second implementation plan covers a 10-year

period from 2019 through 2028, then the State

would identify a 3 deciview rate of improvement,

and the amount of visibility improvement that must

be analyzed for the year 2028 would be the 3

deciview improvement for the years 2019 through

2028, plus the 4.2 deciviews of improvement for the

years 2004 through 2018.

continue to be met. The EPA believes

that the need for periodic updates is

also clear from the NAS conclusion that

‘‘achieving the national visibility goal

will require a substantial long-term

(emphasis added) program.’’ 112

Three-year versus 5-year period. In

considering the public comments, EPA

also took into account the body of

evidence indicating a need for

multistate regional planning efforts

under the regional haze program. Past

experience with regional air quality

planning efforts, such as the GCVTC or

the Ozone Tranport Assessment Group

(OTAG), has shown that regional air

quality planning efforts often take 2 or

more years to complete, with additional

time needed for State adoption of

measures and for review and approval

by EPA.

After consideration of the comments

described above, and the timeframes

needed for regional planning, EPA

concluded that a 5-year progress review

and SIP revision cycle is more

appropriate than a 3-year cycle. The

EPA determined that the States will be

better able to assess the effectiveness of

emission management strategies by

considering 5 years of data rather than

3 years since a 5-year period provides

for more stable trend lines for emissions

and air quality changes than a 3-year

period. The EPA also concluded that a

5-year period should result in

significantly less administrative burden

on the States than a 3-year period.

Final rule requirements for

comprehensive plan revisions and

progress reports. The EPA has included

in the final rule, two main requirements

for comprehensive periodic plan

revisions (section 51.308(f)) and

progress reviews (section 51.308(g)).

Section 51.308(f) requires the States to

submit a comprehensive SIP revision in

2018 and every 10 years thereafter. It

must meet all of the core requirements

of section 51.308(d). The BART

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted

above, apply only to the first

implementation period. Section

51.308(g) requires progress reports for

each Class I area in the State in the form

of SIP revisions every 5 years.

Requirements for comprehensive

periodic plan revisions. Comprehensive

SIP revisions under section 51.308(f)

must include all of the implementation

plan elements found in section

51.308(d) of the final rule. These

elements include, but are not limited to,

the following: (1) reasonable progress

goals for the next 10-year

implementation period, (2)

determination of current conditions and

review of estimates for natural

conditions, (3) a revised long-term

strategy, as necessary to achieve the

reasonable progress goal for the next 10-

year implementation period, and (4)

revised emission inventories, technical

analyses and monitoring strategies. The

EPA wishes to clarify the following

points with respect to the basic core

provisions of section 51.308(d) for the

purpose of periodic comprehensive plan

updates.

Reasonable progress goals. For

purposes of the periodic plan revisions,

the State must select a reasonable

progress goal based upon the statutory

factors discussed above in unit III.F. In

determining the goal for the next

implementation cycle, the State must

include an analysis of the rate of

improvement needed to reach natural

conditions by the year 2064 as an

analytical framework for the plan

revision. To conduct this required

analysis, the State must follow the same

four steps discussed in unit II.F for the

initial plan revision, that is (1)

identification of the difference between

baseline conditions and natural

conditions (noting any updates to the

estimate of natural conditions based

upon technical refinements), (2)

identification of the uniform rate of

progress over the 60-year period that

would be needed to attain natural

conditions by the year 2064, (3)

identification of the amount of progress

that would result if this uniform rate of

progress were achieved during the

period of the regional haze

implementation plan,113 and (4)

identification of reasonable progress

goals in light of the statutory factors,

taking the 60-year analysis into account.

The State must also calculate the

number of years it would take to attain

natural conditions if visibility

improvement continues at the rate of

progress selected by the State as

required in section 51.308(d)(1)(ii).

Reporting of Baseline and natural

visibility conditions. In the SIP

submission for the comprehensive

periodic plan updates, the State must

identify (1) the visibility change from

baseline conditions, (2) the visibility

change since the last SIP revision 10

years ago, and (3) the difference

between current and natural conditions.

Visibility Change from Baseline

Conditions. Section 51.308(f) calls for

States to consider, at the time of any

future SIP revision after the initial

implementation plan, the amount of

visibility improvement achieved from

baseline visibility conditions

(established over the period 2000-2004)

in developing future reasonable progress

goals and associated strategies. The final

rule requires the State to do this by

comparing ‘‘current conditions’’ for the

5 years of most recent visibility data

with baseline conditions. (See

discussion in unit III.E on definition of

‘‘current.’’) Any lack of progress in

improvement of visibility from baseline

conditions will need to be explained in

the SIP revision and considered by the

State in the establishment and/or

revision of new reasonable progress

goals and/or emission management

strategies. Similarly, greater than

expected improvements should be

considered by the State in setting new

visibility goals and emission

management strategies.

If little or no perceptible visibility

improvement has occurred in

comparison to baseline conditions, or if

conditions have actually degraded, then

the State will need to explain the reason

for this degradation in the SIP, and

should seriously consider establishing

more ambitious goals and additional

enforceable measures to achieve these

goals. The EPA will take into account

the amount of progress achieved to date

from the baseline period in determining

whether any future strategy would

ensure ‘‘reasonable progress.’’ If

significant visibility improvement has

occurred from baseline conditions, then

EPA can also take this into account in

reviewing future reasonable progress

goals and strategies.

Visibility Change Since Last SIP

Revision. Section 51.308(f) also calls for

States, in developing reasonable

progress goals for the next 10 years, to

take into account how visibility

conditions have actually changed since

establishment of the previous

reasonable progress goal. (This

provision would apply beginning in the

second SIP revision cycle under the

regional haze program.) If conditions

degraded or failed to meet reasonable

progress goals, the State would be

required to analyze the cause of the

shortfall, and address it as appropriate

in future strategies. If the State has

failed to achieve its reasonable progress

goal for the prior implementation

period, the State would be required to

include in its revision a comparison of

the visibility improvement the State
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35747

expected to achieve to the visibility

improvement the State actually

achieved.

Difference between current and

natural conditions. Section 51.308(f) of

the final rule requires the State, at the

time of any comprehensive SIP revision,

to calculate the difference between

current conditions and natural

conditions for the most impaired and

least impaired days. ‘‘Current

conditions’’ means the conditions for

the most recent 5-year period preceding

the required date of the implementation

plan submittal. This calculation is

needed to determine the total amount of

improvement that States will ultimately

need to address in their long-term

strategies.

Long-term strategies. As for the first

implementation plan, subsequent

comprehensive updates must identify

the enforceable emissions reductions

that will provide for meeting the

reasonable progress goal for Class I areas

within the State and for Class I areas

outside the State which may be affected

by emissions from the State. Unit III.G

provides additional detail on the

requirements of the long-term strategies.

Update of monitoring strategies and

other requirements. The comprehensive

updates are also required to meet the

requirements of section 51.308(d)(4) for

updated monitoring strategies, updated

emission inventories, and other required

technical analyses.

Requirements for 5-year progress

reports. Section 51.308(g) describes the

required elements for progress reports

due every 5 years. For States that

participate in regional planning and

submit initial SIPs in 2008, the first

progress report will be due in 2013. If

a State submits its initial SIP in the

2004–2008 timeframe, its first progress

report would be due before 2013. These

progress reports must follow the same

procedural requirements required for

implementation plan revisions, and the

State must provide the opportunity for

public review and comment. However,

the rule also allows the State to submit

this progress report in the form of a

negative declaration if the State finds

that emission management measures in

the SIP are being implemented on

schedule, and visibility improvement

appears to be consistent with existing

reasonable progress goals. The EPA

intends for progress reports to involve

significantly less effort than a

comprehensive SIP revision.

Each 5-year progress report must

contain the following elements as

specified in section 51.308(g):

• The status of implementation, and

summary of the emissions reductions

achieved, for all emission management

measures implemented within the State

in order to achieve reasonable progress

goals for Class I areas within and

outside the State.

• For each Class I area located in the

State, the report must include

calculations of the following

parameters:

—Current visibility conditions for the

most impaired and least impaired

days.

—The difference between current

conditions and baseline conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days.

—The change in visibility for the most

impaired and least impaired days over

the past 5 years.

• An emissions tracking report that

analyzes the change over the past 5

years in emissions of pollutants

contributing to visibility impairment,

disaggregated by source category and

emissions activity, for significant

categories of sources or activities.

• An assessment of whether current

implementation plan strategies are

sufficient for the State or affected States

to meet their reasonable progress goals.

Based on the required calculations

and assessments in the progress report,

the State must take one of four actions

as specified in section 51.308(h). If the

State finds that an additional

substantive SIP revision is not required,

then it may submit a ‘‘negative

declaration’’ to EPA after opportunity

for public review and comment. The

EPA anticipates that if the State is

implementing a reasonable set of

strategies according to the schedule as

developed in the previous

comprehensive SIP revision, and that

visibility trends show that reasonable

progress goals should be achieved over

the 10-year long-term strategy period,

then the State should be able to certify,

through a negative declaration, that no

additional control measures are needed

at the time of this mid-course review.

If the State finds that over the past 5

years there has been a substantial

increase in emissions by intrastate

sources, or there has been a deficiency

in plan implementation, the final rule

requires the State to revise the SIP

within 1 year, rather than waiting for

the next 10-year comprehensive review.

Such a mid-course correction would be

designed to achieve the existing

reasonable progress goal for the relevant

Class I area. The EPA believes that it is

appropriate for the State to take prompt

action to address intrastate problems

since they would not need to participate

in further regional planning.

If the State finds that there is a

substantial increase in emissions or a

deficiency in plan implementation

resulting primarily from interstate

emissions, section 51.308(h)(2) calls for

the State to re-initiate the regional

planning process with other States so

that the deficiency can be addressed in

the next comprehensive SIP revision

due in 5 years. If the State finds that

international emissions sources are

responsible for a substantial increase in

emissions affecting visibility conditions

in any Class I area or causing a

deficiency in plan implementation, the

State must submit a technical

demonstration to EPA in support of its

finding. If EPA agrees with the State’s

finding, EPA will take appropriate

action to address the international

emissions through available

mechanisms. Appropriate mechanisms

for addressing visibility-impairing

emissions from international sources are

further discussed in unit III.G on the

long-term strategy.

If EPA finds that the State has not

been implementing certain measures

adopted into its SIP, or that the State

has submitted a SIP that is not

approvable, or that the State has failed

to submit any required progress report

or SIP revision at all, the State could be

subject to sanctions in accordance with

sections 179(b) and 110(m) of the CAA.

If the State does not resolve the

situation expeditiously, EPA may be

obligated to take further appropriate

action to resolve the situation, including

promulgation of a FIP within 2 years in

accordance with section 110(c) of the

CAA. The EPA believes that in this

regionally-oriented program, it will be

important for States to implement

measures designed to improve visibility

for Class I areas outside of their State,

as well as to improve visibility within

the State. The EPA will exercise its FIP

authority as appropriate and necessary

to ensure that States fulfill their

obligations such that Class I areas make

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal.

K. Coordination With Federal Land

Managers

Section 51.308(i) of the final rule

requires that States consult with FLMs

before adopting and submitting their

regional haze SIPs. This requirement is

consistent with the proposed regional

haze rule and the 1980 regulation for

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility

impairment. A number of commenters

expressed a concern that this provision

was not equitable, in that States are

required to consult with FLMs, but the

rule does not require FLMs to consult

with States before they take action, even

when actions such as prescribed

burning could have a significant impact
35748 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

114See 56 FR 57522, Nov. 12, 1991.

115CAA Section 169B(d).

116A 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.

117See GCVTC Report, pp. i–iii.

118 62 FR 41141.

119 62 FR 41146.

on a State’s visibility program. These

commenters recommended that the

proposed rule be amended to mandate

a two-way communication.

The EPA agrees that it is important

and necessary for FLMs to consult with

States on visibility-related issues. Landuse activities on Federal lands can have

impacts on nearby areas of a State, and

there have been significant air quality

issues related to these activities. In

recent years, FLMs have undertaken

activities to improve communications

with States. There are a number of

examples of these efforts. The IMPROVE

steering committee, the group that

oversees FLM efforts to monitor

visibility in Class I areas, includes

representation from State agencies.

Recently, State representation on this

committee was expanded by adding two

more State members. Another example

are the memoranda of understanding

that FLMs have entered into with States

to coordinate prescribed burning

activities. The EPA believes that the

FLM agencies generally recognize the

importance of involving States in the

development and implementation of

land use policies and other actions that

affect States’ abilities to make air quality

improvements.

The EPA believes that it is

unnecessary to impose an

administrative requirement on another

agency of the sort requested by

commenters in a Federal rule, because

Federal agencies are already subject to

compliance with SIP requirements in

the same manner, and to the same

extent as any nongovernmental entity

through section 118, as discussed

below. The EPA will, however, be

working with FLMs and States to assist

in their communications over air quality

issues.

Commenters also expressed concerns

that emissions from Federal agencies are

beyond their jurisdiction. These

commenters felt that if States were not

able to regulate such emissions, then

other sources within the State would be

treated inequitably under the final rule.

The EPA does not agree that Federal

sources are beyond a State’s

jurisdiction. As required by section 118

of the CAA, if a State air quality

regulation affects a given type of source

within its jurisdiction, Federal facilities

having that type of source must comply

with the State regulations in the same

manner, and to the same extent as any

nongovernmental entity. Thus, FLMs

having emission sources of the type that

are covered by State air quality

regulations are subject to the same

extent as private sector entities.

IV. Treatment of the GCVTC

Recommendations

A. Background

The EPA established the GCVTC on

November 13, 1991.114 The purpose of

the GCVTC was to assess information

about the adverse impacts on visibility

in and around 16 Class I areas on the

Colorado Plateau region and to provide

policy recommendations to EPA to

address such impacts. Section 169B of

the CAA called for the GCVTC to

evaluate visibility research as well as

other available information ‘‘pertaining

to adverse impacts on visibility from

potential or projected growth in

emissions from sources located in the

region.’’

The GCVTC was required to issue a

report to EPA recommending what

measures, if any, should be taken to

protect visibility.115 The CAA required

that, at a minimum, this report was to

consider: (1) The establishment of clean

air corridors,116 (2) the need to impose

additional new source review

requirements in any clean air corridors,

and (3) additional restrictions on

increases in emissions which may be

appropriate to protect visibility in

affected Class I areas. The GCVTC was

also required to address the

promulgation of regulations addressing

long-range strategies to address regional

haze in the region. In June 1996, the

GCVTC issued its recommendations to

EPA.

The GCVTC recommendations

covered a wide range of control strategy

approaches, planning and tracking

activities, and technical findings. The

primary recommendations of the

GCVTC covered nine categories of

activities: 117

• Air pollution prevention and

reduction of per capita pollution as a

high priority, including non-binding

targets on production of electricity from

renewable energy sources;

• Tracking the effect of new sources

of emissions on clean air corridors;

• Closely monitoring stationary

source emissions, establishment of

regional targets for sulfur dioxide

emissions for the year 2000 and the year

2040 with interim targets to be

established in the future, exploration of

a similar tracking system for other

pollutants, and the development of

market-based regulatory programs if

emissions targets are not met;

• Emissions reductions in and near

Class I areas;

• Capping of mobile source emissions

for areas contributing to visibility

impairment, and State support for

national measures aimed at further

reducing tailpipe emissions;

• Further assessment of the

contribution of road dust to visibility

impairment;

• Future binational collaboration to

resolve technical and policy concerns

about contributions to visibility

impairment on the Colorado Plateau

resulting from emissions from pollution

sources in Mexico;

• Implementation of smoke

management programs to minimize

effects of all fire activities on visibility;

and

• The need for a future regional

coordinating entity to follow through on

implementing the recommendations.

Proposed rule. In the July 31, 1997

proposal of the regional haze rule, EPA

included an extensive review of the

recommendations of the GCVTC.118 The

preamble discussed how several

concepts from the GCVTC’s

recommendations were incorporated

into the proposed framework for the

national regional haze program. For

example, EPA proposed an approach for

tracking reasonable progress, based on

improving conditions on the worst

visibility days and not allowing

conditions on the best days to degrade,

that was consistent with both the

GCVTC’s definition of ‘‘reasonable

progress’’ and with the CAA national

visibility goal of remedying any existing

impairment and preventing any future

impairment. The proposal also called

for tracking of continuous emissions to

inform State control strategy decisions

on a periodic basis.119

However, in its proposal, EPA chose

not to incorporate the GCVTC’s specific

emission management strategies as

direct requirements for SIPs. The EPA

followed this approach because the

proposed rule was designed to establish

a national framework for development

of SIPs to remedy regional haze

visibility impairment in all Class I areas

nationwide. In addition, it was not clear

how the various elements of the

GCVTC’s report were to be translated

into SIP requirements. The EPA noted

in the proposal that 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 the public and private
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35749

120 62 FR 41142.

121 62 FR 41143.

122 62 FR 41143.

123Written Testimony of John S. Seitz, Director,

Office of AIr Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, before the

Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land

Management of the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources, United States Senate, October

28, 1997.

124 Docket A–95–38, Item # VIII–G–76.

125 63 FR 46952.

entities throughout the region.’’ 120 The

EPA indicated that such a mixture of

activities made it difficult for EPA to

directly require States to implement all

of these measures in their SIPs. Instead,

the EPA specifically sought public

comment on the manner in which the

national regional haze program

framework, as proposed, would allow

for implementation of the GCVTC’s

recommendations.121 The EPA also

solicited comment on whether to adopt

the GCVTC’s stationary source strategies

with or without modification.122

The EPA also reiterated its position in

testimony before the United States

Congress, stating that ‘‘we specifically

designed the regional haze rule to allow

for implementation of the GCVTC’s

recommendations to address the

environmental goal of improving

visibility.’’ 123

In public meetings and written

comments following the proposal,

interested parties expressed concern

that the proposed rule did not

specifically endorse or incorporate the

GCVTC’s recommendations. Some

commentors asserted that the rule

‘‘ignored’’ the recommendations. The

EPA also received numerous comments

that supported adoption of the GCVTC

recommendations as part of the national

regional haze rule. In particular, several

commentors who believed that EPA’s

proposed rule did not adequately

support the GCVTC’s recommendations

asserted that EPA’s participation in the

GCVTC implied that strategies

developed to address visibility in Class

I areas of the Colorado Plateau would be

taken into account within the structure

of the rule. Commentors also noted that

EPA’s proposal of a visibility target and

requirements to address BART left a

high degree of uncertainty as to whether

the GCVTC recommendations could

form the basis for SIPs.

On June 29, 1998, after the close of

the public comment period on the

proposed regulations, the WGA sent to

EPA additional comments on the

proposed regional haze rules. These

comments contained specific new

language for addressing the

recommendations of the GCVTC. The

comments offered provisions to be

included in the national regional haze

rule to allow certain western States to

submit SIPs to assure reasonable

progress in addressing regional haze

impacts on the Colorado Plateau based

upon the technical work and policy

recommendations of the GCVTC.124 The

transmittal letter signed by Michael O.

Leavitt, Governor of the State of Utah,

reemphasized the commitment of

Western governors to the GCVTC

recommendations, and requested that

EPA take public comment on their

suggested preamble and rule language as

part of the EPA process in reaching

decisions on a final regional haze rule.

In response to this submittal, on

September 3, 1998, EPA published a

notice of availability in the Federal

Register.125 The notice solicited public

comment on the contents of the WGA

letter and EPA’s translation of the

letter’s requirements for SIPs into draft

regulatory language. The comment

period for the notice of availability

closed on October 5, 1998 and EPA

received approximately 125 comments.

In summary, most of the commentors

supported the adoption of provisions to

directly address the GCVTC

recommendations in the national rule,

although many requested changes to the

draft regulatory language. Some

commentors expressed concern over

how these provisions would relate to

the national rule, in particular to the

national provisions for BART. Other

commentors addressed the way in

which the WGA letter and EPA’s draft

regulatory language translated the

GCVTC’s recommendations. In addition,

some commentors expressed concern

over the timing of the SIP submittals

both over the linkage to timing of SIP

submittals for ozone and PM2.5 SIPs and

the requirements of TEA–21.

Commentors also requested EPA to

commit to consider the national

transportation measures noted by the

GCVTC as part of EPA’s responsibility

toward helping the States make

reasonable progress.

In the final rule, EPA is establishing

specific SIP requirements which may be

used by the States and tribes that

participated in the GCVTC to satisfy the

national regional haze rule. These SIP

requirements will form a basis for these

States to meet the CAA requirements for

reasonable progress in the 16 Class I

areas addressed by the GCVTC Report.

These SIP requirements acknowledge

and give effect to the substantial body

of work already completed by the States

and tribes participating in the GCVTC.

The Agency, therefore, and for reasons

explained in more detail below,

provides these SIP requirements as an

optional way for these States and tribes

to implement the national rule based on

the merits of the work of the GCVTC

completed before establishment of the

national framework. The EPA finds that

the GCVTC actions to date address, or

provide a mechanism to address, the

statutory factors for assessing reasonable

progress required by the CAA. The EPA

is satisfied that the GCVTC’s strategies

as set forth in section 51.309, when

supplemented by the annex process

discussed below, will provide for

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the

national visibility goal for the 16 parks

and wilderness areas addressed by the

GCVTC. Consequently, if a State

submits a plan that addresses the

requirements of section 51.309,

including the requirements related to

the annex, as described below, that plan

will be considered to comply with the

national rule’s requirement for

reasonable progress for the period from

plan approval to 2018.

Today’s final rulemaking, including

section 51.309, is directly responsive to

the western States’ and tribes’

comments calling for recognition of the

policy development efforts of the

GCVTC. At the same time, the rule

allows for future cooperative efforts

among the GCVTC States, so that the

national requirements for ensuring

reasonable progress are fully addressed.

This action exemplifies how the

regional haze protection provisions can

be flexible and allow for a broad range

of emissions control strategies tailored

to a specific region. This action fully

recognizes the GCVTC and its follow-up

body, the WRAP, as a valid regional

planning process to address, at a

minimum, the 16 Class I areas that were

the focus of the GCVTC. Section 51.309

provides for continued work of the

GCVTC, which may be accomplished

through the WRAP, to establish a

complete framework which can be

adopted in the SIPs for addressing all

sources of visibility impairment in the

16 Class I areas. The section also sets

forth provisions for addressing

additional Class I areas that were not

directly addressed in the GCVTC report.

Section 51.309 does not preclude

States from developing and adopting

their own control strategies. Rather, it

provides an expedited process whereby

a State choosing to follow the GCVTC’s

recommendations in its SIP can rely

fully on the technical analyses, policy

recommendations, and agreements

reached by the GCVTC members,

thereby significantly reducing the effort

required to establish federally

approvable SIPs. A State remains free to

develop and submit a SIP to EPA which

does not rely on the GCVTC’s work or
35750 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

section 51.309. Such a State will be

fully subject to the requirements and

schedules set forth in section 51.308, in

the same manner and to the same extent

as the States and tribes throughout the

United States that did not participate in

the GCVTC process.

B. General Requirements of Section

51.309

Section 51.309 requires specific

emissions control strategies for a broad

region of the Western United States and

includes measures which address

different types of emissions sources,

including stationary, area and mobile

sources. Some of these strategies are

already in place while others, such as

mobile source provisions and the

structure of a market trading system to

assure compliance with stationary

source emissions goals, will require

development of additional regulatory

measures. A review of each element of

section 51.309 is found in unit IV.C

below.

The GCVTC recommended emission

reduction targets from stationary

sources of SO2 for the years 2000 and

2040. The GCVTC did not recommend

quantitative interim targets between the

years 2000 and 2040. Therefore, in

addition to provisions for specific

emissions strategies, section 51.309

allows for an annex to the GCVTC report

which will be considered in establishing

specific targets for SO2 emissions from

stationary sources in the region between

2003 and 2018. This annex process and

EPA’s approval of acceptable interim

emissions targets for SO2 will be key in

completing a series of strategies that can

be deemed by EPA as meeting

reasonable progress for the Class I areas

on the Colorado Plateau.

The provisions for adoption of

strategies consistent with the GCVTC

recommendations do not preclude the

States and tribes from developing

additional control strategies for

achieving reasonable progress in other

Class I areas. Nor do they preclude

States and tribes which did not

participate in the GCVTC, but which

may benefit from its strategies due to the

geographic proximity of their Class I

areas to the State where strategies will

be implemented and regional transport

throughout the west, from building on

these strategies to address reasonable

progress for their Class I areas. However,

for all Class I areas not on the Colorado

Plateau, the States and tribes would

need to demonstrate, through the

required analyses, that implementation

of these strategies would contribute to

meeting the requirements of section

51.308. By focusing first on

implementation strategies for the 16

Class I areas based on the

recommendations of the GCVTC, all

western States may reduce the technical

and administrative costs of addressing

the remaining Class I areas by building

on the outcome of existing programs

rather than requiring the development

of two programs in parallel.

In the national rule, EPA is requiring

States to analyze the rate of progress in

visibility improvement that would be

needed to reach natural conditions

within 60 years. The analyses must

assess what strategies are available to

meet that rate for the period of the longterm strategy. The GCVTC reviewed the

period from 1990 to 2040 to assess what

strategies were reasonable to achieve

visibility improvement in the 16 Class I

areas. The GCVTC’s Alternatives

Assessment Committee developed a

modeling system linking emissions

control strategies, the costs of such

strategies and the degree of visibility

improvement that would result from

those strategies. While not specifically

attempting to reach natural conditions

within 60 years, a key emissions control

scenario assessed in the GCVTC process

was a ‘‘maximum management

alternative.’’ The GCVTC looked at

many source types and their impacts on

visibility. This specific assessment

applied all known and anticipated

control strategies over the time period as

an indicator of the maximum amount of

improvement in visibility possible in

the region. The results of this analysis

did not show sufficient emissions to

reach natural conditions in any

mandatory Class I area by 2040. The

analysis of this scenario did, however,

demonstrate that the ‘‘maximum

management alternative’’ is not likely to

be achievable based on technological,

economic and policy choices made by

the Alternates Assessment Committee

due to costs, degree of visibility

improvement and other factors.

Consequently, EPA finds this analysis,

plus the management alternatives

chosen (i.e., market-based emissions

reductions, specific source-sector

reductions, etc.) to be an acceptable

basis for approvable SIP strategies for

the 16 Class I areas for the first longterm strategy period since, in effect,

reaching natural conditions by 2040 was

shown not to be reasonable in this

transport region at this time. In making

this finding, EPA concludes that the

GCVTC analyses and process provide

for an assessment comparable to that

called for by section 51.308.

In promulgating section 51.309, EPA

is establishing specific SIP requirements

for the time period 2003 through 2018

based on demonstrations by the GCVTC.

The EPA finds the GCVTC

demonstrations satisfy requirements for

review of the statutory factors as

provided for under subsection

51.308(d).

While the GCVTC’s assessment

included projections to the 2040, EPA

feels that the strategies incorporated in

section 51.309 must be re-evaluated in

2018 to assure that they will continue to

achieve reasonable progress after a

thorough review of the CAA factors. As

discussed elsewhere in today’s notice,

this periodic review and revision of

regional haze SIPs is needed because of

technological changes and economic

factors which are likely to significantly

alter both the rate of emissions growth

within a region, and the degree to which

new technologies can more effectively

reduce emissions, both of which can

affect the rate of visibility improvement.

In addition, the requirement for periodic

revisions is consistent with the statutory

provisions governing long-term

strategies.

The EPA agrees with commentors

who noted certain benefits to following

the pathway provided through section

51.309 for addressing regional haze

impairment. First, there is the benefit

that the mixture of required strategies

for the 16 Class 1 areas has already been

through public comment as part of the

GCVTC deliberations and subject to

review by many stakeholders. This

previous public debate should help

ensure broader public support for the

State’s plans as they are adopted and

implemented. As pointed out by

commentors, one of the benefits of the

GCVTC recommended strategies is that

they are aimed at developing costeffective control strategies and ensuring

compliance flexibility for affected

sources. For example, the strategy to

address emissions from stationary

sources uses a milestone and backstop

emissions trading program mechanism.

This rewards voluntary emissions

reductions since a regional emissions

trading program would only become

effective if regional milestones are

exceeded. Given that the provisions for

the milestone and backstop emissions

trading system may be approvable in

lieu of BART, depending on the

milestones developed in the annex, full

compliance with BART emissions

limitations would not be required

within 5 years of plan submittal, as

would be required of States which

submit plans under section 51.308

requiring source-specific BART. In

addition, the economies of scale offered

by the work of the WRAP in conducting

coordinated assessment activities, such

as economic and air quality modeling,

could be substantial in aiding States in

meeting their planning obligations.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35751

Finally, EPA’s provisional view that

SIPs which meet section 51.309 would

satisfy the requirement for reasonable

progress minimizes the analyses

required of States which adhere to the

requirements of section 51.309,

compared to States making an

independent submittal under section

51.308.

C. Elements of the GCVTC-Based State

and Tribal Implementation Plans

1. Time Period

Section 51.309(d)(1) establishes the

time period of the plan to cover the 16

parks and wilderness areas for the

period 2003 through 2018. The GCVTC’s

recommended emissions reduction

strategies, including the emission

reduction approach for stationary

sources of SO2, establish the long-term

strategy requirements for plan

submittals to EPA until the year 2018.

This time period is consistent with the

submittals required under section

51.308 which will be due between 2004

and 2008 depending on the

classification of State areas with respect

to attainment of the recently

promulgated NAAQS for PM2.5. The

time period covered by the plan revision

due under section 51.309, 2003–2018, is

somewhat different from the timeframe

for long-term strategies required by

section 51.308 for the Class I areas not

on the Colorado Plateau. The differences

that exist acknowledge the substantial

early work of the GCVTC, on the 16

Class I areas, while at the same time

making the strategy review cycle

consistent with the timetable

established in section 51.308.

The EPA received comment that it

should allow the GCVTC

recommendations to be the basis of all

future strategies to address regional haze

for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado

Plateau permanently. The EPA

disagrees. No given set of emissions

strategies can be determined reliably to

achieve reasonable progress into the

distant future. While the GCVTC

strategies adopted by the States under

the provisions of section 51.309 may

well continue to be adequate to meet the

future long-term strategy requirement, a

full review of emissions strategies for all

Class I areas of the region is appropriate

to assure that ‘‘reasonable progress’’ is

being achieved and will continue to be

achieved during the periods of

subsequent long-term strategies. As

noted above, the relevant facts

concerning costs of controls, availability

of control strategies, and other statutory

factors will change over time.

Advancements in technology and

changes in economic factors will likely

provide opportunities for

implementation of new cost-effective

control measures to assure reasonable

progress. The structure of EPA’s rule is

designed to require States, through the

SIP process, to review the statutory

factors on a periodic basis and

determine appropriate changes to their

strategies based on that review.

2. Projection of Visibility Improvement

Section 51.309(d)(2) requires the plan

to contain a projection of the visibility

conditions expected through the year

2018 and to take into account the

measures required in the GCVTC report

and the provisions of section 51.309.

This projection must, at a minimum, be

expressed in units of deciview.

The Agency received comment that

the GCVTC States should not be

required to estimate visibility

conditions using the deciview metric,

but should be permitted simply to track

emissions over time. While EPA

encourages States to track emissions in

order to evaluate the emission reduction

effectiveness of adopted control

measures, it is equally important that

changes be translated into visibility

improvements in order to be responsive

to the national goal. As noted earlier in

unit III.C of this notice on the deciview

metric, EPA’s selection of the deciview

scale is an appropriate way to do this.

The Agency also included this provision

to ensure that the public understands

the relationship of the SIP to visibility

conditions at the Class I areas and to the

national goal of no manmade

impairment in visibility in these areas.

The Agency thus feels that it is

appropriate to inform the public on the

relationship between chosen emissions

control measures and their effect on

visibility by requiring States to report on

actual and expected changes in

visibility to be achieved through

implementation of section 31.309.

Those changes can be based on

monitored data as well as estimated for

future conditions based on

implementation of emissions strategies.

Moreover, the requirement for use of the

deciview metric does not prevent the

States from using other indicators, in

addition to the deciview, for describing

regional haze conditions, such as

standard visual range or atmospheric

light extinction.

3. Treatment of Clean Air Corridors

Section 51.309(d)(3) requires the

States to identify a geographic region or

regions which will be subject to a

comprehensive emissions tracking

strategy. The purpose of such

comprehensive emissions tracking is to

ensure that the frequency of clear days,

or days with good visibility, increases or

does not decrease at any of the 16 Class

I areas addressed by the GCVTC. This

section of the rule is designed to make

the review of emissions, and their

resulting impact on the clear days at the

Class I areas, part of the public record

through the SIP approval process. It

does not mandate any emissions control

strategies specifically aimed at

improving clear days, but provides for

the State to periodically review the need

for such strategies. If anthropogenic

emissions create visibility impairment

above natural conditions, and if overall

annual human-caused emissions

reductions take place in a region, it is

likely that visibility will improve for

both the most impaired days and the

least impaired days.

The geographic area (or areas) to be

covered by the emissions tracking

strategy is to be determined initially

based on the GCVTC Meteorology

Subcommittee’s report entitled Clean

Air Corridors: A Framework for

Identifying Regions that Influence Clean

Air on the Colorado Plateau. The

geographic area (or areas) can be further

refined based on new technical findings

over time. The requirement to track

emissions will enable States to quickly

determine if changes in patterns of

emissions will reduce the number of

clean air days (defined as the average of

the 20 percent clearest days) in any of

the 16 Class I areas. The State must

analyze the effects of the emissions

changes and implement additional

measures to protect the clean days if

necessary. The States may include the

tracking of emissions for the clean air

corridors with tracking of emissions for

other purposes such as compliance with

stationary source emissions targets, if

appropriate. The EPA notes that clean

air corridors will be protected by other

implementation plan requirements,

such as other SIP measures that may

apply to existing stationary sources.

States may wish to rely on technical

cooperation now beginning under the

WRAP as an efficient means to

consolidate efforts on emission

inventories and projections needed to

monitor clean air corridor emissions

and their effects on clear air days.

4. Implementation of Stationary Source

Reductions

To achieve the reductions in

emissions for stationary sources

projected in the GCVTC’s strategies,

subsection 51.309(f)(1)(i) requires the

establishment of SO2 emission

reduction milestones as part of the

development of an annex to the GCVTC

report. Section 51.309(d)(4) requires

monitoring and reporting of stationary
35752 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

126 GCVTC Report, pp. 38–46.

source emissions of SO2 in order to

assess compliance with these milestones

during the period 2003 to 2018. The SIP

must contain criteria and procedures for

implementing a market trading program

or other program documented in the

SIP, consistent with section

51.309(f)(1)(i), if triggered by emissions

exceeding the emissions reduction

milestones. In particular, the SIPs must

provide for implementation of the

market-based program or other

emissions control strategy as called for

by an assessment of SO2 emissions for

the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018.

States must fully activate the market

system or other program within 1 year

after an assessment showing the

excessive emissions. In addition, the

implementation plan must provide for

all affected sources to comply with the

market system or other programs

allocating emissions within 5 years after

the date the program is triggered. The

rule also requires States to report on

actual emissions reductions and

compare them to the established

milestones. If a market trading program

or other program is triggered, the rule

requires States to report whether all

sources covered by the market trading or

other programs are in compliance with

applicable requirements.

In addition to requirements for

control of emissions of SO2, the rule

requires the State to explore emission

management options for stationary

source emissions of PM and NOX. The

States are required to report by 2003 on

their consideration of the need for

emissions targets for these pollutants to

prevent growth in emissions of these

pollutants in the region as a whole. The

EPA believes that the States should base

their decisions on the need for, and

levels of, emissions targets for these

pollutants on the degree to which such

pollutants contribute to regional haze

impairment in the Class I areas

addressed by their SIPs. The States must

report to EPA by 2003 on their decisions

whether to develop targets and

additional control strategies for PM and

NOX emissions from stationary sources.

If the States determine that such targets

and controls are needed, they must

submit a plan revision to EPA not later

than December 31, 2008 containing any

necessary long-term strategies and

BART or other requirements for

stationary sources of PM and NOX.

In adopting the requirements for

stationary source emission reduction

milestones in this manner, EPA is

indicating that the State’s adoption of

approvable SO2 milestones and a

backstop market trading program as set

forth in section 51.309(f) in addition to

the other requirements in section 51.309

would provide for reasonable progress

for the 16 Class I areas for the

implementation period from 2003 to

2018. The emissions reductions

provided for by the milestones and

trading program must address the BART

provisions in section 51.308(e). For the

reasons discussed in the portion of this

preamble concerning BART

requirements, EPA believes that the

GCVTC’s adoption of a market based

alternative to source-by-source BART

will permit the GCVTC States to meet

the provisions of the national rule

which allow the use of alternative

measures in lieu of BART.

Implementation of the framework

established by subsections 51.309 (d)(4)

and (f) will thus satisfy the provisions

for an alternative measure in lieu of

BART for regional haze impairment set

forth in section 51.308(e)(2), provided

the interim milestones called for in the

annex assure greater reasonable progress

than would be achieved by application

of BART. The EPA will supplement its

actions on the stationary source strategy

with future rulemaking on the States’

submission of interim milestones for

SO2 emissions as part of the annex. In

reviewing the interim milestones, EPA

will be informed by the annex to the

GCVTC report provided for in section

51.309(f) to be discussed later.

5. Mobile Sources

Section 51.309(d)(5) requires

implementation plans to address the

contribution to regional haze by

emissions from mobile sources. This

mobile source provision is based on the

finding in the GCVTC Report that

reducing total mobile source emissions

is an essential part of any long-term

strategy for management of visibility on

the Colorado Plateau.126 The GCVTC

found that some urban areas will

already be developing mobile source

emissions budgets and programs to meet

other CAA requirements. To the extent

that mobile source emissions in these or

other areas are found to contribute

significantly to visibility impairment in

the Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau,

the GCVTC recommended that an

emissions budget be established for any

area with a significant contribution to

the regional mobile source emissions

total. The GCVTC called for the budgets

to be established beginning in the

approximate year in which emissions

from mobile sources are projected to be

at their lowest point during the

planning period of 2003 to 2018, which

is expected to be in 2005. The emissions

budget should serve both as a planning

objective and a performance indicator

for that area.

Accordingly, today’s final rule

requires all plans to provide for an

inventory of current and projected

emissions (VOC, NOX, SO2, elemental

carbon, organic carbon, and direct fine

particles) from mobile sources for the

2003 to 2018 period. Because, as noted

in the GCVTC Report, the inventory for

the year 2005 is expected to represent

the expected lowest total emissions

from mobile sources in the planning

period, that inventory must be included

in the SIP. Once State inventories have

been compiled and evaluated, the States

with urban areas found to contribute

significantly to visibility impairment in

the 16 Class I areas must establish and

document their mobile source emissions

budgets for any such area. In addition,

the States must establish SIP

components which limit VOC, SO2,

NOX, elemental and organic carbon and

direct fine particulate mobile source

emissions to their projected lowest

levels for the period 2003 to 2018. The

State plans must also provide for the

implementation of measures to achieve

the mobile emissions budget, and for

demonstrations of compliance with any

such budget. The demonstrations must

include a tracking system to evaluate

and demonstrate the State is meeting its

share of the regional mobile source

emissions budget.

The GCVTC report also noted that the

Federal government has a role in

addressing mobile source emissions.

The GCVTC report identified several

national mobile source-related

emissions reduction strategies under

consideration by EPA that are important

to visibility conditions in the Class I

areas on the Colorado Plateau. The

GCVTC agreed to promote these

initiatives on a national level. With

regard to ongoing development of

policies and regulations on emissions

from mobile sources, the June 29 letter

from the WGA requests that EPA ‘‘make

a binding commitment in its final

regional haze rule to fully consider the

GCVTC’s recommendations’ on several

national mobile source emissions

control strategies. Comment on the

regional haze rule specifically requested

that EPA commit to consider

development of a list of very specific

national mobile source emissions

control strategies.

The EPA agrees with the GCVTC’s

conclusion that emissions from mobile

sources can be significant contributors

to regional haze visibility impairment.

The EPA is currently working on a

number of the strategies the GCVTC

requested us to ‘‘fully consider’’ and the
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35753

127 GCVTC Report, p. 47. 128See Id.

summary below indicates the status of

activities under way.

No. Measure Status of EPA efforts to fully consider the measure

1 .............. Adoption of the 49-State LEV standard in 2001 and Tier II vehicle emission standards in year 2004 (if determined to be more

effective).

Combined Tier II/gasoline sulfur NPRM is being drafted, with

publication expected in early to mid-1999.

2 .............. Support of EPA’s current proposal for new on-road, heavy-duty

vehicles emission standards that reduce NOx emissions by at

least 50 percent over the 1998 requirements in the CAA, while

maintaining current stringent PM emission limits.

Finalized 2004 standards for on-road heavy-duty in 10/97 [62

FR 54693]; reductions in NOx emissions and secondary PM.

3 .............. Pursue additional PM reductions from on-road vehicles .............. Potential actions being evaluated.

4 .............. Pursue additional engine emission standards for new off-road

vehicles (heavy-duty, construction-type) that provide reasonably achievable reductions.

Finalized standards in 8/98 [63 FR 56967]. Also planning a technology review by December 2001 to evaluate feasibility standards and additional reductions.

5 .............. Explore broader application of and additional reductions in the

sulfur content of both gasoline and diesel fuel.

Gasoline sulfur control-rulemaking underway.

Considering regulation of diesel fuel sulfur.

6 .............. Promotion of cleaner-burning fuels ............................................... In first year of implementing clean-fuel fleets program. The Office of Mobile Sources presented a series of fleet manager

workshops during May, June and July of ’98. Clean Fuel Fleet

Program Implementation Guidance was issued in August ’98.

We have a team within OMS working on promoting clean fuels

efforts.

7 .............. Pursue fuel standards and control strategies for diesel locomotives, marine vessels/pleasure craft, airplanes, and Federal

vehicles as described in the GCVTC’s Report.

Study of these issues is ongoing, but no specific actions have

been scheduled.

8 .............. Support requirements for effective refueling vapor recovery systems that capture evaporative emissions.On-board re-fueling standards for cars and trucks finalized October 1996.

We may consider refueling systems for on-road, heavy-duty gasoline in future.

The EPA will continue to work with

States and regional planning entities to

help them assess how national mobile

source emissions strategies will affect

other strategies needed to ensure

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal during the

implementation of the regulations

promulgated today. The EPA will also

grant States full credit for

implementation of future national

mobile source programs in emissions

strategies needed to attain reasonable

progress goals.

6. Emissions Related to Fire

Section 51.309(d)(6) requires

documentation that all prescribed fire

programs within the State consider and

address the effects of smoke on visibility

when planning and issuing permits for

prescribed fires. The GCVTC Report

stated that ‘‘fire has played a major role

in the development of and maintenance

of most ecosystems in the West.’’ 127 In

addition, the report notes ‘‘emissions

from fire (wildfire and prescribed fire)

are an important episodic contributor to

visibility-impairing aerosols, including

organic carbon, and particulate matter

(PM2.5)’’. Agricultural burning emissions

and their effects have been identified as

a concern by the GCVTC but have not

been quantified due to lack of data. The

GCVTC concluded that all types of fire

(prescribed fire, wildfire, and

agricultural burning) must be addressed

equitably as part of a visibility

protection strategy.128

The EPA agrees with the GCVTC’s

conclusions and is including in this

section of the rule a requirement for the

States to address all types of fire in

fulfilling the requirements of this

section and in submitting SIPs for

approval by EPA. Section 51.309(d)(6)

requires each State to establish an

emissions inventory and tracking

system (spatial and temporal) for VOC,

NOX, elemental carbon and organic

carbon, and direct fine particulate

emissions from prescribed fire, wildfire,

and agricultural burning. The EPA

believes that such information could be

developed on a regional basis and could

be accomplished through mechanisms

such as recording acres experiencing

fire and calculating emissions based on

vegetation type and soil moisture. Most

importantly, the rule requires the

establishment of enhanced smoke

management programs for fire that

consider visibility effects, in addition to

health and nuisance objectives, and

calls for programs to be based on the

criteria of efficiency, economics, law,

emissions reduction opportunities, land

management objectives, and reduction

of visibility impacts. The

comprehensive approach envisioned by

the rule will allow States to plan a

smoke management program that

minimizes visibility impacts but also

fully recognizes the ecological role of

fire.

The smoke management plans must

address all sources of fire used for land

management purposes. The provisions

of this section also provide for

establishment of annual emissions goals

for fire (excluding wildfire) that will

minimize increases in emissions to the

maximum extent feasible. These goals

are to be established cooperatively by

States, tribes, State and Federal land

management agencies, and their private

sector counterparts, considering factors

similar to those identified for enhanced

smoke management plans.

7. Dust From Roads

Section 51.309(d)(7) requires States to

assess the impact of dust emissions on

regional haze visibility in the 16 Class

I areas. If such dust emissions are

determined to be a significant

contributor to visibility impairment, the

State must implement emissions

management strategies to address their

impact. In the technical work of the

GCVTC, road dust was not shown to be

a major contributor to regional haze

impairment based on current

monitoring data. However, work on

future emissions projections of road

dust emissions was directly tied to

growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The large increase projected for the west

in VMT over the planning period of the

GCVTC report resulted in initial
35754 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

129 GCVTC Report, p. 46.

130See id.

131 GCVTC Report, p. 28.

132 GCVTC Report, p. 7.

predictions of a very large contribution

of road dust to regional haze.129 This

technical result was addressed in the

GCVTC report and the GCVTC

discounted the predictions of the future

impacts from road dust. However, the

GCVTC recommended that its policy

conclusion that distant road dust is not

likely to play an important role in

regional haze should be confirmed

through further tracking of road dust

emissions. The GCVTC also emphasized

that road dust control should be

considered in locations ‘‘in and near’’

Class I areas.130 The EPA agrees with

this approach and has included the

assessment of road dust as a

requirement of the SIP. In addition,

today’s action requires appropriate SIP

measures over time based on the

contribution of road dust to regional

haze.

8. Pollution Prevention

This section addresses the GCVTC’s

recommendations on pollution

prevention and renewable energy. The

GCVTC goal recommended that

renewable energy comprise 10 percent

of the regional power needs by 2005 and

20 percent by 2015. The Administration

has recently offered legislation

proposing a national mandate of 7.5

percent by 2010. The Commission’s goal

represents the outcome of its consensus

process and is a more aggressive goal

than what the Administration has

proposed as a national mandate. As

with other GCVTC recommendations,

the EPA has included this provision in

this rule in recognition of the overall

body of the GCVTC’s work and believes

it is consistent with the provisions of

the national rule. Section 51.309(d)(8)

requires the State to summarize all

pollution prevention plans currently in

place, inventory the current and

expected energy generation capacity

through 2002, the total energy

generation capacity and production for

the State, the State’s percentage of total

energy generation and capacity that

comes from renewable energy sources,

and the State’s anticipated contribution

toward the GCVTC’s goal that renewable

energy comprise 10 percent of the

regional power needs by 2005, and 20

percent by 2015.

The GCVTC found that to prevent

further degradation of vistas in the west,

it would be necessary to combine costeffective pollution control strategies

with a greater emphasis on pollution

prevention, including low or zero

emission technologies and energy

conservation. It further found that there

was a high potential for renewable

energy production, especially electrical

energy, and that the relative cost of

renewable energy production is

declining over time. The GCVTC cited

forecasts of renewable energy

production by the Western Systems

Coordinating Council and by the Land

and Water Fund of the Rockies in

support of its adoption of the goal that

10 percent of regional power needs be

served by renewable energy sources by

the year 2005 and 20 percent by the year

2015.131

In establishing assessment and

reporting requirements for the States,

EPA is supporting the GCVTC Report’s

promotion of renewable power

production. Such production will likely

be based on emerging renewable energy

technologies such as wind, solar,

biomass, and geothermal. The EPA also

supports tracking annual goals for

increases in renewable power

generation in the transport region.132

The GCVTC identified strategies which

the States could rely on to help achieve

this regional renewable energy goal,

including, but not limited to, focusing

research funding for renewables,

financial incentives, and requiring new

power generation projects to include a

portion of the generation from

renewable energy sources. The EPA

notes that the WRAP is committed to

following through on the GCVTC’s

recommendations and can assist the

States in developing strategies they can

rely on to achieve regional renewable

energy goals contained in the GCVTC

Report.

In response to the GCVTC’s

recommendations on pollution

prevention, section 51.309(d)(8) calls for

each SIP to provide for incentives to

reward efforts that go beyond

compliance and/or achieve early

compliance with air pollution related

requirements. The plan also must

identify specific areas where renewable

energy has the potential to supply

power where it is not now provided by

current service systems and where

renewable energy systems are most cost

effective. The plan must contain

projections of the short-term and longterm emissions reductions, visibility

improvements, costs savings, and

secondary benefits associated with

renewable energy goals, energy

efficiency and pollution prevention

activities. The plan must also contain a

description of the programs being relied

on to achieve the State’s contribution

toward the GCVTC’s renewable energy

goals.

The State must provide a

demonstration of its progress toward

achieving the renewable energy goals in

2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018. The

demonstration must include

documentation describing the potential

for renewable energy resources, the

percentage of renewable energy

associated with new power generation

projects implemented or planned, and

the renewable energy generation

capacity and production in use or

planned within the State. Where a State

cannot feasibly meet its planned

contribution to the regional renewable

energy goals, the State must identify the

measures implemented to achieve its

contribution and explain why meeting

the State’s contribution was not feasible.

Commentors on EPA’s September 3,

1998 notice of availability stated that

incorporation of language from the

WGA letter on renewable energy

restricts State and local energy planning

since a SIP is federally enforceable

under the CAA. Commentors also

expressed the opinion that the

requirements for SIPs to address

renewable energy goals may overstep

EPA’s legal authorities which are

limited to emissions limitation and

pollution performance standards.

The EPA disagrees that the provisions

of section 51.309(d)(8) impermissibly

restrict State and local energy planning

or that these provisions exceed EPA’s

authority under the CAA. As stated

previously, the requirements of section

51.309 are provided to GCVTC States as

an alternative to the general provisions

of section 51.308 as a means of giving

effect to the policy and technical work

of the GCVTC. The goals themselves are

not enforceable and States are not

required to meet the renewable energy

goals. However, as the WGA letter and

the GCVTC provide, these provisions

are not severable. States which wish to

take advantage of the GCVTC’s efforts

and EPA’s acceptance thereof are

obligated to meet all of the requirements

of section 51.309.

Rather, EPA is setting enforceable

requirements for the States to assess

progress toward goals established by the

GCVTC with respect to renewable

energy production as a means for

reducing dependence on more polluting

forms of energy production. States

participating in the GCVTC strategy are

responsible for explaining why they

cannot meet the GCVTC goals. The

required reporting by the States will

inform the public of air quality

improvements that would result from

that goal had it been realized. It is the

relationship between renewable energy

production and associated

environmental effects (direct and
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35755

indirect) that is the thrust of the

assessment and reporting effort under

the SIP.

9. Implementation of Additional

Requirements

In section 51.309(d)(9), EPA requires

SIPs to provide for implementation of

other GCVTC Report policy and strategy

options that can be practicably included

as enforceable emissions limits,

schedules of compliance or other

enforceable measures to make

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal for the 16 Class I areas.

The GCVTC’s recommendations

included items that are not appropriate

to directly translate to SIP requirements

for every State. The EPA supports State

choice of appropriate actions on other

options and measures identified by the

GCVTC and has, therefore, established a

general provision for SIPs calling for

them to consider and adopt additional

measures as necessary and appropriate.

The rule further requires States to report

to EPA in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018

on what measures have been adopted

and the status of implementation of

those measures.

10. International Transport of Pollution

One of the additional areas of concern

noted in the GCVTC report, for instance,

relates to effects of emissions from

sources outside of the territory of the

United States. As stated elsewhere in

this notice, the EPA will not hold States

responsible for developing strategies to

‘‘compensate’’ for the effects of

emissions from foreign sources.

However, the States should not consider

the presence of emissions from foreign

sources as a reason not to strive to

ensure reasonable progress in reducing

any visibility impairment caused by

sources located within their

jurisdiction. The States retain a duty to

work with EPA in helping the Federal

government use appropriate means to

address international pollution

transport concerns. Indeed, such efforts

are under way. The EPA and other

Federal officials are working with

representatives of the Mexican

government to complete a study which

will assess the contribution of fossil-fuel

fired electric generation stations in

northern Mexico to haze in Big Bend

National Park. These efforts and funding

of work to establish emissions

inventories in Mexico will help address

concerns raised by the GCVTC. In

addition to activities directly related to

visibility effects, there are other efforts

underway related to the United StatesMexico border health issues. Given that

emissions contributing to health effects

and those contributing to visibility

impairment are generally the same, the

border studies and emissions

inventories will help support

assessment of regional visibility

conditions. In addition to work with

Mexico, EPA routinely meets with

representatives of the Canadian

government on issues related to

transport of air pollutants, particularly

focusing on emissions affecting acidic

deposition. The EPA intends to

continue to work through appropriate

channels in building technical

information and addressing policy

concerns related to international

pollution transport.

11. Periodic Implementation Plan

Revisions

Section 51.309(d)(10) requires the

States to periodically assess their

progress in implementing measures for

protection of visibility. This includes a

review of how the measures

implemented under section 51.309 are

consistent with the national rule’s

provisions for long-term strategies and

BART. The assessments must be

completed by 2008, 2013, and 2018 and

must be submitted to EPA as SIP

revisions that comply with the

procedural requirements of sections

51.102 and 51.103. As with any other

review and revision of SIP

requirements, States will be expected to

use the most current available technical

methods and procedures in conducting

their assessments.

The provisions of section

51.309(d)(10) further require that where

a State concludes that planning

adjustments are necessary as a result of

emissions occurring within the State, it

revise its implementation strategies to

include rule revisions that are effective

within 1 year after the State makes such

a conclusion in order to assure

reasonable progress at any of the 16

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.

States may also conclude, based on their

assessments, that no changes to the plan

are needed, and the plan revision

requirement can be met by submitting a

‘‘negative declaration’’ as an

implementation plan revision to EPA.

This revision must provide the State’s

basis for finding that no changes are

needed. This submission will provide

the public with necessary information

and an opportunity to comment on the

State’s findings.

The EPA views the requirement of

section 51.309(d)(10) as a periodic

check on progress rather than a

thorough revision of regional strategies.

The State interim assessments should

focus on significant failures or shortfalls

in implementing adopted strategies and

on emissions from in-State or out-ofState sources which may be causing

degradation in regional haze visibility

but were not anticipated in the

development of the original plan and

will, therefore, not be addressed by

currently-adopted programs. If a State

makes such findings with respect to inState sources, EPA expects the State to

revise its SIP, reducing emissions to be

consistent with the regional planning

effort reflected in the reasonable

progress SIPs due in 2003. If transport

of emissions from out of State is

suspected of impairing reasonable

progress, the State should identify this

to EPA and should initiate cooperative

efforts with upwind States so the

emissions can be more fully evaluated

and, as needed, addressed in the next

mandatory full SIP revision. This

requirement is virtually identical to the

provisions for periodic review under

sections 51.308(g) and (h).

12. State Planning and Interstate

Coordination

Section 51.309(d)(11) provides

flexibility to a State to address its

contribution to visibility impairment

through the regional emissions control

strategies discussed above. The SIP

strategies to protect the 16 Class I areas

on the Colorado Plateau can thus be

developed through interstate

coordination in a regional planning

process. Such regional planning can

help a State develop documentation of

the technical and policy basis for the

individual State apportionment of

emissions and visibility impairment, the

contribution to emissions addressed by

the State’s plan, coordination in the

analysis of interstate transport and

control of pollution with other States,

and compliance with other criteria for

approval of SIPs under CAA sections

110 and 169A and B. Therefore, under

today’s final rule and EPA policy, States

may rely on regional entities’ efforts to

develop and document technical and

policy support for the SIPs required by

this rule. For the purposes of

implementing the requirements of

section 51.309, EPA recognizes the

WRAP as a regional planning group for

purposes of interstate consultation

under section 51.308(c).

As indicated in the introduction to

the section of today’s notice addressing

the WGA and GCVTC

recommendations, States retain the right

to develop their own programs with or

without reliance on the work products

of a regional entity. In the case where a

State chooses to develop a SIP without

reliance on a regional planning process,

however, the State will need to show

how it accounted for the effect of its

emissions on Class I areas which may be
35756 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

133See 63 FR 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998). 134 GCVTC Report, p. x–xi.

located beyond the State’s borders, as

well as the effect of upwind emissions

from other States on the Class I areas

within its borders.

The regional haze SIP for a State

choosing not to implement the

requirements of section 51.309,

including the SIP submittal deadlines,

would be governed by the national rules

provided in section 51.308. Any State

choosing not to adopt a SIP in

accordance with the GCVTC strategy

and optional approach in section

51.309, but wishing to use the WRAP

mechanism for regional cooperation in

developing its SIP requirements, would

need to comply with all of the

requirements outlined in the national

rule in section 51.308.

13. Tribal Implementation Plans

The WGA called for EPA’s final rule

to permit tribes within the GCVTC

Transport Region to implement

visibility programs, or reasonably

severable elements, in the same manner

as States, regardless of whether such

tribes have participated as members of

a visibility transport GCVTC. The EPA

has not included the WGA’s

recommended rule provision in today’s

action because the necessary authority

for tribal organizations has already been

provided in a previous EPA

rulemaking.133 The EPA does, however,

agree with the position expressed in the

WGA recommendation. The EPA wishes

to clarify that tribes may directly

implement the requirements of this

section of the regional haze rule in the

same manner as States. The Tribal

Authority Rule provides for this, as

discussed further in unit V of today’s

notice. The independence of tribes

means that a tribal visibility program is

not dependent on strategies selected by

the State or States in which the tribe is

located. If tribes within the Transport

Region decline to implement visibility

programs and EPA finds that emissions

management strategies are needed to

assure reasonable progress, EPA will

work with the appropriate tribes

directly to provide for Federal

implementation of appropriate

emissions reduction strategies. This is

based on the government to government

principles of Federal-Tribal relations.

D. Requirements for States Electing Not

To Follow All Provisions of the Section

51.309(e)

The EPA notes that the provisions for

allowing the Transport Region States to

adopt SIPs based on the GCVTC

recommendations requires that States

endorse the range of strategies

recognized by the GCVTC. A State

electing not to implement the GCVTC

recommendations as set forth in section

51.309(d) must address all of its Class I

areas and any Class I area to which its

sources’ emissions may contribute to

impairment under the provisions of

section 51.308. In addition, any

Transport Region State must advise

other States electing to comply with

section 51.309 of the nature and effect

of their program on visibility impairing

emissions so that other States can use

this information in developing programs

under section 51.309. This provision

assures that all components needed to

address reasonable progress are part of

SIPs either under the provisions of

section 51.309 or section 51.308.

E. Annex to the GCVTC Report

1. Interim Milestones

Section 51.309(f) calls for an annex to

the GCVTC Report for the purpose of

completing the program requirements to

meet reasonable progress under the

CAA, including submission of a

complete long-term strategy and

addressing the BART requirement for

the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado

Plateau. The purpose of the annex is to

develop interim emissions milestones

for stationary source SO2 interim targets

between the year 2000 target and the

target for the year 2040. Under section

51.309(f)(1)(i), the States must consider

four specific factors in setting the

interim emission milestones. The first

factor affecting the selection of interim

milestones is the GCVTC’s definition of

reasonable progress. The GCVTC notes

in its report that the term ‘‘reasonable

progress’’ refers to ‘‘progress in reducing

human-caused haze in Class I areas

under the national visibility goal.’’ 134 It

goes on to note that ‘‘the CAA indicates

that ‘reasonable’ should consider the

cost of reducing air pollution emissions,

the time necessary for compliance, the

energy and non-air quality

environmental impacts of reducing

emissions, and the remaining useful life

of any existing air pollution source

considered for these reductions.’’ The

discussion also includes the GCVTC’s

Public Advisory Committee definition

that ‘‘progress towards the national

visibility goal is achieving continuous

emissions reductions necessary to

reduce existing impairment and attain

steady improvement in visibility in

mandatory Class I areas, and managing

emissions growth so as to prevent

perceptible degradation of clean air

days.’’ Together, these provisions call

for the achievement of continuous

emissions reductions and tracking the

reductions to ensure visibility

improvement in hazy days and visibility

maintenance on clear days. To be

consistent with and responsive to the

guiding principles, recommendations

and strategies adopted by the GCVTC,

EPA expects any interim targets to

demonstrate a significant continuous

downward trend in emissions and not

postpone significant progress to periods

covered by future long-term strategies.

The second factor is the quantifiable

target for 2040 to which interim targets

must contribute. This target is a 50 to 70

percent reduction by 2040 in emissions

from stationary source SO2 emissions,

based on the projection of the GCVTC’s

baseline forecast scenario from actual

1990 emission levels. Interim targets

should reflect assessment of reasonable

measures which reduce regional

loadings of SO2. Such assessments may

include examination of interim targets

based on costs per ton of reducing SO2

in line with recently adopted control

measures.

The third factor is the applicable

requirements of the CAA for making

reasonable progress and implementing

BART. As noted previously in this

preamble, the CAA requires a long-term

strategy to ensure reasonable progress

and the application of BART to certain

large sources that are reasonably

anticipated to cause or contribute to

regional haze. The rule requires the

annex to address the BART provisions

of the national rule. As noted in the

earlier discussion of BART, EPA will

accept alternative measures, such as

regional emissions trading programs,

which achieve greater reasonable

progress in lieu of meeting the sourcespecific BART requirement. As noted

elsewhere in the preamble, EPA plans to

issue revised BART guidance within a

year. During the next year and a half,

EPA also plans to issue new or revised

guidance related to the design of

emission trading programs, including

guidance on the structure of economic

incentive programs. Given this

schedule, EPA intends to work closely

with the WRAP as it develops the

annex, its approach to meeting the rule’s

BART requirements and its backstop

market-trading program. The EPA

believes that its participation in the

WRAP will help to ensure that the way

in which the annex addresses BART and

the market trading program will be

compatible with EPA’s revised BART

guidance and any new or revised

guidance EPA issues related to

emissions trading programs.

In the event EPA finds that the annex

does not meet the rule’s BART

provisions because it is inconsistent
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35757

with EPA’s revised BART guidance, the

Transport Region States may submit a

revised annex to address any

deficiencies. The revision should be

submitted as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than 12 months

from EPA’s determination that the

annex is deficient with respect to BART

due to its inconsistency with the BART

guidance. Similarly, if EPA finds the

annex does not meet the provisions of

any EPA guidance applicable to markettrading programs that is issued after

promulgation of this rule, the Transport

Region States may submit a revision to

the annex to remedy any such

deficiencies. These revisions should

also be submitted no later than 12

months from EPA’s determination that

the annex cannot be incorporated in the

SIP because of inconsistencies with the

guidance. The EPA expects that the

States and WRAP stakeholders will

make every effort to address both the

revised BART guidance and any new or

revised emission trading program

guidance within the timeframe

established by section 51.309 for

submittal of the annex. By providing for

EPA participation in the WRAP,

encouraging State and stakeholder

efforts to respond expeditiously to new

or revised guidance, and calling for any

needed revisions to the annex to be

submitted within a year from an EPA

determination of deficiency, this

approach will ensure compliance with

the SIP submittal deadlines in section

51.309(c).

The fourth factor to be addressed in

the setting of interim milestones is the

timing of implementation plan

assessments of progress and the

identification of mechanisms to address

cases where emissions exceed milestone

levels for the reporting years 2003, 2008,

2013 and 2018. This schedule is

designed to achieve eventual

coordination of target years with

assessments for regions affecting other

Class I areas. Because these efforts call

for continuing consultation and sharing

of information between regions as well

as between States, timetables for further

work by the GCVTC States are designed

to bring the GCVTC States’ long-term

strategy updates in line with the

schedule for the next long-term strategy

update required of all other States.

2. Documentation of Market Trading or

Other Alternative Measures To Assure

Reasonable Progress.

In addition to the interim targets,

section 51.309(f)(1)(iii) requires the

annex to contain final documentation of

the market trading program or other

programs to be implemented by the

GCVTC States if current implementation

plans and voluntary measures are not

sufficient to meet the established

interim milestones. This documentation

must include model rules, memoranda

of understanding, and other materials

necessary to describe in detail and

establish in enforceable fashion how

emission reduction progress will be

monitored, what conditions will require

the market trading program to be

activated, how allocations will be

performed, and how the program will

operate.

3. Additional Class I Areas

An additional provision, section

51.309(g) allows States to elect to

demonstrate reasonable progress for

other Class I areas within the Transport

Region States beyond the original 16

areas addressed by the GCVTC’s

assessment, relying on the strategies

recommended by the GCVTC. See the

discussion in unit IV.F. of this

preamble.

4. Geographic Enhancements

The EPA has also adopted provisions

in subsections 51.309(b)(7) and

51.309(f)(4) that would allow the

Transport Region States to establish a

process as part of a broad regional

strategy, such as backstop markettrading program, to accommodate the

situation where a State takes action to

address reasonably attributable BART

under the provisions of section

51.306(c)(2). As noted elsewhere, the

annex, if approved, will allow the

Transport Region States to submit a SIP

which adopts an alternative measure in

lieu of BART. The purpose for including

the provisions regarding geographic

enhancement is to address the

intersection between the existing

reasonably attributable BART provision

and regional haze BART, which may be

met through an emissions trading

program such as the milestone/backstop

market-trading program which is to be

included in the annex. Existing rules

address ‘‘hot spots’—those situations in

which part of the visibility impairment

in a specific national park or wilderness

area is reasonably attributable to a single

source or small group of sources in the

airshed because of the nature and

location of the pollution relative to the

Class I area. Should action be taken by

the State to address such reasonably

attributable impairment through BART,

the geographic enhancement provisions

would allow the backstop market-based

trading program to accommodate such

action. These provisions parallel a

similar allowance in subsections

51.301(ii) and 51.308(e)(2)(C)(v).

The EPA is repeating these

provisions, with minor language

changes, to be clear that they apply to

both the milestones or backstop markettrading program provided for in the

annex. Subsection 51.309(b)(7) defines

the term geographic enhancement for

the provisions governing the annex and

section 51.309(f)(4) allows the annex to

contain a geographic enhancement.

Similar to the national program, these

provisions will allow the market trading

system included in the annex to

accommodate situations where a State

wishes to require BART control

measures on sources or a small group of

sources due to reasonably attributable

impairment and that source has been

included in the backstop market trading

program under the annex. In this

situation, the milestone or backstop

market-trading program may include a

level of reasonably attributable

impairment which may require

additional emissions reductions over

and above those achieved under the

quantitative emissions reductions

milestones established for regional haze.

5. The EPA Responsibilities in Relation

to the Annex

Section 51.309(f)(3) spells out EPA’s

responsibilities with respect to the

annex and calls for EPA to publish the

annex upon receipt. The EPA must then

conduct a review and decide, after

notice and opportunity for public

comment, whether the annex meets the

requirement of section 51.309(f)(1) and

whether it assures reasonable progress.

If EPA finds the interim targets and

accompanying documentation meet the

requirements of reasonable progress,

then it will incorporate the interim

targets into the stationary source SIP

requirements in section 51.309(d)(4)

within 1 year of receipt, after public

notice and comment. If EPA decides

that the annex does not meet SIP

requirements for reasonable progress or

if EPA does not receive an annex, it will

notify the GCVTC States, who will then

be subject to the general provisions of

section 51.308 in the same manner as

other States.

One commentor on the annex

approach described in EPA’s September

3 notice of availability noted that the

WGA letter set forth a tight timetable for

development of the market system and

that it appears to violate the TEA–21

requirements. In response, EPA notes

that these are the timetables established

by the GCVTC in 1996 and which have

been the basis for work by the followup body of the WRAP. With respect to

TEA–21, the colloquy between Senator

Allard and Senator Baucus in the

Congressional Record on the conference

report concerning implementation of

GCVTC recommendations is instructive,
35758 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

135 144 Cong Rec. SS407 (daily ed. May 22, 1998).

and EPA believes that it fully addresses

the commentor’s concern. Senator

Baucus stated that ‘‘[TEA–21] clarifies

that it does not affect EPA’s authority to

provide for State implementation of the

agreements and recommendations set

forth in the June 1996 GCVTC Report on

a schedule consistent with the GCVTC’s

Report. * * * The conferees added

specific language so as not to preclude

the Administrator from providing for

earlier State implementation of the

GCVTC’s agreements and

recommendations * * *.’’ 135 That

language states that:

The preceding provisions of this paragraph

shall not preclude the implementation of the

agreements and recommendations set forth in

the GCVTC Report dated June 1996.

TEA–21 section 4102(c)(2).

F. Additional Class I Areas

Section 51.309(g) calls for Transport

Region States to identify in their 2003

plan submissions whether they elect to

meet the provisions of section 51.308 or

51.309 in establishing their long-term

strategy and BART requirements for

additional Class I areas not covered by

the original GCVTC effort. By no later

than December 31, 2008 the States

electing to use section 51.309 to address

additional Class I areas must submit

plan revisions which include a

modeling demonstration establishing

expected visibility conditions on the

most-impaired and least-impaired days

at the Class I areas for which they seek

to demonstrate reasonable progress.

These demonstrations may be

conducted by the State or based on

refined studies conducted by regional

entities. The plan must include the

analyses required in section

51.308(d)(1). The plan can build upon

and take full credit for the strategies

adopted for the 16 Class I areas. It must

also contain any additional measures

beyond those strategies that may be

needed to demonstrate reasonable

progress in those areas, in accordance

with the provisions of section

51.308(d)(1) through (4). As provided

for in section 51.309(g)(2), a Transport

Region State may have until no later

than December 31, 2008, to submit a

plan for additional Class I areas, which

is the date for submission that

additional Class I areas under section

51.308. Transport Region States may

well benefit by addressing the

additional Class I areas under section

51.309, since using the same rule

provision for both sets of Class I areas

could facilitate coordination of the

requirements for the areas as well as

enabling consolidation of plans after

2008.

Furthermore, if the State can develop

the necessary demonstration for other

Class I areas before 2003, a Transport

Region State could submit one

implementation plan in 2003 covering

both the 16 Class I areas and other Class

I areas for which it must assure

reasonable progress.

V. Implementation of the Regional Haze

Program in Indian Country

This section discusses how the

requirements of the regional haze rule

relate to emissions released from Indian

country.

A. Background on Tribal Air Quality

Programs

Before discussing how the regional

haze rule affects tribes, we believe it is

useful to briefly describe EPA’s overall

policy and rulemaking efforts on tribal

air quality programs.

On November 8, 1984, the EPA

released a policy statement entitled

‘‘EPA Policy for the Administration of

Environmental Programs on Indian

Reservations.’’ This policy statement,

available on the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/indian/1984.htm, stresses

a number of themes. In particular, this

policy stresses that EPA, consistent with

overall Federal government policy, will

pursue the principle of Indian ‘‘selfgovernment,’’ and that it will work with

tribal governments on a ‘‘government-togovernment’’ basis. The policy

statement also emphasizes EPA’s desire

to work with interested tribal

governments in developing programs

and in preparing to assume regulatory

and environmental program

management responsibility for Indian

country. The EPA will retain

responsibility for protecting tribal air

quality until such time as tribes

administer their own air quality

protection programs.

The CAA, as amended in 1990, added

a new section 301(d) which authorizes

EPA to ‘‘treat tribes as States’’ for the

purposes of administering CAA

programs. Section 301(d) required that

EPA promulgate regulations listing

specific CAA provisions for which it

would be appropriate to treat tribes as

States and establishing the criteria that

tribes must meet in order to be eligible

for such treatment under the CAA. The

EPA proposed these regulations on

August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43956), and

finalized the rule on February 12, 1998

(63 FR 7254). Much of the regulatory

language in this rule is codified in the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as a

new 40 CFR part 49. This rule is

generally referred to as the Tribal

Authority Rule or TAR.

The TAR includes general eligibility

requirements for tribes interested in

assuming program responsibilities that

are codified in section 49.6 of the rule.

These eligibility requirements are

designed in part to ensure that such

tribes have the infrastructure needed to

successfully implement a tribal air

quality program. Tribes may request a

formal eligibility determination using

administrative procedures contained in

49.7. Tribes may also use the

administrative procedures in 49.7 to

seek approval to implement CAA

programs. The TAR authorizes EPA to

review requests for eligibility

determinations and program approvals

simultaneously. As noted in 49.7(c),

tribes that are interested in seeking EPA

approval to implement air quality

programs under the CAA may request

approval to implement only partial

elements of a CAA program, so long as

the elements of the partial program are

‘‘reasonably severable.’’

Section 301(d)(4) of the CAA confers

discretionary authority on EPA to

provide, through regulation, alternative

means to ensure air quality protection in

cases where it determines that treating

tribes as ‘‘identical’’ to States would be

inappropriate. Accordingly, in

promulgating the TAR, EPA provided

flexibility to tribes seeking to implement

the CAA. Some flexibility is established

by virtue of EPA’s decision, under 49.4

of the final rule, not to treat tribes as

States for specified provisions of the

CAA. The rationale for this approach is

discussed on pages 7264 and 7265 of the

preamble to the final rule, and in unit

III.B of the preamble to the proposed

rule. For example, unlike States, tribes

are not required by the TAR to adopt

and implement CAA plans or programs,

thus tribes are not subject to mandatory

deadlines for submittal of

implementation plans. As discussed in

the preamble sections identified above,

EPA believes that it generally would not

be reasonable to impose the same types

of deadlines on tribes as on States.

Among the CAA provisions for which

EPA has determined it will not treat

tribes as States is section 110(c)(1) of the

CAA, which requires EPA to intervene

and ensure air quality protection within

2 years after a State either fails to adopt

a SIP or does not win EPA approval for

a SIP that was determined to be

deficient. The EPA did not apply this

provision to tribes because the section

110(c) obligation on EPA to promulgate

a FIP is based on failures with respect

to required submittals, and, as noted

above, tribal submissions under the

TAR are voluntary, not mandatory.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35759

Instead, pursuant to its section 301(d)(4)

discretionary authority, EPA has

provided in the TAR that, where

necessary and appropriate, it will

promulgate FIPs within reasonable

timeframes to protect air quality in

Indian country. See 40 CFR 49.11(a).

B. Issues Related to the Regional Haze

Program in Indian Country

Today’s final rule imposes

requirements for revisions to SIPs. The

rule requires States to develop SIP

revisions to address regional haze, to

update the SIP every 10 years, and to

continue to evaluate progress toward the

national visibility goal. The

requirements of today’s final rule are

among those air quality programs for

which tribes may be determined eligible

and receive authorization to implement

under the TAR. Tribes wishing to

assume these regional haze program

requirements and be ‘‘treated as States’’

may seek approval under 40 CFR 49, but

are not required to do so. Where tribes

do not take on this responsibility, EPA

will ensure air quality protection in

Indian country consistent with the

provisions of 40 CFR 49.11(a).

We encourage tribes to participate in

regional planning efforts for regional

haze. A good example of tribal

participation in regional haze planning

is the efforts of tribal representatives on

the GCVTC. These efforts are continuing

with tribal participation on the WRAP.

The EPA expects, as noted above, that

additional regional planning groups will

be formed in reaction to today’s final

rule. A number of tribes have indicated

interest in participating in regional

planning efforts, and we believe this is

beneficial in many respects. Tribal

participation can help provide

emissions inventory information that

can serve to better understand the

importance of sources in Indian country

to regional visibility impairment.

Conversely, such participation can also

help provide a forum for tribal

participants to alert regional planning

organizations as to concerns on how

regional emissions are affecting air

quality in Indian country.

As noted in the preamble to the TAR,

we intend to work with tribes to identify

air quality priorities and needs, to build

communication and outreach to tribes

on air quality issues, and to provide

training to build tribes’ technical

capacity for implementing air quality

programs. We recognize, however, that

not all tribes will have the resources nor

the expertise to participate in regional

planning efforts for regional haze. An

important EPA role in regional planning

efforts will be to ensure that the overall

objectives of the regional haze program

are met where tribes are unable to

participate.

In order to encourage tribes to

develop self-sufficient programs, the

TAR provides tribes with the flexibility

of submitting programs as they are

developed, rather than in accordance

with statutory deadlines. This means

that tribes that choose to develop

programs, where necessary may take

additional time to submit

implementation plans for regional haze

over and above the deadlines in the

TEA–21 legislation as codified in

today’s final rule. (See unit III.B for a

discussion of these deadlines.) The

TEA–21 legislation changed the

deadlines for State submission of SIP

revisions to address regional haze,

which were originally set out in section

169B(e)(2) of the CAA. Section 49.4(f) of

the TAR provides that deadlines related

to SIP submittals under section

169(B)(e)(2) do not apply to tribes. We

encourage tribes choosing to develop

implementation plans to make every

effort to submit by the deadlines to

ensure that the plans are integrated with

and coordinated with regional planning

efforts. In the interim, EPA will work

with the States and tribes to ensure that

achievement of reasonable progress is

not delayed.

As noted previously in unit II of this

notice, sections 169A and 169B of the

CAA contain requirements for visibility

protection in Class I areas, and do not

require that States or tribes develop

plans and control strategies for visibility

protection for additional locations.

These provisions of the CAA do not

require implementation plans to address

regional haze in other Class I areas, such

as those designated as Class I by tribes

or States under section 164 of the CAA.

One commenter from a tribe expressed

concerns that the scenic beauty and

value of tribal areas should not be

viewed by EPA as less important than

the national parks and wilderness areas

that have ‘‘mandatory Class I’’ status.

While EPA believes that these tribal

areas are not afforded the same legal

protection under the CAA as Class I

areas, it is important for tribes to

understand that the regional haze

control program for the Federal areas

will help to protect scenic locations of

interest to tribes. For example, EPA

believes that modeling analyses aimed

at addressing Class I areas can readily

add receptor locations to analyze the

visibility improvements at selected

tribal locations. The EPA will work with

regional planning bodies to ensure that

tribal interests are represented and to

foster communication between States

and tribes, and we will encourage the

consideration of impacts on visibility in

tribal locations in regional planning

efforts.

VI. Miscellaneous Technical

Amendments to the Existing Rule

The rule includes the following

changes to coordinate the requirements

of today’s regional haze rule with the

1980 visibility regulations for

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ visibility

impairment:

Section 51.300. Purpose and

Applicability

We have amended this section to

clarify that subpart P includes

provisions for regional haze as well as

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment.

Section 51.301. Definitions

We have added the following terms:

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment, regional haze, deciview,

State, most-impaired days, leastimpaired days, implementation plan,

tribe, BART-eligible source, and

geographic enhancement. The other

definitions in this section apply to the

program for reasonably attributable

impairment as well as the new regional

haze program, except where it is noted

that they only apply to the program for

reasonably attributable impairment.

Section 51.302. Implementation Control

Strategies

We have changed references in

section 51.302(a) to the administrative

process requirements for public

hearings and SIP submissions, which

are now located in section 51.102 and

51.103. We have also amended this

section to clarify that the

implementation control strategies

addressed in the section apply to

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment.

Section 51.305. Monitoring

We have amended this section to

clarify that the monitoring requirements

in this section apply to reasonably

attributable visibility impairment.

VII. Administrative Requirements

In preparing any final rule, EPA must

meet the administrative requirements

contained in a number of statutes and

executive orders. In this section of the

preamble, we discuss how the final

regional haze rule addresses these

administrative requirements.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) (Executive Order 12866)

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993,) the Agency
35760 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore,

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule 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

impacts 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.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and EPA has submitted it to

OMB for review. The drafts of 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 are 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 the Regional Haze

Rule. This RIA assesses the costs,

economic impacts, and benefits for four

illustrative progress goals, two sets of

control strategies, two sets of

assumptions for estimating benefits, and

systems of national uniform versus

regionally varying progress goals. The

RIA is a caveated and illustrative

assessment of the potential

consequences of the regional haze rule

in 2015, a year near the end of the first

long-term progress period, 2018. As a

result of comments from the public as

well as changes initiated by EPA staff,

the RIA has a broader scope, improved

data, and more realistic modeling than

the analysis issued with the proposed

rule.

Despite these improvements, the RIA

is not a precise reflection of the actual

costs, economic impacts, and benefits

associated with the progress goals and

emission management strategies

developed as a result of the final

regional haze rule. This is due to the

fact that under the regional haze rule,

the States bear the primary

responsibility for establishing

reasonable progress goals as well as

emission management strategies for

meeting these goals. Until such time as

the States make those decisions, EPA

can only speculate as to which goals

may be established and what types of

control requirements or emission limits

might result from the associated

emission management strategies.

According to the RIA, there is

substantial visibility improvement due

to emissions from other CAA programs

such as those for the new O3 and PM

NAAQS and the Tier 2 mobile sources

rule. With illustrative goals ranging

from 1.0 deciview improvement in 15

years to 10 percent deciview

improvement in 10 years, the RIA finds

that between 22 and 52 percent of the

Class I area counties in the continental

U.S. achieve or surpass the progress

goals due to emissions reductions from

other CAA programs. Furthermore, by

looking at only partial attainment of the

PM and O3 NAAQS and a modest

(relative to the proposed rule) Tier 2

program, the RIA understated the

visibility improvements from these and

other CAA programs. Hence, if States

established reasonable progress goals

equivalent to the amount of visibility

improvement which could be achieved

by other CAA programs, the incremental

control costs of the regional haze rule

may be less than the costs estimated in

the RIA, as noted below, for the first

long-term strategy period. Under these

conditions there could be costs

associated with the planning, analysis,

and BART control elements of the rule.

Incremental annualized costs for those

elements are estimated to be $72 million

(1990 dollars).

However, if States all choose to

establish the same illustrative progress

goal, the RIA estimates incremental

control costs ranging from $1 to $4

billion with associated benefits ranging

from $1 billion to $19 billion. But,

visibility is not the only monetized

effects category. Many of the benefits

which could be monetized are

associated with improvements to human

health and other welfare effects. This is

because the emission control strategies

targeted at improving visibility in Class

I areas also generate air quality

improvements in many other parts of

the country. However, the estimated

visibility benefits which are monetized

are substantial, ranging, for example,

from 86 to 111 percent of control costs

for the 1 deciview improvement in 15

years illustrative progress goal and from

32 to 52 percent for the 10 percent

deciview improvement in 10 years

illustrative progress goal.

The RIA finds that the estimated net

benefits (benefits minus costs) may

increase and the potential for adverse

economic impact would decrease if

States exercise their discretion to

establish State or region-specific

reasonable visibility progress goals and

emission-management strategies.

According to the RIA simulations, not

all Class I areas achieve or surpass the

illustrative visibility progress goals even

after the simulation of two sets of

control strategies. But, the visibility

improvement is substantial with 84 to

94 percent of the 121 counties with 147

Class I areas in the continental U.S.

achieving the 1.0 deciview in 15 years

goal and 31 to 43 percent of the areas

achieving 10 percent deciview

improvement in 10 years goal.

Furthermore, all areas have improved

visibility. How much of the estimated

progress shortfall is due to the failure of

the RIA to fully account for the visibility

progress due to other CAA programs

and advances in control technology is

unknown.

The RIA, although highly caveated

and illustrative, represents an

improvement over the analysis prepared

for the proposed rule. Furthermore, the

RIA demonstrates significant visibility

progress in 121 counties with 147 Class

I areas in the continental U.S. These

improvements result from other CAA

programs as well as those targeted at the

illustrative progress goals. Despite

incomplete coverage of effects and

pollutants, the monetized benefits of

strategies associated with illustrative

nationally uniform goals are substantial,

outweighing the control strategy costs

under most conditions for the first longterm strategy period. However, higher

net benefits may result and the potential

for significant adverse impact may be

mitigated if States exercise the

discretion to establish reasonable

progress goals and emission

management strategies. The flexibility

for State discretion is, of course, exactly

what the regional haze rule provides.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. The EPA has also

determined that this rule will not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because the

rule does not establish requirements

applicable to small entities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.) (RFA), as amended

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35761

No.104–121) ( SBREFA), provides that

whenever an agency is required to

publish a general notice of proposed

rulemaking, it must prepare and make

available an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis, unless it certifies that the

proposed rule, if promulgated, will not

have ‘‘a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.’’

5 U.S.C. § 605(b). Courts have

interpreted the RFA to require a

regulatory flexibility analysis only when

small entities will be subject to the

requirements of the rule. See Motor and

Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d

449 (D.C. Cir. 1998); United Distribution

Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C.

Cir. 1996); Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, Inc. v.

FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

(agency’s certification need only

consider the rule’s impact on entities

subject to the rule).

As stated in the proposal, the regional

haze rule will not establish

requirements applicable to small

entities. The rule applies to States, not

to small entities. The rule requires

States to develop, adopt, and submit SIP

revisions that will ensure reasonable

progress toward the national visibility

goal, and would generally leave to the

States the task of determining how to

obtain those reductions, including

which entities to regulate. In developing

emission control measures, section

169A of the CAA requires States to

address BART for a select list of major

stationary sources defined by section

169A(g)(7) of the CAA. As noted in the

proposal, however, the State’s

determination of BART for regional haze

involves some State discretion in

considering a number of factors set forth

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

costs of compliance. Further, the final

rule allows States to adopt alternative

measures in lieu of requiring the

installation and operation of BART at

these major stationary sources. As a

result, the potential consequences of

today’s final rule at specific sources are

speculative. Any requirements for

emission control measures, including

any requirements for BART, will be

established by State rulemakings. The

States will accordingly exercise

substantial intervening discretion in

implementing the final rule.

For the final rule, EPA is confirming

its initial certification that the rule

would not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The EPA notes, however, that the

Agency did conduct a more general

analysis of the potential impact on small

entities of possible State

implementation strategies. This analysis

is documented in the RIA. In addition,

as noted in the proposal, EPA undertook

small-entity outreach activities on a

voluntary basis. The EPA also has

issued guidance, entitled ‘‘Guidance on

Mitigation of Impact to Small Business

While Implementing Air Quality

Standards and Regulations,’’ which can

be found on the internet at: http://

ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/implement/

actions.htmιOther. This guidance

outlines potential implementation

strategies that would mitigate impacts

on small sources and encourages States

to make use of these strategies wherever

possible and appropriate. The EPA did

receive comments regarding the impact

on the regional haze rule on small

entities. These comments are addressed

in the Response to Comments

document.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act—Impact on

Reporting Requirements

The information collection

requirements in this rule relating to

State requirements for the protection of

visibility in Class I national parks and

wilderness areas were submitted to

OMB for review and approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501, et seq. An Information Collection

Request document was prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1813.02) and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at

OPPE Regulatory Information Division,

U.S. EPA (2137) 401 M Street, S.W.;

Washington, DC 20460, by email at

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the internet at http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr. The information

requirements are not effective until

OMB approves them.

This collection of information has an

estimated reporting burden, for the fifty

States and District of Columbia, of

approximately 22,000 to 47,000 hours

for a 3-year period between mid-1999

and mid-2002. The Agency expects the

Federal burden will be approximately

1900 to 4000 hours for the 3-year

period. The Agency anticipates States

costs of about $980,000 to $2,064,000

for the 3-year period. The Agency

estimates the annual Federal costs to be

approximately $83,000 to $175,000 for

the 3-year period. These estimates

include time for reviewing requirements

and instructions, evaluating data

sources, gathering and maintaining data,

and completing and reviewing the

collection of information.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)

(UMRA), establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

2 U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must

prepare a written statement, including a

cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed

or final rule that ‘‘includes any Federal

mandate that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more

* * * in any one year.’’ A ‘‘Federal

mandate’’ is defined under section

421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’

and a ‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’

A ‘‘Federal intergovernmental

mandate,’’ in turn, is defined to include

a regulation that ‘‘would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, or

tribal governments,’’ section

421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i),

except for, among other things, a duty

that is ‘‘a condition of Federal

assistance,’’ section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A

‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’

includes a regulation that ‘‘would

impose an enforceable duty upon the

private sector,’’ with certain exceptions,

section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).

Before promulgating an EPA rule for

which a written statement is needed

under section 202 of the UMRA, section

205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, of the UMRA

generally requires EPA to identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the

least costly, most cost effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule.

The RIA prepared by EPA and placed

in the docket for this rulemaking is

consistent with the requirements of
35762 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

section 202 of the UMRA. Furthermore,

EPA is not directly establishing any

regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated

to develop under section 203 of the

UMRA a small government agency plan.

Further, as described in the proposal,

EPA carried out consultations with the

governmental entities affected by this

rule in a manner consistent with the

intergovernmental consultation

provisions of section 204 of the UMRA.

The EPA also believes that because

the rule provides States with substantial

flexibility, 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. The rule

provides States with the flexibility to

establish reasonable progress goals and

BART based on certain criteria, one of

which is the costs of compliance. The

rule also provides States with the

flexibility to adopt alternatives, such as

an emissions trading program, in lieu of

requiring BART. Finally, the rule

provides the States with the flexibility

to develop long-term strategies. The

regional haze rule, therefore, inherently

provides for adoption of the least costly,

most cost effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objective of

the rule.

The EPA is not reaching a final

conclusion as to the applicability of the

requirements of UMRA to this

rulemaking action. It is questionable

whether a requirement to submit a SIP

revision constitutes a Federal mandate.

The obligation for a state to revise its

SIP that arises out of sections 110(a),

169A and 169B of the CAA is not legally

enforceable by a court of law and, at

most, is a condition for continued

receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it

is possible to view an action requiring

such a submittal as not creating any

enforceable duty within the meaning of

section 421(5)(A)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.

658(5)(A)(i)). Even if it did, the duty

could be viewed as falling within the

exception for a condition of Federal

assistance under section 421(5)(A)(i)(I)

of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i)(I)). As

noted earlier, however, notwithstanding

these issues, the discussion in section 2

and the analysis in Chapter 8 of the RIA

constitutes the UMRA statement that

would be required by UMRA if its

statutory provisions applied, and EPA

has consulted with governmental

entities as would be required by UMRA.

Consequently, it is not necessary for

EPA to reach a conclusion as to the

applicability of the UMRA

requirements.

E. Environmental Justice—Executive

Order 12898

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. The

requirements of Executive Order 12898

have been addressed to the extent

practicable in the RIA cited above,

particularly in chapters 2 and 9 of the

RIA.

F. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the U.S. The EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ cannot take

effect until 60 days after it is published

in the Federal Register. This action is a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

section 804(2). This rule will be

effective August 30, 1999.

G. Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks—Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. The EPA

interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only

to those regulatory actions that are

based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5–

501 of the Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. The regional

haze rule is not subject to E.O. 13045

because it does not establish an

environmental standard intended to

mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership—Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the OMB a description of the extent of

EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s final rule does not create a

mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. As explained in the

discussion of UMRA (unit VII.D), this

rule does not impose an enforceable

duty on these entities. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of

Executive Order 12875 do not apply to

this rule.

The EPA notes, however that

considerable consultation has taken

place with State, local and tribal

government representatives in

developing the final regional haze rule.

In September 1995, EPA formed a

subcommittee under the authority of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act to

advise the Agency on various issues

related to implementation of the revised

ozone and particulate matter NAAQS

and the regional haze program. This

group met a total of 13 times between

September 1995 and completion of its

duties in December 1997. Several State

and local governmental representatives

were on this subcommittee. The EPA

received and reviewed comments from

over 40 States and 1 tribal government

on the July 1997 proposal. Tribes in the

west have been active in discussion on

regional haze, both as members of the

GCVTC, and in the follow-on body, the

WRAP. In addition, EPA has held
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35763

numerous meetings with State and local

representatives.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Because the rule does not establish a

visibility progress goal or emission

management strategy, the rule does not

impose control or other direct

compliance requirements. Hence, the

rule does not create a mandate on tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of 3(b) of Executive Order

13084 do not apply to this rule.

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub. L. No.

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,

Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: April 22, 1999.

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

amended as follows:

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 by

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1)

introductory text, and (b)(2), and by

adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 51.300 Purpose and applicability.

(a) Purpose. The primary purposes of

this subpart are to require States to

develop programs to assure reasonable

progress toward meeting the national

goal of preventing any future, and

remedying any existing, impairment of

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal

areas which impairment results from

manmade air pollution; and to establish

necessary additional procedures for new

source permit applicants, States and

Federal Land Managers to use in

conducting the visibility impact

analysis required for new sources under

§ 51.166. 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) Applicability. (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:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,

Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands,

Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

(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 (CAA) except Guam, Puerto

Rico, American Samoa, and the

Northern Mariana Islands.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

3. Section 51.301 is amended by

removing the paragraph designations,

placing the defined terms in

alphabetical order, revising the

definitions of Federal Land Manager,

Major stationary source, Natural

conditions, and Visibility impairment,

and adding in alphabetical order

definitions of Reasonably attributable

visibility impairment, Regional haze,

Deciview, State, Most impaired days,

Least impaired days, Implementation

plan, Indian tribe or tribe, BART-eligible

source, and Geographic enhancement

for the purpose of § 51.308 to read as

follows:

§ 51.301 Definitions.

* * * * *

BART-eligible source means an

existing stationary facility as defined in

this section.

* * * * *

Deciview means a measurement of

visibility impairment. A deciview is a

haze index derived from calculated light

extinction, such that uniform changes in

haziness correspond to uniform

incremental changes in perception

across the entire range of conditions,

from pristine to highly impaired. The

deciview haze index is calculated based

on the following equation (for the

purposes of calculating deciview, the

atmospheric light extinction coefficient

must be calculated from aerosol

measurements):

Deciview haze index=10 lne (bext/10

Mm¥1).

Where bext=the atmospheric light

extinction coefficient, expressed in

inverse megameters (Mm¥1).

* * * * *
35764 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Land Manager means the

Secretary of the department with

authority over the Federal Class I area

(or the Secretary’s designee) or, with

respect to Roosevelt-Campobello

International Park, the Chairman of the

Roosevelt-Campobello International

Park Commission.

* * * * *

Geographic enhancement for the

purpose of § 51.308 means a method,

procedure, or process to allow a broad

regional strategy, such as an emissions

trading program designed to achieve

greater reasonable progress than BART

for regional haze, to accommodate

BART for reasonably attributable

impairment.

Implementation plan means, for the

purposes of this part, any State

Implementation Plan, Federal

Implementation Plan, or Tribal

Implementation Plan.

* * * * *

Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian

tribe, band, nation, or other organized

group or community, including any

Alaska Native village, which is federally

recognized as eligible for the special

programs and services provided by the

United States to Indians because of their

status as Indians.

* * * * *

Least impaired days means the

average visibility impairment (measured

in deciviews) for the twenty percent of

monitored days in a calendar year with

the lowest amount of visibility

impairment.

Major stationary source and major

modification mean major stationary

source and major modification,

respectively, as defined in § 51.166.

* * * * *

Most impaired days means the

average visibility impairment (measured

in deciviews) for the twenty percent of

monitored days in a calendar year with

the highest amount of visibility

impairment.

Natural conditions includes naturally

occurring phenomena that reduce

visibility as measured in terms of light

extinction, visual range, contrast, or

coloration.

* * * * *

Reasonably attributable visibility

impairment means visibility impairment

that is caused by the emission of air

pollutants from one, or a small number

of sources.

* * * * *

Regional haze means visibility

impairment that is caused by the

emission of air pollutants from

numerous sources located over a wide

geographic area. Such sources include,

but are not limited to, major and minor

stationary sources, mobile sources, and

area sources.

* * * * *

State means ‘‘State’’ as defined in

section 302(d) of the CAA.

* * * * *

Visibility impairment means any

humanly perceptible change in visibility

(light extinction, visual range, contrast,

coloration) from that which would have

existed under natural conditions.

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

4. Section 51.302 is amended by

revising the section heading, paragraphs

(a), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2)

introductory text, (c)(4) introductory

text, and (c)(4)(iv) to read as follows:

§ 51.302 Implementation control strategies

for reasonably attributable visibility

impairment.

(a) Plan Revision Procedures. (1) Each

State identified in § 51.300(b)(2) must

have submitted, not later than

September 2, 1981, an implementation

plan meeting the requirements of this

subpart pertaining to reasonably

attributable visibility impairment.

(2)(i) The State, prior to adoption of

any implementation plan to address

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment required by this subpart,

must conduct one or more public

hearings on such plan in accordance

with § 51.102.

(ii) In addition to the requirements in

§ 51.102, the State must provide written

notification of such hearings to each

affected Federal Land Manager, and

other affected States, and must state

where the public can inspect a summary

prepared by the Federal Land Managers

of their conclusions and

recommendations, if any, on the

proposed plan revision.

(3) Submission of plans as required by

this subpart must be conducted in

accordance with the procedures in

§ 51.103.

* * * * *

(c) General plan requirements for

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment. (1) The affected Federal

Land Manager may certify to the State,

at any time, that there exists reasonably

attributable impairment of visibility in

any mandatory Class I Federal area.

(2) The plan must contain the

following to address reasonably

attributable impairment:

* * * * *

(4) For any existing reasonably

attributable visibility impairment the

Federal Land Manager certifies to the

State under paragraph (c)(1) of this

section, at least 6 months prior to plan

submission or revision:

* * * * *

(iv) The plan must require that each

existing stationary facility required to

install and operate BART do so as

expeditiously as practicable but in no

case later than five years after plan

approval.

* * * * *

5. Section 51.305 is amended by

revising the section heading and

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 51.305 Monitoring for reasonably

attributable visibility impairment.

(a) For the purposes of addressing

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment, each State containing a

mandatory Class I Federal area must

include in the plan a strategy for

evaluating reasonably attributable

visibility impairment in any mandatory

Class I Federal area by visual

observation or other appropriate

monitoring techniques. Such strategy

must take into account current and

anticipated visibility monitoring

research, the availability of appropriate

monitoring techniques, and such

guidance as is provided by the Agency.

* * * * *

6. Section 51.306 is amended by

revising the section heading, paragraph

(a)(1), paragraph (c) introductory text,

and paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 51.306 Long-term strategy requirements

for reasonably attributable visibility

impairment.

(a)(1) For the purposes of addressing

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment, each plan 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

impairment the Federal Land Manager

certifies to the State at least 6 months

prior to plan submission, and any

integral vista of which the Federal Land

Manager notifies the State at least 6

months prior to plan submission.

* * * * *

(c) The plan must provide for periodic

review and revision, as appropriate, of

the long-term strategy for addressing

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment. The plan must provide for

such periodic review and revision not

less frequently than every 3 years until

the date of submission of the State’s first

plan addressing regional haze visibility

impairment in accordance with

§ 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this

date, the State must revise its plan to

provide for review and revision of a

coordinated long-term strategy for

addressing reasonably attributable and
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35765

regional haze visibility impairment, and

the State must submit the first such

coordinated long-term strategy. Future

coordinated long-term strategies must be

submitted consistent with the schedule

for periodic progress reports set forth in

§ 51.308(g). Until the State revises its

plan to meet this requirement, the State

must continue to comply with existing

requirements for plan review and

revision, and with all emission

management requirements in the plan to

address reasonably attributable

impairment. This requirement does not

affect any preexisting deadlines for State

submittal of a long-term strategy review

(or element thereof) between August 30,

1999, and the date required for

submission of the State’s first regional

haze plan. In addition, the plan must

provide for review of the long-term

strategy as it applies to reasonably

attributable impairment, and revision as

appropriate, within 3 years of State

receipt of any certification of reasonably

attributable impairment from a Federal

Land Manager. The review process must

include consultation with the

appropriate Federal Land Managers, and

the State must provide a report to the

public and the Administrator on

progress toward the national goal. This

report must include an assessment of:

* * * * *

(d) The long-term strategy must

provide for review of the impacts from

any new major stationary source or

major modifications on visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area. This

review of major stationary sources or

major modifications must be in

accordance with § 51.307, § 51.166,

§ 51.160, and any other binding

guidance provided by the Agency

insofar as these provisions pertain to

protection of visibility in any mandatory

Class I Federal areas.

* * * * *

7. Section 51.307 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) introductory text,

(a)(2) and (c) to read as follows:

§ 51.307 New source review.

(a) For purposes of new source review

of any new major stationary source or

major modification that would be

constructed in an area that is designated

attainment or unclassified under section

107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the CAA, the State

plan must, in any review under § 51.166

with respect to visibility protection and

analyses, provide for:

* * * * *

(2) Where the State requires or

receives advance notification (e.g. early

consultation with the source prior to

submission of the application or

notification of intent to monitor under

§ 51.166) of a permit application of a

source that may affect visibility the

State must notify all affected Federal

Land Managers within 30 days of such

advance notification, and

* * * * *

(c) Review of any major stationary

source or major modification under

paragraph (b) of this section, shall be

conducted in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section, and

§ 51.166(o), (p)(1) through (2), and (q).

In conducting such reviews the State

must ensure that the source’s emissions

will be consistent with making

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal referred to in § 51.300(a).

The State may take into account the

costs of compliance, the time necessary

for compliance, the energy and nonair

quality environmental impacts of

compliance, and the useful life of the

source.

* * * * *

8. A new § 51.308 is added to subpart

P to read as follows:

§ 51.308 Regional haze program

requirements.

(a) What is the purpose of this

section? This section establishes

requirements for implementation plans,

plan revisions, and periodic progress

reviews to address regional haze.

(b) When are the first implementation

plans due under the regional haze

program? Except as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section and

§ 51.309(c), each State identified in

§ 51.300(b)(3) must submit an

implementation plan for regional haze

meeting the requirements of paragraphs

(d) and (e) of this section by the

following dates:

(1) For any area designated as

attainment or unclassifiable for the

national ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter

(PM2.5), the State must submit a regional

haze implementation plan to EPA

within 12 months after the date of

designation.

(2) For any area designated as

nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS,

the State must submit a regional haze

implementation plan to EPA at the same

time that the State’s plan for

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS

must be submitted under section 172 of

the CAA, that is, within 3 years after the

area is designated as nonattainment, but

not later than December 31, 2008.

(c) Options for regional planning. If at

the time the SIP for regional haze would

otherwise be due, a State is working

with other States to develop a

coordinated approach to regional haze

by participating in a regional planning

process, the State may choose to defer

addressing the core requirements for

regional haze in paragraph (d) of this

section and the requirements for BART

in paragraph (e) of this section. If a State

opts to do this, it must meet the

following requirements:

(1) The State must submit an

implementation plan by the earliest date

by which an implementation plan

would be due for any area of the State

under paragraph (b) of this section. This

implementation plan must contain the

following:

(i) A demonstration of ongoing

participation in a regional planning

process to address regional haze, and an

agreement by the State to continue

participating with one or more other

States in such a process for the

development of this and future

implementation plan revisions;

(ii) A showing, based on available

inventory, monitoring, or modeling

information, that emissions from within

the State contribute to visibility

impairment in a mandatory Class I

Federal Area outside the State, or that

emissions from another State contribute

to visibility impairment in any

mandatory Class I Federal area within

the State.

(iii) A description of the regional

planning process, including a list of the

States which have agreed to work

together to address regional haze in a

region (i.e., the regional planning

group), the goals, objectives,

management, and decisionmaking

structure of the regional planning group,

deadlines for completing significant

technical analyses and developing

emission management strategies, and a

schedule for State review and adoption

of regulations implementing the

recommendations of the regional group;

(iv) A commitment by the State to

submit an implementation plan revision

addressing the requirements in

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section by

the date specified in paragraph (c)(2) of

this section. In addition, the State must

commit to develop its plan revision in

coordination with the other States

participating in the regional planning

process, and to fully address the

recommendations of the regional

planning group.

(v) A list of all BART-eligible sources

within the State.

(2) The State must submit an

implementation plan revision

addressing the requirements in

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section by

the latest date an area within the

planning region would be required to

submit an implementation plan under

paragraph (b) of this section, but in any

event, no later than December 31, 2008.
35766 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(d) What are the core requirements for

the implementation plan for regional

haze? The State must address regional

haze in each mandatory Class I Federal

area located within the State and in

each mandatory Class I Federal area

located outside the State which may be

affected by emissions from within the

State. To meet the core requirements for

regional haze for these areas, the State

must submit an implementation plan

containing the following plan elements

and supporting documentation for all

required analyses:

(1) Reasonable progress goals. For

each mandatory Class I Federal area

located within the State, the State must

establish goals (expressed in deciviews)

that provide for reasonable progress

towards achieving natural visibility

conditions. The reasonable progress

goals must provide for an improvement

in visibility for the most impaired days

over the period of the implementation

plan and ensure no degradation in

visibility for the least impaired days

over the same period.

(i) In establishing a reasonable

progress goal for any mandatory Class I

Federal area within the State, the State

must:

(A) Consider the costs of compliance,

the time necessary for compliance, the

energy and non-air quality

environmental impacts of compliance,

and the remaining useful life of any

potentially affected sources, and include

a demonstration showing how these

factors were taken into consideration in

selecting the goal.

(B) Analyze and determine the rate of

progress needed to attain natural

visibility conditions by the year 2064.

To calculate this rate of progress, the

State must compare baseline visibility

conditions to natural visibility

conditions in the mandatory Federal

Class I area and determine the uniform

rate of visibility improvement

(measured in deciviews) that would

need to be maintained during each

implementation period in order to attain

natural visibility conditions by 2064. In

establishing the reasonable progress

goal, the State must consider the

uniform rate of improvement in

visibility and the emission reduction

measures needed to achieve it for the

period covered by the implementation

plan.

(ii) For the period of the

implementation plan, if the State

establishes a reasonable progress goal

that provides for a slower rate of

improvement in visibility than the rate

that would be needed to attain natural

conditions by 2064, the State must

demonstrate, based on the factors in

paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section,

that the rate of progress for the

implementation plan to attain natural

conditions by 2064 is not reasonable;

and that the progress goal adopted by

the State is reasonable. The State must

provide to the public for review as part

of its implementation plan an

assessment of the number of years it

would take to attain natural conditions

if visibility improvement continues at

the rate of progress selected by the State

as reasonable.

(iii) In determining whether the

State’s goal for visibility improvement

provides for reasonable progress

towards natural visibility conditions,

the Administrator will evaluate the

demonstrations developed by the State

pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and

(d)(1)(ii) of this section.

(iv) In developing each reasonable

progress goal, the State must consult

with those States which may reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute to

visibility impairment in the mandatory

Class I Federal area. In any situation in

which the State cannot agree with

another such State or group of States

that a goal provides for reasonable

progress, the State must describe in its

submittal the actions taken to resolve

the disagreement. In reviewing the

State’s implementation plan submittal,

the Administrator will take this

information into account in determining

whether the State’s goal for visibility

improvement provides for reasonable

progress towards natural visibility

conditions.

(v) The reasonable progress goals

established by the State are not directly

enforceable but will be considered by

the Administrator in evaluating the

adequacy of the measures in the

implementation plan to achieve the

progress goal adopted by the State.

(vi) The State may not adopt a

reasonable progress goal that represents

less visibility improvement than is

expected to result from implementation

of other requirements of the CAA during

the applicable planning period.

(2) Calculations of baseline and

natural visibility conditions. For each

mandatory Class I Federal area located

within the State, the State must

determine the following visibility

conditions (expressed in deciviews):

(i) Baseline visibility conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days. The period for establishing

baseline visibility conditions is 2000 to

2004. Baseline visibility conditions

must be calculated, using available

monitoring data, by establishing the

average degree of visibility impairment

for the most and least impaired days for

each calendar year from 2000 to 2004.

The baseline visibility conditions are

the average of these annual values. For

mandatory Class I Federal areas without

onsite monitoring data for 2000–2004,

the State must establish baseline values

using the most representative available

monitoring data for 2000–2004, in

consultation with the Administrator or

his or her designee;

(ii) For an implementation plan that is

submitted by 2003, the period for

establishing baseline visibility

conditions for the period of the first

long-term strategy is the most recent 5-

year period for which visibility

monitoring data are available for the

mandatory Class I Federal areas

addressed by the plan. For mandatory

Class I Federal areas without onsite

monitoring data, the State must

establish baseline values using the most

representative available monitoring

data, in consultation with the

Administrator or his or her designee;

(iii) Natural visibility conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days. Natural visibility conditions must

be calculated by estimating the degree of

visibility impairment existing under

natural conditions for the most impaired

and least impaired days, based on

available monitoring information and

appropriate data analysis techniques;

and

(iv)(A) For the first implementation

plan addressing the requirements of

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,

the number of deciviews by which

baseline conditions exceed natural

visibility conditions for the most

impaired and least impaired days; or

(B) For all future implementation plan

revisions, the number of deciviews by

which current conditions, as calculated

under paragraph (f)(1) of this section,

exceed natural visibility conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days.

(3) Long-term strategy for regional

haze. Each State listed in § 51.300(b)(3)

must submit a long-term 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 from the State.

The long-term strategy must include

enforceable emissions limitations,

compliance schedules, and other

measures as necessary to achieve the

reasonable progress goals established by

States having mandatory Class I Federal

areas. In establishing its long-term

strategy for regional haze, the State must

meet the following requirements:

(i) Where the State has emissions that

are reasonably anticipated to contribute

to visibility impairment in any

mandatory Class I Federal area located
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35767

in another State or States, the State must

consult with the other State(s) in order

to develop coordinated emission

management strategies. The State must

consult with any other State having

emissions that are reasonably

anticipated to contribute to visibility

impairment in any mandatory Class I

Federal area within the State.

(ii) Where other States cause or

contribute to impairment in a

mandatory Class I Federal area, the State

must demonstrate that it has included in

its implementation plan all measures

necessary to obtain its share of the

emission reductions needed to meet the

progress goal for the area. If the State

has participated in a regional planning

process, the State must ensure it has

included all measures needed to achieve

its apportionment of emission reduction

obligations agreed upon through that

process.

(iii) The State must document the

technical basis, including modeling,

monitoring and emissions information,

on which the State is relying to

determine its apportionment of

emission reduction obligations

necessary for achieving reasonable

progress in each mandatory Class I

Federal area it affects. The State may

meet this requirement by relying on

technical analyses developed by the

regional planning organization and

approved by all State participants. The

State must identify the baseline

emissions inventory on which its

strategies are based. The baseline

emissions inventory year is presumed to

be the most recent year of the

consolidate periodic emissions

inventory.

(iv) The State must identify all

anthropogenic sources of visibility

impairment considered by the State in

developing its long-term strategy. The

State should consider major and minor

stationary sources, mobile sources, and

area sources.

(v) The State must consider, at a

minimum, the following factors in

developing its long-term strategy:

(A) Emission reductions due to

ongoing air pollution control programs,

including measures to address

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment;

(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts

of construction activities;

(C) Emissions limitations and

schedules for compliance to achieve the

reasonable progress goal;

(D) Source retirement and

replacement schedules;

(E) Smoke management techniques for

agricultural and forestry management

purposes including plans as currently

exist within the State for these

purposes;

(F) Enforceability of emissions

limitations and control measures; and

(G) The anticipated net effect on

visibility due to projected changes in

point, area, and mobile source

emissions over the period addressed by

the long-term strategy.

(4) Monitoring strategy and other

implementation plan requirements. The

State must submit with the

implementation plan a monitoring

strategy for measuring, characterizing,

and reporting of regional haze visibility

impairment that is representative of all

mandatory Class I Federal areas within

the State. This monitoring strategy must

be coordinated with the monitoring

strategy required in § 51.305 for

reasonably attributable visibility

impairment. Compliance with this

requirement may be met through

participation in the Interagency

Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments network. The

implementation plan must also provide

for the following:

(i) The establishment of any

additional monitoring sites or

equipment needed to assess whether

reasonable progress goals to address

regional haze for all mandatory Class I

Federal areas within the State are being

achieved.

(ii) Procedures by which monitoring

data and other information are used in

determining the contribution of

emissions from within the State to

regional haze visibility impairment at

mandatory Class I Federal areas both

within and outside the State.

(iii) For a State with no mandatory

Class I Federal areas, procedures by

which monitoring data and other

information are used in determining the

contribution of emissions from within

the State to regional haze visibility

impairment at mandatory Class I

Federal areas in other States.

(iv) The implementation plan must

provide for the reporting of all visibility

monitoring data to the Administrator at

least annually for each mandatory Class

I Federal area in the State. To the extent

possible, the State should report

visibility monitoring data electronically.

(v) A statewide inventory of emissions

of pollutants that are reasonably

anticipated to cause or contribute to

visibility impairment in any mandatory

Class I Federal area. The inventory must

include emissions for a baseline year,

emissions for the most recent year for

which data are available, and estimates

of future projected emissions. The State

must also include a commitment to

update the inventory periodically.

(vi) Other elements, including

reporting, recordkeeping, and other

measures, necessary to assess and report

on visibility.

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) requirements for regional haze

visibility impairment. The State must

submit an implementation plan

containing emission limitations

representing BART and schedules for

compliance with BART for each BARTeligible source that may reasonably be

anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area, unless

the State demonstrates that an emissions

trading program or other alternative will

achieve greater reasonable progress

toward natural visibility conditions.

(1) To address the requirements for

BART, the State must submit an

implementation plan containing the

following plan elements and include

documentation for all required analyses:

(i) A list of all BART-eligible sources

within the State.

(ii) A determination of BART for each

BART-eligible source in the State that

emits any air pollutant which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to any impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area. All such sources are

subject to BART. This determination

must be based on the following

analyses:

(A) An analysis of the best system of

continuous emission control technology

available and associated emission

reductions achievable for each BARTeligible source within the State subject

to BART. In this analysis, the State must

take into consideration the technology

available, the costs of compliance, the

energy and nonair quality

environmental impacts of compliance,

any pollution control equipment in use

at the source, and the remaining useful

life of the source; and

(B) An analysis of the degree of

visibility improvement that would be

achieved in each mandatory Class I

Federal area as a result of the emission

reductions achievable from all sources

subject to BART located within the

region that contributes to visibility

impairment in the Class I area, based on

the analysis conducted under paragraph

(e)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.

(iii) If the State determines in

establishing BART that technological or

economic limitations on the

applicability of measurement

methodology to a particular source

would make the imposition of an

emission standard infeasible, it may

instead prescribe a design, equipment,

work practice, or other operational

standard, or combination thereof, to
35768 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

require the application of BART. Such

standard, to the degree possible, is to set

forth the emission reduction to be

achieved by implementation of such

design, equipment, work practice or

operation, and must provide for

compliance by means which achieve

equivalent results.

(iv) A requirement that each source

subject to BART be required to install

and operate BART as expeditiously as

practicable, but in no event later than 5

years after approval of the

implementation plan revision.

(v) A requirement that each source

subject to BART maintain the control

equipment required by this subpart and

establish procedures to ensure such

equipment is properly operated and

maintained.

(2) A State may opt to implement an

emissions trading program or other

alternative measure rather than to

require sources subject to BART to

install, operate, and maintain BART. To

do so, the State must demonstrate that

this emissions trading program or other

alternative measure will achieve greater

reasonable progress than would be

achieved through the installation and

operation of BART. To make this

demonstration, the State must submit an

implementation plan containing the

following plan elements and include

documentation for all required analyses:

(i) A demonstration that the emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure will achieve greater reasonable

progress than would have resulted from

the installation and operation of BART

at all sources subject to BART in the

State. This demonstration must be based

on the following:

(A) A list of all BART-eligible sources

within the State.

(B) An analysis of the best system of

continuous emission control technology

available and associated emission

reductions achievable for each source

within the State subject to BART. In this

analysis, the State must take into

consideration the technology available,

the costs of compliance, the energy and

nonair quality environmental impacts of

compliance, any pollution control

equipment in use at the source, and the

remaining useful life of the source. The

best system of continuous emission

control technology and the above factors

may be determined on a source category

basis. The State may elect to consider

both source-specific and category-wide

information, as appropriate, in

conducting its analysis.

(C) An analysis of the degree of

visibility improvement that would be

achieved in each mandatory Class I

Federal area as a result of the emission

reductions achievable from all such

sources subject to BART located within

the region that contributes to visibility

impairment in the Class I area, based on

the analysis conducted under paragraph

(e)(2)(i)(B) of this section.

(ii) A demonstration that the

emissions trading program or alternative

measure will apply, at a minimum, to

all BART-eligible sources in the State.

Those sources having a federally

enforceable emission limitation

determined by the State and approved

by EPA as meeting BART in accordance

with § 51.302(c) or paragraph (e)(1) of

this section do not need to meet the

requirements of the emissions trading

program or alternative measure, but may

choose to participate if they meet the

requirements of the emissions trading

program or alternative measure.

(iii) A requirement that all necessary

emission reductions take place during

the period of the first long-term strategy

for regional haze. To meet this

requirement, the State must provide a

detailed description of the emissions

trading program or other alternative

measure, including schedules for

implementation, the emission

reductions required by the program, all

necessary administrative and technical

procedures for implementing the

program, rules for accounting and

monitoring emissions, and procedures

for enforcement.

(iv) A demonstration that the

emission reductions resulting from the

emissions trading program or other

alternative measure will be surplus to

those reductions resulting from

measures adopted to meet requirements

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the

SIP.

(v) At the State’s option, a provision

that the emissions trading program or

other alternative measure may include a

geographic enhancement to the program

to address the requirement under

§ 51.302(c) related to BART for

reasonably attributable impairment from

the pollutants covered under the

emissions trading program or other

alternative measure.

(3) After a State has met the

requirements for BART or implemented

emissions trading program or other

alternative measure that achieve more

reasonable progress than the installation

and operation of BART, BART-eligible

sources will be subject to the

requirements of paragraph (d) of this

section in the same manner as other

sources.

(4) Any BART-eligible facility subject

to the requirement under paragraph (e)

of this section to install, operate, and

maintain BART may apply to the

Administrator for an exemption from

that requirement. An application for an

exemption will be subject to the

requirements of § 51.303 (a)(2) through

(h).

(f) Requirements for comprehensive

periodic revisions of implementation

plans for regional haze. Each State

identified in § 51.300(b)(3) must revise

and submit its regional haze

implementation plan revision to EPA by

July 31, 2018 and every ten years

thereafter. In each plan revision, the

State must evaluate and reassess all of

the elements required in paragraph (d)

of this section, taking into account

improvements in monitoring data

collection and analysis techniques,

control technologies, and other relevant

factors. In evaluating and reassessing

these elements, the State must address

the following:

(1) Current visibility conditions for

the most impaired and least impaired

days, and actual progress made towards

natural conditions during the previous

implementation period. The period for

calculating current visibility conditions

is the most recent five year period

preceding the required date of the

implementation plan submittal for

which data are available. Current

visibility conditions must be calculated

based on the annual average level of

visibility impairment for the most and

least impaired days for each of these

five years. Current visibility conditions

are the average of these annual values.

(2) The effectiveness of the long-term

strategy for achieving reasonable

progress goals over the prior

implementation period(s); and

(3) Affirmation of, or revision to, the

reasonable progress goal in accordance

with the procedures set forth in

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If the

State established a reasonable progress

goal for the prior period which provided

a slower rate of progress than that

needed to attain natural conditions by

the year 2064, the State must evaluate

and determine the reasonableness,

based on the factors in paragraph

(d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, of additional

measures that could be adopted to

achieve the degree of visibility

improvement projected by the analysis

contained in the first implementation

plan described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)

of this section.

(g) Requirements for periodic reports

describing progress towards the

reasonable progress goals. Each State

identified in § 51.300(b)(3) must submit

a report to the Administrator every 5

years evaluating progress towards the

reasonable progress goal for each

mandatory Class I Federal area located

within the State and in each mandatory

Class I Federal area located outside the

State which may be affected by
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35769

emissions from within the State. The

first progress report is due 5 years from

submittal of the initial implementation

plan addressing paragraphs (d) and (e)

of this section. The progress reports

must be in the form of implementation

plan revisions that comply with the

procedural requirements of § 51.102 and

§ 51.103. Periodic progress reports must

contain at a minimum the following

elements:

(1) A description of the status of

implementation of all measures

included in the implementation plan for

achieving reasonable progress goals for

mandatory Class I Federal areas both

within and outside the State.

(2) A summary of the emissions

reductions achieved throughout the

State through implementation of the

measures described in paragraph (g)(1)

of this section.

(3) For each mandatory Class I Federal

area within the State, the State must

assess the following visibility

conditions and changes, with values for

most impaired and least impaired days

expressed in terms of 5-year averages of

these annual values.

(i) The current visibility conditions

for the most impaired and least

impaired days;

(ii) The difference between current

visibility conditions for the most

impaired and least impaired days and

baseline visibility conditions;

(iii) The change in visibility

impairment for the most impaired and

least impaired days over the past 5

years;

(4) An analysis tracking the change

over the past 5 years in emissions of

pollutants contributing to visibility

impairment from all sources and

activities within the State. Emissions

changes should be identified by type of

source or activity. The analysis must be

based on the most recent updated

emissions inventory, with estimates

projected forward as necessary and

appropriate, to account for emissions

changes during the applicable 5-year

period.

(5) An assessment of any significant

changes in anthropogenic emissions

within or outside the State that have

occurred over the past 5 years that have

limited or impeded progress in reducing

pollutant emissions and improving

visibility.

(6) An assessment of whether the

current implementation plan elements

and strategies are sufficient to enable

the State, or other States with

mandatory Federal Class I areas affected

by emissions from the State, to meet all

established reasonable progress goals.

(7) A review of the State’s visibility

monitoring strategy and any

modifications to the strategy as

necessary.

(h) Determination of the adequacy of

existing implementation plan. At the

same time the State is required to

submit any 5-year progress report to

EPA in accordance with paragraph (g) of

this section, the State must also take one

of the following actions based upon the

information presented in the progress

report:

(1) If the State determines that the

existing implementation plan requires

no further substantive revision at this

time in order to achieve established

goals for visibility improvement and

emissions reductions, the State must

provide to the Administrator a negative

declaration that further revision of the

existing implementation plan is not

needed at this time.

(2) If the State determines that the

implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources

in another State(s) which participated in

a regional planning process, the State

must provide notification to the

Administrator and to the other State(s)

which participated in the regional

planning process with the States. The

State must also collaborate with the

other State(s) through the regional

planning process for the purpose of

developing additional strategies to

address the plan’s deficiencies.

(3) Where the State determines that

the implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources

in another country, the State shall

provide notification, along with

available information, to the

Administrator.

(4) Where the State determines that

the implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources

within the State, the State shall revise

its implementation plan to address the

plan’s deficiencies within one year.

(i) What are the requirements for State

and Federal Land Manager

coordination?

(1) By November 29, 1999, the State

must identify in writing to the Federal

Land Managers the title of the official to

which the Federal Land Manager of any

mandatory Class I Federal area can

submit any recommendations on the

implementation of this subpart

including, but not limited to:

(i) Identification of impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area(s); and

(ii) Identification of elements for

inclusion in the visibility monitoring

strategy required by § 51.305 and this

section.

(2) The State must provide the Federal

Land Manager with an opportunity for

consultation, in person and at least 60

days prior to holding any public hearing

on an implementation plan (or plan

revision) for regional haze required by

this subpart. This consultation must

include the opportunity for the affected

Federal Land Managers to discuss their:

(i) Assessment of impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area; and

(ii) Recommendations on the

development of the reasonable progress

goal and on the development and

implementation of strategies to address

visibility impairment.

(3) In developing any implementation

plan (or plan revision), the State must

include a description of how it

addressed any comments provided by

the Federal Land Managers.

(4) The plan (or plan revision) must

provide procedures for continuing

consultation between the State and

Federal Land Manager on the

implementation of the visibility

protection program required by this

subpart, including development and

review of implementation plan revisions

and 5-year progress reports, and on the

implementation of other programs

having the potential to contribute to

impairment of visibility in mandatory

Class I Federal areas.

9. A new § 51.309 is added to subpart

P to read as follows:

§ 51.309 Requirements related to the

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission.

(a) What is the purpose of this

section? This section establishes the

requirements for the first regional haze

implementation plan to address regional

haze visibility impairment in the 16

Class I areas covered by the Grand

Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission Report. For the years 2003

to 2018, certain States (defined in

paragraph (b) of this section as

Transport Region States) may choose to

implement the Commission’s

recommendations within the framework

of the national regional haze program

and applicable requirements of the Act

by complying with the provisions of this

section, as supplemented by an

approvable Annex to the Commission

Report as required by paragraph (f) of

this section. If a transport region State

submits an implementation plan which

is approved by EPA as meeting the

requirements of this section, it will be

deemed to comply with the

requirements for reasonable progress for

the period from approval of the plan to

2018.
35770 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(b) Definitions. For the purposes of

this section:

(1) 16 Class I areas means the

following mandatory Class I Federal

areas on the Colorado Plateau: Grand

Canyon National Park, Sycamore

Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest

National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness,

San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa

Verde National Park, Weminuche

Wilderness, Black Canyon of the

Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk

Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness,

Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National

Park, Canyonlands National Park,

Capital Reef National Park, Bryce

Canyon National Park, and Zion

National Park.

(2) Transport Region State means one

of the States that is included within the

Transport Region addressed by the

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission (Arizona, California,

Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,

Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming).

(3) Commission Report means the

report of the Grand Canyon Visibility

Transport Commission entitled

‘‘Recommendations for Improving

Western Vistas,’’ dated June 10, 1996.

(4) Fire means wildfire, wildland fire

(including prescribed natural fire),

prescribed fire, and agricultural burning

conducted and occurring on Federal,

State, and private wildlands and

farmlands.

(5) Milestone means an average

percentage reduction in emissions,

expressed in tons per year, for a given

year or for a period of up to 5 years

ending in that year, compared to a 1990

actual emissions baseline.

(6) Mobile Source Emission Budget

means the lowest level of VOC, NOX,

SO2 elemental and organic carbon, and

fine particles which are projected to

occur in any area within the transport

region from which mobile source

emissions are determined to contribute

significantly to visibility impairment in

any of the 16 Class I areas.

(7) Geographic enhancement means a

method, procedure, or process to allow

a broad regional strategy, such as a

milestone or backstop market trading

program designed to achieve greater

reasonable progress than BART for

regional haze, to accommodate BART

for reasonably attributable impairment.

(c) Implementation Plan Schedule.

Each Transport Region State may meet

the requirements of § 51.308(b) through

(e) by electing to submit an

implementation plan that complies with

the requirements of this section. Each

Transport Region State must submit an

implementation plan addressing

regional haze visibility impairment in

the 16 Class I areas no later than

December 31, 2003. A Transport Region

State that elects not to submit an

implementation plan that complies with

the requirements of this section (or

whose plan does not comply with all of

the requirements of this section) is

subject to the requirements of § 51.308

in the same manner and to the same

extent as any State not included within

the Transport Region.

(d) Requirements of the first

implementation plan for States electing

to adopt all of the recommendations of

the Commission Report. Except as

provided for in paragraph (e) of this

section, each Transport Region State

must submit an implementation plan

that meets the following requirements:

(1) Time period covered. The

implementation plan must be effective

for the entire time period between

December 31, 2003 and December 31,

2018.

(2) Projection of visibility

improvement. For each of the 16

mandatory Class I areas located within

the Transport Region State, the plan

must include a projection of the

improvement in visibility conditions

(expressed in deciviews, and in any

additional ambient visibility metrics

deemed appropriate by the State)

expected through the year 2018 for the

most impaired and least impaired days,

based on the implementation of all

measures as required in the Commission

report and the provisions in this section.

The projection must be made in

consultation with other Transport

Region States with sources which may

be reasonably anticipated to contribute

to visibility impairment in the relevant

Class I area. The projection may be

based on a satisfactory regional analysis.

(3) Treatment of clean-air corridors.

The plan must describe and provide for

implementation of comprehensive

emission tracking strategies for clean-air

corridors to ensure that the visibility

does not degrade on the least-impaired

days at any of the 16 Class I areas. The

strategy must include:

(i) An identification of clean-air

corridors. The EPA will evaluate the

State’s identification of such corridors

based upon the reports of the

Commission’s Meteorology

Subcommittee and any future updates

by a successor organization;

(ii) Within areas that are clean-air

corridors, an identification of patterns of

growth or specific sites of growth that

could cause, or are causing, significant

emissions increases that could have, or

are having, visibility impairment at one

or more of the 16 Class I areas.

(iii) In areas outside of clean-air

corridors, an identification of significant

emissions growth that could begin, or is

beginning, to impair the quality of air in

the corridor and thereby lead to

visibility degradation for the leastimpaired days in one or more of the 16

Class I areas.

(iv) If impairment of air quality in

clean air corridors is identified pursuant

to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this

section, an analysis of the effects of

increased emissions, including

provisions for the identification of the

need for additional emission reductions

measures, and implementation of the

additional measures where necessary.

(v) A determination of whether other

clean air corridors exist for any of the

16 Class I areas. For any such clean air

corridors, an identification of the

necessary measures to protect against

future degradation of air quality in any

of the 16 Class I areas.

(4) Implementation of stationary

source reductions. The first

implementation plan submission must

include:

(i) Monitoring and reporting of sulfur

dioxide emissions. The plan submission

must include provisions requiring the

monitoring and reporting of actual

stationary source sulfur dioxide

emissions within the State. The

monitoring and reporting data must be

sufficient to determine whether a 13

percent reduction in actual stationary

source sulfur dioxide emissions has

occurred between the years 1990 and

2000, and whether milestones required

by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section have

been achieved for the transport region.

The plan submission must provide for

reporting of these data by the State to

the Administrator. Where procedures

developed under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of

this section and agreed upon by the

State include reporting to a regional

planning organization, the plan

submission must provide for reporting

to the regional planning body in

addition to the Administrator.

(ii) Criteria and procedures for a

market trading program. The plan must

include the criteria and procedures for

activating a market trading program or

other program consistent with

paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section if an

applicable regional milestone is

exceeded, procedures for operation of

the program, and implementation plan

assessments and provisions for

implementation plan assessments of the

program in the years 2008, 2013, and

2018.

(iii) Provisions for activating a market

trading program. Provisions to activate

the market trading program or other

program within 12 months after the

emissions for the region are determined

to exceed the applicable emission

reduction milestone, and to assure that
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35771

all affected sources are in compliance

with allocation and other requirements

within 5 years after the emissions for

the region are determined to exceed the

applicable emission reduction

milestone.

(iv) Provisions for market trading

program compliance reporting. If the

market trading program has been

activated, the plan submission must

include provisions requiring the State to

provide annual reports assuring that all

sources are in compliance with

applicable requirements of the market

trading program.

(v) Provisions for stationary source

NOX and PM. The plan submission must

include a report which assesses

emissions control strategies for

stationary source NOX and PM, and the

degree of visibility improvement that

would result from such strategies. In the

report, the State must evaluate and

discuss the need to establish emission

milestones for NOX and PM to avoid any

net increase in these pollutants from

stationary sources within the transport

region, and to support potential future

development and implementation of a

multipollutant and possibly multisource

market-based program. The plan

submission must provide for an

implementation plan revision,

containing any necessary long-term

strategies and BART requirements for

stationary source PM and NOX

(including enforceable limitations,

compliance schedules, and other

measures) by no later than December 31,

2008.

(5) Mobile sources. The plan

submission must provide for:

(i) Statewide inventories of current

annual emissions and projected future

annual emissions of VOc, NOX, SO2,

elemental carbon, organic carbon, and

fine particles from mobile sources for

the years 2003 to 2018. The future year

inventories must include projections for

the year 2005, or an alternative year that

is determined by the State to represent

the year during which mobile source

emissions will be at their lowest levels

within the State.

(ii) A determination whether mobile

source emissions in any areas of the

State contribute significantly to

visibility impairment in any of the 16

Class I Areas, based on the statewide

inventory of current and projected

mobile source emissions.

(iii) For States with areas in which

mobile source emissions are found to

contribute significantly to visibility

impairment in any of the 16 Class I

areas:

(A) The establishment and

documentation of a mobile source

emissions budget for any such area,

including provisions requiring the State

to restrict the annual VOC, NOX, SO2,

elemental and organic carbon, and/or

fine particle mobile source emissions to

their projected lowest levels, to

implement measures to achieve the

budget or cap, and to demonstrate

compliance with the budget.

(B) An emission tracking system

providing for reporting of annual mobile

source emissions from the State in the

periodic implementation plan revisions

required by paragraph (d)(10) of this

section. The emission tracking system

must be sufficient to determine the

States’ contribution toward the

Commission’s objective of reducing

emissions from mobile sources by 2005

or an alternate year that is determined

by the State to represent the year during

which mobile source emissions will be

at their lowest levels within the State,

and to ensure that mobile source

emissions do not increase thereafter.

(iv) Interim reports to EPA and the

public in years 2003, 2008, 2013, and

2018 on the implementation status of

the regional and local strategies

recommended by the Commission

Report to address mobile source

emissions.

(6) Programs related to fire. The plan

must provide for:

(i) Documentation that all Federal,

State, and private prescribed fire

programs within the State evaluate and

address the degree visibility impairment

from smoke in their planning and

application. In addition the plan must

include smoke management programs

that include all necessary components

including, but not limited to, actions to

minimize emissions, evaluation of

smoke dispersion, alternatives to fire,

public notification, air quality

monitoring, surveillance and

enforcement, and program evaluation.

(ii) A statewide inventory and

emissions tracking system (spatial and

temporal) of VOC, NOX, elemental and

organic carbon, and fine particle

emissions from fire. In reporting and

tracking emissions from fire from within

the State, States may use information

from regional data-gathering and

tracking initiatives.

(iii) Identification and removal

wherever feasible of any administrative

barriers to the use of alternatives to

burning in Federal, State, and private

prescribed fire programs within the

State.

(iv) Enhanced smoke management

programs for fire that consider visibility

effects, not only health and nuisance

objectives, and that are based on the

criteria of efficiency, economics, law,

emission reduction opportunities, land

management objectives, and reduction

of visibility impact.

(v) Establishment of annual emission

goals for fire, excluding wildfire, that

will minimize emission increases from

fire to the maximum extent feasible and

that are established in cooperation with

States, tribes, Federal land management

agencies, and private entities.

(7) Area sources of dust emissions

from paved and unpaved roads. The

plan must include an assessment of the

impact of dust emissions from paved

and unpaved roads on visibility

conditions in the 16 Class I Areas. If

such dust emissions are determined to

be a significant contributor to visibility

impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the

State must implement emissions

management strategies to address the

impact as necessary and appropriate.

(8) Pollution prevention. The plan

must provide for:

(i) An initial summary of all pollution

prevention programs currently in place,

an inventory of all renewable energy

generation capacity and production in

use, or planned as of the year 2002

(expressed in megawatts and megawatthours), the total energy generation

capacity and production for the State,

the percent of the total that is renewable

energy, and the State’s anticipated

contribution toward the renewable

energy goals for 2005 and 2015, as

provided in paragraph (d)(8)(vi) of this

section.

(ii) Programs to provide incentives

that reward efforts that go beyond

compliance and/or achieve early

compliance with air-pollution related

requirements.

(iii) Programs to preserve and expand

energy conservation efforts.

(iv) The identification of specific

areas where renewable energy has the

potential to supply power where it is

now lacking and where renewable

energy is most cost-effective.

(v) Projections of the short- and longterm emissions reductions, visibility

improvements, cost savings, and

secondary benefits associated with the

renewable energy goals, energy

efficiency and pollution prevention

activities.

(vi) A description of the programs

relied on to achieve the State’s

contribution toward the Commission’s

goal that renewable energy will

comprise 10 percent of the regional

power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by

2015, and a demonstration of the

progress toward achievement of the

renewable energy goals in the years

2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. This

description must include

documentation of the potential for

renewable energy resources, the
35772 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

percentage of renewable energy

associated with new power generation

projects implemented or planned, and

the renewable energy generation

capacity and production in use and

planned in the State. To the extent that

it is not feasible for a State to meet its

contribution to the regional renewable

energy goals, the State must identify in

the progress reports the measures

implemented to achieve its contribution

and explain why meeting the State’s

contribution was not feasible.

(9) Implementation of additional

recommendations. The plan must

provide for implementation of all other

recommendations in the Commission

report that can be practicably included

as enforceable emission limits,

schedules of compliance, or other

enforceable measures (including

economic incentives) to make

reasonable progress toward remedying

existing and preventing future regional

haze in the 16 Class I areas. The State

must provide a report to EPA and the

public in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018 on

the progress toward developing and

implementing policy or strategy options

recommended in the Commission

Report.

(10) Periodic implementation plan

revisions. Each Transport Region State

must submit to the Administrator

periodic reports in the years 2008, 2013,

and 2018. The progress reports must be

in the form of implementation plan

revisions that comply with the

procedural requirements of § 51.102 and

§ 51.103.

(i) The report will assess the area for

reasonable progress as provided in this

section for mandatory Class I Federal

area(s) located within the State and for

mandatory Class I Federal area(s)

located outside the State which may be

affected by emissions from within the

State. This demonstration may be based

on assessments conducted by the States

and/or a regional planning body. The

progress reports must contain at a

minimum the following elements:

(A) A description of the status of

implementation of all measures

included in the implementation plan for

achieving reasonable progress goals for

mandatory Class I Federal areas both

within and outside the State.

(B) A summary of the emissions

reductions achieved throughout the

State through implementation of the

measures described in paragraph

(d)(10)(i)(A) of this section.

(C) For each mandatory Class I

Federal area within the State, an

assessment of the following: the current

visibility conditions for the most

impaired and least impaired days; the

difference between current visibility

conditions for the most impaired and

least impaired days and baseline

visibility conditions; the change in

visibility impairment for the most

impaired and least impaired days over

the past 5 years.

(D) An analysis tracking the change

over the past 5 years in emissions of

pollutants contributing to visibility

impairment from all sources and

activities within the State. Emissions

changes should be identified by type of

source or activity. The analysis must be

based on the most recent updated

emissions inventory, with estimates

projected forward as necessary and

appropriate, to account for emissions

changes during the applicable 5-year

period.

(E) An assessment of any significant

changes in anthropogenic emissions

within or outside the State that have

occurred over the past 5 years that have

limited or impeded progress in reducing

pollutant emissions and improving

visibility.

(F) An assessment of whether the

current implementation plan elements

and strategies are sufficient to enable

the State, or other States with

mandatory Federal Class I areas affected

by emissions from the State, to meet all

established reasonable progress goals.

(G) A review of the State’s visibility

monitoring strategy and any

modifications to the strategy as

necessary.

(ii) At the same time the State is

required to submit any 5-year progress

report to EPA in accordance with

paragaph (d)(10)(i) of this section, the

State must also take one of the following

actions based upon the information

presented in the progress report:

(A) If the State determines that the

existing implementation plan requires

no further substantive revision at this

time in order to achieve established

goals for visibility improvement and

emissions reductions, the State must

provide to the Administrator a negative

declaration that further revision of the

existing implementation plan is not

needed at this time.

(B) If the State determines that the

implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources

in another State(s) which participated in

a regional planning process, the State

must provide notification to the

Administrator and to the other State(s)

which participated in the regional

planning process with the States. The

State must also collaborate with the

other State(s) through the regional

planning process for the purpose of

developing additional strategies to

address the plan’s deficiencies.

(C) Where the State determines that

the implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from sources

in another country, the State shall

provide notification, along with

available information, to the

Administrator.

(D) Where the State determines that

the implementation plan is or may be

inadequate to ensure reasonable

progress due to emissions from within

the State, the State shall develop

additional strategies to address the plan

deficiencies and revise the

implementation plan no later than one

year from the date that the progress

report was due.

(11) State planning and interstate

coordination. In complying with the

requirements of this section, States may

include emission reductions strategies

that are based on coordinated

implementation with other States.

Examples of these strategies include

economic incentive programs and

transboundary emissions trading

programs. The implementation plan

must include documentation of the

technical and policy basis for the

individual State apportionment (or the

procedures for apportionment

throughout the trans-boundary region),

the contribution addressed by the

State’s plan, how it coordinates with

other State plans, and compliance with

any other appropriate implementation

plan approvability criteria. States may

rely on the relevant technical, policy

and other analyses developed by a

regional entity (such as the Western

Regional Air Partnership) in providing

such documentation. Conversely, States

may elect to develop their own

programs without relying on work

products from a regional entity.

(12) Tribal implementation.

Consistent with 40 CFR Part 49, tribes

within the Transport Region may

implement the required visibility

programs for the 16 Class I areas, in the

same manner as States, regardless of

whether such tribes have participated as

members of a visibility transport

commission.

(e) States electing not to implement

the commission recommendations. Any

Transport Region State may elect not to

implement the Commission

recommendations set forth in paragraph

(d) of this section. Such States are

required to comply with the timelines

and requirements of § 51.308. Any

Transport Region State electing not to

implement the Commission

recommendations must advise the other

States in the Transport Region of the

nature of the program and the effect of

the program on visibility-impairing
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 35773

emissions, so that other States can take

this information into account in

developing programs under this section.

(f) Annex to the Commission Report.

(1) A Transport Region State may

choose to comply with the provisions of

this section and by doing so shall satisfy

the requirements of § 51.308(b) through

(e) only if the Grand Canyon Visibility

Transport Commission (or a regional

planning body formed to implement the

Commission recommendations) submits

a satisfactory annex to the Commission

Report no later than October 1, 2000. To

be satisfactory, the Annex must contain

the following elements:

(i) The annex must contain

quantitative emission reduction

milestones for stationary source sulfur

dioxide emissions for the reporting

years 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018. The

milestones must provide for steady and

continuing emission reductions for the

2003–2018 time period consistent with

the Commission’s definition of

reasonable progress, its goal of 50 to 70

percent reduction in sulfur dioxide

emissions from 1990 actual emission

levels by 2040, applicable requirements

under the CAA, and the timing of

implementation plan assessments of

progress and identification of

deficiencies which will be due in the

years 2008, 2013, and 2018. The

emission reduction milestones must be

shown to provide for greater reasonable

progress than would be achieved by

application of best available retrofit

technology (BART) pursuant to

§ 51.308(e)(2) and would be approvable

in lieu of BART.

(ii) The annex must contain

documentation of the market trading

program or other programs to be

implemented pursuant to paragraph

(d)(4) of this section if current programs

and voluntary measures are not

sufficient to meet the required emission

reduction milestones. This

documentation must include model

rules, memoranda of understanding, and

other documentation describing in

detail how emission reduction progress

will be monitored, what conditions will

require the market trading program to be

activated, how allocations will be

performed, and how the program will

operate.

(2) The Commission may elect, at the

same time it submits the annex, to make

recommendations intended to

demonstrate reasonable progress for

other mandatory Class I areas (beyond

the original 16) within the Transport

Region States, including the technical

and policy justification for these

additional mandatory Class I Federal

areas in accordance with the provisions

of paragraph (g) of this section.

(3) The EPA will publish the annex

upon receipt. If EPA finds that the

annex meets the requirements of

paragraph (f)(1) of this section and

assures reasonable progress, then, after

public notice and comment, will amend

the requirements of paragraph (d)(4) of

this section to incorporate the

provisions of the annex within 1 year

after EPA receives the annex. If EPA

finds that the annex does not meet the

requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this

section, or does not assure reasonable

progress, or if EPA finds that the annex

is not received, then each Transport

Region State must submit an

implementation plan for regional haze

meeting all of the requirements of

§ 51.308.

(4) In accordance with the provisions

under paragraph (f)(1) of this section,

the annex may include a geographic

enhancement to the program provided

for in paragraph (d)(4) of this section to

address the requirement under

§ 51.302(c) related to Best Available

Retrofit Technology for reasonably

attributable impairment from the

pollutants covered by the milestones or

the backstop market trading program.

The geographic enhancement program

may include an appropriate level of

reasonably attributable impairment

which may require additional emission

reductions over and above those

achieved under the milestones defines

in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section.

(g) Additional Class I areas. The

following submittals must be made by

Transport Region States implementing

the provisions of this section as the

basis for demonstrating reasonable

progress for additional Class I areas in

the Transport Region States. If a

Transport Region State submits an

implementation plan which is approved

by EPA as meeting the requirements of

this section, it will be deemed to

comply with the requirements for

reasonable progress for the period from

approval of the plan to 2018.

(1) In the plan submitted for the 16

Class I areas no later than December 31,

2003, a declaration indicating whether

other Class I areas will be addressed

under § 51.308 or paragraphs (g)(2) and

(3) of this section.

(2) In a plan submitted no later than

December 31, 2008, provide a

demonstration of expected visibility

conditions for the most impaired and

least impaired days at the additional

mandatory Class I Federal area(s) based

on emissions projections from the longterm strategies in the implementation

plan. This demonstration may be based

on assessments conducted by the States

and/or a regional planning body.

(3) In a plan submitted no later than

December 31, 2008, provide revisions to

the plan submitted under paragraph (c)

of this section, including provisions to

establish reasonable progress goals and

implement any additional measures

necessary to demonstrate reasonable

progress for the additional mandatory

Federal Class I areas. These revisions

must comply with the provisions of

§ 51.308(d)(1) through (4).

(4) The following provisions apply for

Transport Region States establishing

reasonable progress goals and adopting

any additional measures for Class I areas

other than the 16 Class I areas under

paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section.

(i) In developing long-term strategies

pursuant to § 51.308(d)(3), the State may

build upon the strategies implemented

under paragraph (d) of this section, and

take full credit for the visibility

improvement achieved through these

strategies.

(ii) The requirement under § 51.308(e)

related to Best Available Retrofit

Technology for regional haze is deemed

to be satisfied for pollutants addressed

by the milestones and backstop trading

program if, in establishing the emission

reductions milestones under paragraph

(f) of this section, it is shown that

greater reasonable progress will be

achieved for these Class I areas than

would be achieved through the

application of source-specific BART

emission limitations under

§ 51.308(e)(1).

(iii) The Transport Region State may

consider whether any strategies

necessary to achieve the reasonable

progress goals required by paragraph

(g)(3) of this section are incompatible

with the strategies implemented under

paragraph (d) of this section to the

extent the State adequately

demonstrates that the incompatibility is

related to the costs of the compliance,

the time necessary for compliance, the

energy and no air quality environmental

impacts of compliance, or the remaining

useful life of any existing source subject

to such requirements.

10. 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:
35774 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

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(a)(1) ................................................................................. Section 300(a) ............................................................................ § 51.300(a)

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

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. 99–13941 Filed 6–30–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U
Appendix 1.2 

Guide to Locating 40 CFR 51.308 Requirements 
2

Guide To Locating 40 CFR 51.308 Requirements 

Purpose: This checklist has been prepared by EPA staff to use in reviewing regional haze SIPs to ensure that the SIPs have the nechecklist represents our best efforts to summarize the requirements of the regional haze rule but it is not a regulation and substitute for any legal requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the regional haze rule. Any decisions regarding the SIP will be made based on the CAA and the relevant regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions 

checklist and its use in a particular situation. Acronyms and Terms: 

BART is Best Available Retrofit Technology CAA is the Clean Air Act CAIR is Clean Air Interstate Rule EI is Emissions Inventory FLM is Federal Land Manager Glidepath is the linear rate of improvement sufficient to attain natural conditions by 2064 

LTS is Long Term Strategy RAVI is Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment RHR is the Regional Haze Rule RPO is Regional Planning Organization RPG is Reasonable Progress Goal 

Notes: 

1. This checklist is based on Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51, and 40 CFR 51.308, as updated by the BART R

2005), and the trading rule, as proposed in 70 FR 44154, August 1, 2005. This checklist will be revised inecessitated by the final version of the trading rule. 

2. All boxes should either be “Y” or “N/A” or the SIP may be deficient. 3. This checklist assumes the State will not be participating in a trading program, or other alternative measu

case, then additional/alternative regulations that appear in 51.308(e)(2) and (3) apply. 

4. Only the requirements from 51.308 pertaining to the current RH SIP submission, and not those pertaining 

reports required under 51.308(f), (g), and (h) (except for a SIP commitment to do them), were included. 

5. The “1999 RHR” is 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999. 6. The “2005 BART Rule” is 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005. 
7

3

. The “BART Guidelines” is Appendix Y to Part 51—Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regi

39104, July 6, 2005. 

8. The “Tracking Guidance” is the Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-45

2003. 

9. The “Attainment Guidance” is the Draft Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals fo

January 2, 2001. 

10. The “Natural Visibility Guidance” is the Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under th

454/B-03-005, September 2003. 

11. The “Baseline Memo” is a memo, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM

Programs, dated 11/18/2002, from Lydia Wegman to the Regional Air Directors. 

12. The “draft RPG Guidance” is the Draft Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regi

November 28, 2005. 

13. The “Visibility Monitoring Guidance” is Visibility Monitoring Guidance, EPA-454/R-99-003, June 199914. The “EI Guidance” is the Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate M

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, dated August, 2005. 

15. The “Interim Fire Policy” is the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, April 23, 1* Requirements that do not apply to States without Class I areas are denoted by an asterisk. 
4

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

Y / N or N/A

Administrative Requirements from Appendix V to Part 51 

2.1(a) Has a letter of submittal from the governor / designee, 

requesting EPA approval of the SIP been received? 

Page i 

2.1(b) Has the State provided evidence it has adopted the legally 

enforceable portions of the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the necessary permits, orders, consent agreements in final form? 

Chapter 9, Appendix 9.3d 

2.1(c) Has the State provided evidence it has the necessary legal 

authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan? 

Appendix 2.1 

2.1(d) Has the official State regulation /document been 

signed/stamped/dated by the appropriate State official 

indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State? 

Appendix 9c 

2.1(e) Has the State provided evidence it followed all of the 

procedural requirements of the State’s laws and constitution 

in the adoption/issuance of the plan? 

Appendix 2.1a 

2.1(f) Has the State provided evidence that public notice was 

given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice? 

Chapter 2, Appendix 2.1b 

2.1(g) Has the State provided a certification that public hearings(s) 

were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State’s laws and constitution, if applicable? 

Appendix 2.1b 
5

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

2.1(h) Has the State provided a compilation of public comments 

and the State’s response thereto? 

Appendix 2.1c 

Technical Requirements from 40 CFR 51.308 

(b) Was the SIP submitted no later than December 17, 2007? No (d) Did the State provide a table identifying each mandatory 

Class I Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State affected by emissions from within the State? 

Chapter 1.2 • Visibil

* (d)(1) Did the State establish RPGs for each Class I area that 

provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period? 

Chapter 10 • p. 3573

• p. 1-6 o• Attainm• draft R

* (d)(1)(i)(A) In establishing RPGs for each Class I area, did the State 

consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal? 

Appendix 10.1 • p. 3573

• draft R

* (d)(1)(i)(B) Did the State submit the glidepath (i.e., rate of progress 

needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064) for each Class I area? 

Chapter 10, Figs. 10.5-10.8 

• p. 3572• Natura• p. 3912

rule 

• The Ba
6

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

* (d)(1)(i)(B) In establishing the RPG for each Class I area, did the State 

calculate the uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the SIP? 

Chapter 10, Tables 10.1& 10.2 

• p. 3573• draft R

* (d)(1)(ii) If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, has it 

demonstrated, based on the factors in (d)(1)(i)(A), the rate of progress for the SIP to attain natural conditions by 2064 

is not reasonable, and its RPG is reasonable? 

N/A • p. 3573

* (d)(1)(ii) If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, did it provide 

to the public for review as part of its SIP, an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural 

conditions using its RPG? 

N/A • p. 3573

(d)(1)(iv) In developing its RPG, has the State consulted with those 

States that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas? 

Chapter 5, Chapter 10.2, Appendix 10.2

• p. 3573

(d)(1)(iv) If the State cannot agree with another State(s) that a goal 

provides for reasonable progress, has the State described in 

its submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement? 

N/A • p. 3573

* (d)(1)(vi) Has the State adopted RPGs that represents at least the 

visibility improvement expected from implementation of other CAA programs during the applicable planning period? 

Chapter 11, • p. 3573

* (d)(2)(i) Has the State calculated baseline visibility conditions for 

each Class I area for the most impaired and least impaired days using 2000 to 2004 monitoring data? 

Chapter 5.1 • p. 3572

• Natura• Attainm• Trackin
7

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

* (d)(2)(i) In calculating the baseline visibility conditions, did the State 

estimate the average degree of visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004, and then determine the average of these 

annual values? 

Appendix 5.1 

* (d)(2)(i) If the State has Class I areas without onsite monitoring data 

for 2000 - 2004, did the State use the most representative available monitoring data for 2000 - 2004 to establish baseline values, in consultation with the EPA Regional Office? 

N/A • p. 3572

• Visibil

* (d)(2)(iii) Did the State calculate natural visibility conditions for the 

most impaired and least impaired days by estimating the degree of impairment based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques? 

Appendix 5.2 • p. 3576

RHR 

• Natura

* (d)(2)(iv)A Did the State calculate the number of deciviews by which 

baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days for the first planning period? 

Chapter 10.1 • p. 3573

(d)(3) Did the State submit a LTS that addresses visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, inside and outside the State, which may be affected by the State’s emissions? 

Chapter 11 • p. 3573

(d)(3) Does the LTS include enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs established by States having Class I areas? 

Chapter 11 • p. 3573
8

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other 

State(s) to develop coordinated emission management 

strategies for cases in which it has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in those State(s)? 

Chapter 10, Appendix 10.2 

• p. 3573

(d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other 

State(s) to develop coordinated emission management 

strategies for cases in which those State(s) have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located within the State? 

Chapter 10, Appendix 10.2 

(d)(3)(ii) In establishing its LTS, where multiple State(s) cause or 

contribute to impairment of the same Class I area, did the State include all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPG for the area? 

Chapter 10, Appendix 10.2 

• p. 3573

(d)(3)(ii) In addressing (d)(3)(ii), above, if the State participated in a 

RPO, did it ensure it included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations 

agreed upon through that process? 

N/A • p. 3573

(d)(3)(iii) In establishing its LTS, did the State document the technical 

basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each Class I area it affects? 

N/A • p. 3573

• EI Gui
9

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(d)(3)(iii) In addressing (d)(3)(iii), above, did the State identify the 

baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies are based? 

Chapter 7, Appendix 8.1 

• p. 3572• Baselin• EI Guid

(d)(3)(iv) Did the State identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment considered by it in developing its LTS, including consideration of major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources? 

Appendix 7.1, Appendix 8.1 

• p. 3573• EI Gui

(d)(3)(v)(A) In developing its LTS, did the State consider the emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI? 

Chapter 11, • p. 3573

(d)(3)(v)(B) In developing its LTS, did the State consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction activities? 

Chapter 11.4.1.5 

• p. 3573

(d)(3)(v)(C) In developing its LTS, did the State consider emissions 

limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal? 

Chapter 11.4.1.7 

• p. 3573

(d)(3)(v)(D) In developing its LTS, did the State consider source 

retirement and replacement schedules? 

Chapter 11.4.1.6 

• p. 3573

(d)(3)(v)(E) In developing its LTS, did the State consider smoke 

management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes, including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes? 

Chapter 11.4.1.8 

• p. 3573• Interim 

(d)(3)(v)(F) In developing its LTS, did the State consider enforceability 

of emissions limitations and control measures? 

Chapter 11.4.10 

• p. 3573
10

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(d)(3)(v)(G) In developing its LTS, did the State consider the anticipated 

net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS? 

Chapter 8.4 • p. 3573

* (d)(4) Did the State submit with the SIP a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment representative of all Class I areas within the State? 

Chapter 6 • p. 3574

• Attainm• Trackin• Visibili

* (d)(4) Did the State coordinate the above monitoring strategy with 

the RAVI monitoring strategy in § 51.305? 

Chapter 6, Appendix 6.2 

• p. 3571

* (d)(4)(i) Did the SIP provide for the establishment of any additional 

monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all Class I areas within the State are being achieved? 

Chapter 6 • p. 3574

• Attain• Trackin• Visibili

* (d)(4)(ii) Did the SIP establish procedures by which monitoring data 

and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State? 

Appendix 6.2 • p. 3574

• Attainm• Trackin• Visibil

(d)(4)(iii) For a State with no Class I areas, did the SIP establish 

procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in other States? 

N/A • p. 3574

• Attainm• Trackin• Visibil

* (d)(4)(iv) Did the SIP provide for the reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to EPA at least annually for each Class I area in the State? 

Chapter 6 • p. 3574

• Visibil
11

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a statewide EI of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area? 

Chapter 7, Appendix 7.1 

• Attainm

(d)(4)(v) Did the EI include emissions for a baseline year, emissions 

for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions? 

Chapter 7, Appendix 8.1 

• p. 3572• Visibil• Attainm

(d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a commitment to update the EI 

periodically? 

Chapter 7 • EI Gui

(d)(4)(vi) Did the SIP include other elements necessary to assess and 

report on visibility (e.g., reporting, recordkeeping, etc.)? 

Chapter 6, Appendix 6.2 

(e) Did the State submit a SIP containing emission limitations 

representing BART, and schedules for compliance with BART, for each BART eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area? 

Chapter 9, Section 9.3, Tables 9.3a – 9.3d, & Appendix 9.3c 

• BART 

(e)(1)(i) Did the SIP include a list of all BART-eligible sources 

within the State with supporting documentation? 

Chapter 9, Section 9.1, Fig 9.1,Table 9.1 and Appendices 9.1a, 9.1b, & 9.3b 

• BART 

(e)(1)(ii) Did the SIP include a determination of BART for each 

BART-eligible source in the State that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area? 

Chapter 9, Section 9.3, Tables 9.3a – 9.3d, & Appendix 9.3c 

• BART 
12

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(e)(1)(ii)(A) Did the SIP include a determination of BART based on an 

analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available, and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART within the State? 

Appendices 9.2b – 9.2d 

• BART 

(e)(1)(ii)(A) In the BART analysis, did the State take into consideration 

the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality 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? 

Appendices 9.3a, 9.3c, & 9.3d 

• BART • p 3910

Rule 

(e)(1)(ii)(B) Did the State determine BART for fossil-fuel fired power 

plants > 750 megawatts pursuant to the BART guidelines? 

Chapter 9, Section 9.1, Fig. 9.1 & Table 9.1; Section 9.2 Table 9.2 & Fig 9.2; Appendix 9.3c 

• BART • p 3910

(e)(1)(iii) If the State has determined that technological or economic 

limitations on the applicability of measurement methodology to a particular source would make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible, has the State prescribed a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, to require the application of BART, as an alternative to a BART emission standard? 

Appendices 9.3a, 9.3c, & 9.3d 

• BART 
13

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(e)(1)(iii) If the State adopted a design, equipment, work practice, or 

other operational standard alternative to BART, did the State, to the degree possible, set forth the emission reduction to be achieved, and provide for compliance by 

means which achieve equivalent results? 

N/A • BART 

• p 3917

(e)(1)(iv) Has the State required each source subject to BART to 

install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after approval of the SIP? 

Chapter 9, Section 9.3 & Appendix 9.3c 

• p 3915

Rule 

(e)(1)(v) Has the State required each BART source to maintain the 

required control equipment and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained?

Appendix 9.3c • p 3917

(e)(4) If the State is using its participation in CAIR to exempt 

BART-eligible EGU’s from BART, has it included supporting documentation? 

N/A • p 3913

Rule 

(e)(4) If the State is using its participation in CAIR to exempt 

BART-eligible EGU’s from BART, did it include 

provisions for a geographic enhancement to the program to address RAVI BART under § 51.302(c)? 

N/A • p 3914

Rule 

(e)(6) If a facility is seeking an exemption under §51.303(a)(2)–

(h) for any of its BART-eligible emission units, has the appropriate documentation been included in the SIP? 

N/A • §51.30

(f) Has the State included a commitment it will submit its SIP 

revision, as specified in 51.308(f), by July 31, 2018, and 

every ten years thereafter? 

Chapter 12 • p 35745 

• Section 
14

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(g) Has the State included a commitment it will submit its SIP 

report, as specified in 51.308(g), by an exact date named, 

that is within 5 years from submittal of the initial SIP? 

Chapter 12 • p 35745 

• Section 

(h) Has the State included a commitment it will, at the time of 

the submission of the SIP report, also submit a determination of the adequacy of its existing Regional Haze SIP revision, as specified in 51.308(h)? 

Chapter 13 • p 35745 

• Section 

(i)(1)(i)-(ii) Did the State, by November 29, 1999, identify in writing to 

the FLMs the title of the official to which any FLM can submit recommendations on the implementation 51.308 including, (i) identification of impairment of visibility in any Class I area(s); and (ii) identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by §51.305 and 51.308? 

Appendix 4.1 • p. 3574

(i)(2) Did the State provide the FLM an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP (or its revision)? 

Chapter 4 • p. 3574

(i)(2)(i)-(ii) Did the above consultation include the opportunity for the 

FLMs to discuss their: (i) assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area; and, (ii) recommendations on 

the development of the RPG and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment? 

Chapter 4, Appendix 2.1c 

• p. 3574

(i)(3) Did the State include in the SIP a description of how it 

addressed any comments provided by the FLMs? 

Appendix 2.1c • p. 3574
15

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.30

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location 

in SIP

(i)(4) Does the SIP provide procedures for continuing consultation 

between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas? 

Chapter 4 • p. 3574
Appendix 2.1 

Summary of (a) legal authority; (b) public 

participation process; and, (c) public comments and 

responses (inclusive of FLMS comments and 

responses) on SIP draft. 
Summary of (a) legal authority; (b) public participation process; and, (c) public comments 

and responses (inclusive of FLMS comments and responses) on SIP draft 

a. Description of Legal Authority 

Statutory authority for the Regional Haze Rule comes from sections 169A and 169B of the Clean 

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7491 and 7492) which 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.’’ These 

sections required the EPA to issue regulations that will require States to revise their state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to contain enforceable measures and strategies for reducing 

visibility-impairing pollution, and to ensure that reasonable progress is made towards the 

national visibility goals specified in section 169A. Pursuant to section 169A(a) and (b), the EPA 

promulgated the Regional haze program requirements codified in 40 CFR 51.308. 

Pursuant to these Regional Haze Rule requirements, ADEQ proposed revisions to Regulation 19, 

Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control. Reg.19.1501 et 

seq. revisions establish the Regional Haze Program provisions, which establish enforceable Best 

Available Retrofit Technology requirements. Changes to Regulation 19 were adopted by the 

Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The Commission’s authority to adopt 

rules and regulations that implement substantive statutes charged to the ADEQ is found in 

Arkansas Code Annotated 8-1-203(b)(1). 

8-1-203. Powers and responsibilities of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology 

Commission. 

... 

(b) The commission's powers and duties shall be as follows: 

(1)(A) Promulgation of rules and regulations implementing the substantive statutes 

charged to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for administration. 

... 

Legal authority for the State of Arkansas to adopt and implement the Regional Haze SIP is found 

in Arkansas Code Annotated 8-4-311. 

8-4-311 Powers generally 

(a) The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality or its successor shall have the 

power to: 

(1) Develop and effectuate a comprehensive program for the prevention and control of 

all sources of pollution of the air of this state; 

2
(2) Advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies of the state, political subdivisions, 

industries, other states, the federal government, and with affected groups in the furtherance of 

the purposes of this chapter; 

(3) Encourage and conduct studies, investigations, and research relating to air pollution 

and its causes, prevention, control, and abatement as it may deem advisable and necessary; 

(4) Collect and disseminate information relative to air pollution and its prevention and 

control; 

(5) Consider complaints and make investigations; 

(6) Encourage voluntary cooperation by the people, municipalities, counties, industries, 

and others in preserving and restoring the purity of the air within the state; 

(7) Administer and enforce all laws and regulations relating to pollution of the air; 

(8) Represent the state in all matters pertaining to plans, procedures, or negotiations for 

interstate compacts in relation to air pollution control; 

(9)(A) Cooperate with and receive moneys from the federal government or any other 

source for the study and control of air pollution. 

(B) The department is designated as the official state air pollution control agency for 

such purposes; 

(10) Make, issue, modify, revoke, and enforce orders prohibiting, controlling, or abating 

air pollution and requiring the adoption of remedial measures to prevent, control, or abate air 

pollution; 

(11) Institute court proceedings to compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter 

and rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this chapter; and 

(12) Exercise all of the powers in the control of air pollution granted to the department 

for the control of water pollution under sections 8-4-101 – 8-4-106 and 8-4-201 – 8-4-229. 

 b. Public Participation Process 

Arkansas complied with requirements of the Regional Haze Regulation by passing changes to 

Arkansas’s Regulation 19. Legal notice of the proposed regulation change and public hearing 

was given in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, a newspaper with statewide circulation, on May 27 

and 28, 2007. A public hearing on the proposed regulation change was held at the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality headquarters on June 27, 2007, with the final date for 

public comment occurring July 12, 2007. Formal presentation of proposed final regulation 

changes to the Administrative Rules & Regulations Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative 

Council occurred August 2, 2007. Formal presentation to the Public Health & Welfare 

Committee of the Arkansas Legislative Council occurred August 28, 2007. The Arkansas 

3
Pollution Control and Ecology Commission adopted the proposed changes on September 28, 

2007. 

Arkansas provided public notice of the opportunity to comment on the SIP on June 7, 2008 in a 

statewide newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Included in the notice to the public was 

an announcement that a public hearing was scheduled for July 7, 2008. A copy of the draft 

Regional Haze SIP was made available at the ADEQ Headquarters, Public Records Center, 

Room 127, 5301 Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72218. Copies of these notices 

are provided in Appendix 2.1c. 

Arkansas held a public hearing regarding the SIP on July 7, 2008. Public comments, inclusive of 

those made by the FLMS are addressed and are summarized in Appendix 

2.1c 

c. Public and FLM Comments: 

Arkansas provided the FLMs a draft copy of the Regional Haze SIP and solicited comments on 

the draft SIP on February 22, 2008. FLM comments were summarized and included in the public 

notice of the proposed SIP. A photocopy of the legal ad follows and reads: 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, COMMENT PERIOD 

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) will hold a public hearing on the 

Arkansas Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan (SIP) on Monday July 7, 2008. The 

public hearing will begin at 2:00 p.m. in the Commission Room of the ADEQ headquarters, 

located at 5301 Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, AR 72218-5317. The hearing will allow 

comments on the SIP, and associated items. 

 

On July 1, 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the federal visibility 

requirements for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. The EPA promulgated these 

regulations in the Regional Haze Rule, codified in 40 CFR 51.308. Arkansas has two federal 

Class I areas within its borders. The SIP was developed to meet the requirements of EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule and includes a description of the consultation process used to develop the 

SIP, reasonable progress goals for achieving natural visibility conditions, a long-term strategy 

and other implementation plan requirements. 

Class I areas in Arkansas affected by the rule are the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area in the 

Ozark National Forest and the Caney Creek Wilderness Area in the Ouachita National Forest. 

 

The Regional Haze SIP is available for inspection at the ADEQ office in North Little Rock. The 

Department will accept written or electronic mail comments for the record until 4:30 p.m. 

Monday July 21, 2008. The Department requests persons intending to give verbal presentations 

also provide a written copy of their testimony to the hearing officer at the time of the public 

hearing or by mail. Persons interested in viewing this SIP or giving comments should contact 

4
Doug Szenher in the Public Outreach and Assistance Division: 5301 Northshore Drive, North 

Little Rock, AR 72218-5317; electronic mail: doug@adeq.state.ar.us; telephone: 501-682-0915. 

 

The associated documents are also available for viewing and downloading on the ADEQ internet 

web site at the following link: ftp://listserv.adeq.state.ar.us/pub/regional_haze_sip.zip

The Regional Haze SIP provides a detailed description of consultations that were conducted with 

applicable Federal Land Managers (FLMs). A brief summary of the FLMs draft comments on 

the draft Regional Haze SIP follows, with a full version contained in the SIP. ADEQ does not 

expect significant changes in the final FLM comments. When the final FLM comments are 

available they will be included in the SIP. A response summary addressing these comments will 

also be included in the Regional Haze SIP. 

The FLMs commented positively on Arkansas’ Smoke Management Plan and fire emission 

related regional haze considerations. Comments on insufficiencies or needed clarifications were 

received on technical aspects of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Uniform Rate 

of Progress. Emission Inventory comments were received regarding a heavy dependence on 

appendices and a lack of Area of Influence graphics. FLMs comments stated a need to discuss 

the attribution of the haze causing pollution of neighboring states, and the potential for future 

point source sulfur emissions. Comments also stated that the State did not conduct a “four factor 

analysis” when making control decisions, or provide an adequate description of its long-term 

strategy. 

The ADEQ will continue to coordinate and consult with the FLMs during the implementation of 

the Regional Haze SIP, as well as during the implementation of other programs having the 

potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I areas of Arkansas. 

Dated this 7th day of June, 2008, 

Teresa Marks, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

5
6
7
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Responsiveness Summary for Comments Received From Federal Land Managers in 

Regards to the Draft State of Arkansas Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan 

Note: This document incorporates the complete set of comments that Federal Land Managers 

have submitted to date. Each comment, or portion thereof, is followed by ADEQ’s response. 

Responses are numbered in a manner consistent with the numbered comments. 

Overall Comment

The Fish & Wildlife Service has a significant concern that the information provided in the State 

of Arkansas’ Draft Regional Haze SIP fails to describe or address content elements required by 

the Regional Haze Rule. Throughout the document, too little information is placed in the 

summary with little to no continuity. In this case, the lack of continuity results either in 

confusing reading that bounces from point to point, or in discussions with serious information 

gaps. In particular, the State relies on numerous appendixes in lieu sufficient summary 

description to adequately address the content areas identified by the Act or rule. In the end, the 

Draft SIP does not provide a reader with an understanding of the causes of haze at the Class I 

areas of concern, how that will change over the ten-year planning interval, and the strategies that 

the State will employ to provide for reasonable progress toward the goal of natural visibility 

conditions by the year 2064. 

Response - ADEQ and some other CENRAP States used the CENRAP SIP/TIP Template and a 

checklist provided by EPA Region 6 as the framework for compiling a document that addresses 

all of the elements required to be included in a SIP. The assertion that Arkansas’s draft Regional 

Haze SIP “fails to describe or address content elements required by the Regional Haze Rule” is 

unfounded. Concerns about the extent to which the document is readable or lacks continuity 

should not be a consideration in determining whether the SIP can be approved. 

Two specific content areas are completely lacking sufficient analysis, description, or comparison 

to the mandatory factors identified by the Act and subsequent rules. These are the presentation 

of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) decisions made by Arkansas, as well as the 

treatment of Reasonable Progress and Long Term Strategy. Detailed discussions of these issues 

are explained in the technical comments that follow. 

In addition, the information presented regarding BART evaluations for several facilities 

inappropriately seek to evaluate individual units on a per-pollutant basis to compare to the 

significance threshold. This erroneous application of the BART elimination provisions of EPA’s 

8
BART Guidelines1

 results in instances where air pollution sources are not evaluated for 

additional pollution controls properly in accordance with the regulations. 

We are concerned that the apparent lack of sufficient summary and disregard for reasonable 

progress or analyses of the statutory factors may constitute this draft un-approvable. As such, 

the FWS respectfully requests that the State of Arkansas reconsider the Draft SIP in its present 

form before release to the public. We ask that the State review the eight elements identified by 

the Fish & Wildlife Service letter (August 2006) and expand its discussion in the document 

regarding how ADEQ approached, evaluated, and drew conclusions on these important rule 

elements. 

 

The remaining comments provided here are organized according to the priorities that we 

presented in our August 1, 2006, letter. Many of the following comments will also provide 

direction towards building the narrative of the Draft SIP to satisfy the documentation and content 

area deficiencies noted above. 

Response – Responses to these overall comments follow the detailed discussions provided in 

numbered comments below. 

Baseline, Natural Conditions, Uniform Rate

1. Sections 5.1 states that baseline visibility conditions for the Caney Creek Wilderness Area 

were established using three years of IMPROVE data, and notes that this “does not meet 

EPA completeness criteria for the five year averaging period.” Section 6 indicates that the 

Caney Creek IMPROVE site was installed between 2000 and 2003, which is the reason for 

not having five years of monitoring data at the time baseline was set. Please note that the 

Regional Haze Rule requires three of five years for baseline calculations, and thus the Caney 

Creek monitoring site does have sufficient years of valid data to meet the completeness 

criteria. 

1. ADEQ acknowledges this comment and has revised Section 5.1 to address it in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). A three-year average (2002 to 2004) was calculated for each Caney 

Creek visibility metric, i.e. both best and worst days. 

2. Figures 10.2 and 10.4 present a “Uniform Rate of Progress for the Twenty Percent Best 

Days” at the two Arkansas Class I areas. Table 10.2 presents the information from those 

figures in tabular form. We do not understand the purpose of this information. The Regional 

Haze Rule requires that a State develop a Long Term Strategy based on an assessment of 

control measures that would make progress towards natural visibility conditions on the worst 

20% days over the 60 year timeframe; however, the Rule prevents a State from setting a 

 

1 See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized it’s BART Guidelines on June 15, 2005, and published 

the preamble and final rule text in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005. The rulemaking action added Appendix Y to Part 51, titled “Guidelines 

for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.” See Section II.A.3 and 4.

9
reasonable progress goal for the best days that is more impaired than the baseline condition. 

While the “Worst Day” concept is represented by the graphical glide-slope presentation used 

in figures 10.1 and 10.3, the graphs you provided in figures 10.2 and 10.4 for the “Best 

Days” (together with the data in table 10.2) are not representative of the best days provisions 

of the Regional Haze Rule. Rather, figures 10.6 and 10.8 showing the “Reasonable Progress 

Goals for the Twenty Percent Best Days,” which appear in the following section, address the 

Regional Haze Rule Best-Days goal appropriately. If Figures 10.2, 10.4, and table 10.2 are 

the means be which Arkansas is setting it RP goals for the least-impaired days, that should be 

presented in a more direct manner. We agree that the best day goals should show any 

improvement from baseline expected from implementation of the Long-Term Strategy 

adopted by the State. (Please also see comment #17, below, which is related to this topic.) 

2. ADEQ has made appropriate changes to Chapter 10 but notes that Comment #18, erroneously 

referenced as Comment #17 in the above paragraph, implies that RPGs are also required for the 

20% best days. This appears to make Comment #2 and Comment #18 internally inconsistent. 

ADEQ understands the goal for the 20% least impaired days to be “no degradation” as depicted 

in Figs. 10.4 and 10.6. 

The first sentence of Section 10.2 – Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals explicitly 

references Table 10.2 – Reasonable Progress Goals for Arkansas Class 1 Areas. This table 

contains numeric expressions of these goals. The table has been revised to more clearly express 

these goals. 

Emission Inventories

3. Section 7.0 – Tables 7.1 and 7.2 list 2002 and 2018 emission estimates by basic source 

category, respectively. This very brief chapter provides reference to two appendices – the 

first is a lengthy technical report prepared by a contractor, and the second is a “Short 

Summary of the 2002 Emission Inventories Methodology Utilized by Arkansas.” The 

chapter then indicates that the 2018 emissions inventory will be further discussed in the next 

chapter. Chapter 8 covers the modeling assessments conducted for this SIP development, 

with section 8.4.1 providing a one-paragraph description of the bases for the “2018 base 

case.” Arkansas must declare its expected 2018 state-wide inventories after implementation 

of the components of its Long-Term Strategy, and, as part of the commitment to ongoing 

review of the SIP, explain how deviations from those emissions will be addressed in future 

SIP revisions. 

 

Throughout all of these discussions, there is too much burden placed on the reader to review 

large reports in the appendices, with no discussion or conclusions provided by ADEQ except 

for the unsupported numerical data in the chapter 7 tables. For instance, we were unable to 

determine whether the “2018 Emissions Inventory Summary” presented in Table 7.2 

represents the future base case without additional controls, the future projection utilizing 

CAIR and/or BART controls, or possibly some other future control scenario. This chapter 

should identify and describe the differences between the various emissions scenarios that 

ADEQ employed for its Regional Haze SIP analyses and decisions, including 

10
Base/Performance, Typical 2002, Base 2018, and any Alternate 2018, emissions inventories, 

and how it is utilizing each scenario. 

3. All emission reductions associated with ADEQ’s Long-Term Strategy (BART and “on the 

books and on the way control measures”) are included in the CENRAP inventory and modeling. 

Any future-year deviations from current inventory estimates will be addressed at the appropriate 

5 and 10-year intervals as required by the Rule. There is no requirement to devise a scheme for 

“mid-course” corrections at this time. 

The Section on base-year and future-year emission inventories has been revised to reflect 

comments received. 

4. There is inconsistent discussion of a variety of emission inventories starting with section 8.1 

leading into section 8.4. Model performance should not use typical base or future emission 

inventory data. Section 8.3 provides non-related information emission development for other 

purposed in the middle of a performance discussion. No information is provided to describe 

the performance inventory. Section 8.4 also skips from one topic to another, with 

discussions of future inventory, typical inventory, and model performance intermingled. 

4. The Section on base-year and future-year emission inventories has been revised to reflect 

comments received. 

5. Section 8.4.2 presents the results of model performance evaluations for the Arkansas Class I 

areas. The discussion for both Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo suggest significant 

underestimation of impacts due to sulfur, in the range of 30%-50%. This data is simply 

stated, but its implications and ADEQ’s conclusions based upon the information are not 

explained. RPO final projections are generally based of relative response factors (RRF) 

corrections, which allow that, while the model may be “off” in absolute terms, it still 

responds to increases or decreases in impact. There is no mention of RRFs or discussion of 

whether the model is responding properly for relative use. 

5. The modeling conducted by CENRAP for its member states represents the best currently 

available approximation of future-year visibility conditions. As such, it is the basis for informed 

decision-making regarding the effectiveness of control strategies that are to be implemented. In 

the absence of modeled outcomes, there would be little, if any, ability to evaluate strategies for 

improvement in future visibility conditions. 

6. As currently drafted, the SIP projects an overall increase in SO2 emissions between the 

baseline and 2018, despite inclusion of BART controls on a significant amount of current 

emissions. The SIP should commit the State to review and revise emissions projections from 

2012 to 2018 as part of 5-year review required by the regional haze rule. This commitment 

will assure that the projected improvements represented by the reasonable progress goals set 

in Section 10 will be achieved. The commitment to review must include a commitment to 

seek further controls or adjust the reasonable progress goals though a SIP revision should the 

emissions projections vary substantially from those projected at this time. Those revisions 

may result in additional improvement in visibility if the current projection of new power 

11
generation in Arkansas does not materialize, or if such generation does not yield the expected 

amount of new emissions. 

Section 12 briefly provides a broad commitment to periodic review and revision of the SIP as 

a whole. The Emission Inventory sections should discuss the uncertainty and then point to 

the Section 12 commitment as ADEQ’s plan of action on that front, and ensure that the 

statement provided in Section 12 adequately encompasses the scope described in this 

comment. 

6. As pointed out in the comment itself, Section 12 contains ADEQ’s commitment to submit 

periodic reports every five-years and comprehensive periodic revisions every ten-years that 

contain all elements required by 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 40 CFR 51.308(g). ADEQ 

understands reassessments of emission inventory projections, progress goals and control 

strategies to be explicit requirements of the rule and does not find it necessary to further 

elaborate on these regulatory commitments. 

7. Section 8.5 presents a short discussion and a few figures about the “2018 Base G C1 Control 

Strategy” that CENRAP generated. This scenario involved examining the pollution sources 

within the “areas of influence” of the nearby Class I areas, and assuming that controls would 

be applied up to a cost of $5,000/ton level for all such facilities that had a ratio of emissionsto-distance-from-Class-I-area of 5 or more (tons per year/kilometers). Resulting reductions 

to visibility impacts are described as significant, yet nowhere does the Draft SIP explain 

whether Arkansas, or any other State identified in that scenario, has committed to or will 

benefit from such an inventory. Thus, we do not understand the context in which ADEQ is 

discussing the 2018 Base G C1 scenario. 

7. ADEQ used the 2018 Base G scenario and did not rely on the separate 2018 Base G C1 

Control Strategy scenario in its development of Uniform Rates of Progress or Reasonable 

Progress Goals. For purposes of clarification, the discussion of the 2018 Base G C1 Control 

Strategy scenario has been removed. 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)2

8. BART, although partially described, does not offer a sufficient summary of process, source 

identification, impacts, controls associated with exemption or subsequent determinations. In 

Arkansas’s own statement, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) does not constitute 

sufficient controls to be better than BART. This statement places an additional burden on 

Arkansas, as compared to a typical CAIR State, to develop and describe a BART process that 

clearly identifies, evaluates, and decides levels of control or exemption for eligible single 

sources. The State appears to have conducted much of the necessary steps. However, the 

SIP document does not adequately describe the analyses and how alternatives associated with 

controls were considered by the State. 

 

2 BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place or under construction between 

August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. Under CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), BART is required 

for any BART-eligible source which “emits any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area.” 

12
8. ADEQ has revised Section 8 to address this comment. 

9. EPA’s BART Guidelines3

 provide thresholds for evaluating whether the BART-eligible units 

at a facility cause or contribute to Regional Haze at a Class I area. These thresholds are to be 

applied to the visibility impacts projected from the sum of all visibility affecting pollutants 

from the total of all BART-eligible units at a facility. However, the BART documentation 

for Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporations Bailey and McClellan Stations, and for the 

AEP Southwestern Electric Power Company-Flint Creek Power Plant, instead apply this 

threshold on a per-pollutant basis to individual units in order to either exempt from being 

subject to BART or to justify not conducting engineering analyses of potential BART 

controls. This is inappropriate. This is further discussed in the attachment to these 

comments. 

9. In its BART determination modeling, ADEQ modeled all pollutants from all BART-eligible 

sources at the facility. ADEQ followed EPA’s BART Guidelines (page 41) which states, “If 

your analysis, or information submitted by the source, shows that an individual source or group 

of sources (or certain pollutants from those sources) is not reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area, then you do not need to make BART 

determinations for that source or group of sources (or for certain pollutants from those sources). 

In such a case, the source is not ‘subject to BART’ and you do not need to apply the five 

statutory factors to make a BART determination.” 

10. Specifically regarding the BART exemption process, we have the following comments: 

a. On page 46, at the end of section 9.2, Arkansas explains that, since its EGU sources 

are only required to participate in ozone-season NOx reductions under CAIR, that 

meeting CAIR requirements does not satisfy BART for these facilities. We concur 

with this decision. It would be helpful to the reader if this paragraph was relocated 

earlier in the chapter, prior to BART exemption discussions, to explain why so many 

EGU emission sources are included in the subsequent BART 

determination/exemption process in Arkansas. 

b. Section 9.2 does not provide sufficient summary of ADEQ’s BART exemption 

process or results, including the reasons why remaining BART sources were not 

exempt. 

c. Section 9.2, says that the State will exempt BART-eligible through source-by-source 

evaluation (that is, in accordance with option 1 listed on page 42). Yet, the text that 

follows suggests that a cumulative visibility analysis was performed on the six 

remaining subject-to-BART sources. Readers are referred to Appendix 9.2C for 

description and methodology. Appendix 9.2C does not include information from 

 

3

 See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized it’s BART Guidelines on 

June 15, 2005, and published the preamble and final rule text in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005. The 

rulemaking action added Appendix Y to Part 51, titled “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional 

Haze Rule.” 

13
ENVIRON or Alpine, nor does it offer another cumulative analysis. It is not clear 

what purpose or application a cumulative analysis serves for the State. 

10. While the federal courts ruled that a cumulative analysis could not be used to 

determine BART eligibility for a source category as a whole, cumulative analysis is an option 

that was exercised by ADEQ as a means of determining the overall improvements achieved 

through the application of source-specific BART in the State. The reference to Appendix 9.2C 

has been corrected to Appendix 9.2D 

11. Section 9.4 (together with Appendix 9.2C) of the Draft SIP present a discussion relating to 

post-control visibility improvement at ten Class 1 areas as a result of BART controls on 

several subject-to-BART facilities. It demonstrates significant improvement which is to be 

commended, but also shows that very significant visibility impairment still exists after BART 

controls are in place. This issue is to be addressed in the Reasonable Progress portion of the 

Draft SIP. However, some consideration might be given as to whether some of the BART 

control technology chosen by the sources specifically to satisfy the BART requirements 

might preclude possibly more effective technology that could have been deployed in an 

overall more cost-effective manner as part of the Reasonable Progress phase. The ADEQ 

might determine if a much higher level of control (beyond BART) by a BART source at this 

time might allow the ADEQ to not require further controls from that particular source as part 

of it’s Reasonable Progress determination. 

 The attachment to this comment document provides source-specific recommendations 

regarding control technology options that ADEQ should consider for its six “subject-toBART sources. 

11. ADEQ is responsible for determining reasonable progress for its own Class 1 areas only and 

has no obligation to discuss reasonable progress goals for Class 1 areas located outside of the 

State. ADEQ does not accept the inference that BART sources are required to consider levels of 

control greater than those considered for application of BART. ADEQ does not intend to require 

sources it has determined to be subject to BART to go beyond the requirements of the Rule. 

ADEQ stands behind its BART determinations, has submitted a BART Rule in the form of a 

revision to Regulation 19, and does not find it necessary to reopen its rule in order to consider 

additional source-specific recommendations. 

12. Specifically regarding the Draft SIP’s presentation of BART control determinations, we have 

the following comments: 

a. Section 9.3 is where the Draft SIP should provide a summary of the BART 

determinations for the Subject-to BART sources. However, the few paragraphs and 

tables presented are insufficient. ADEQ should summarize, on a facility-by-facility 

basis, levels of controls considered, final control selected, and information on how the 

“five factors” were considered in making its decisions. Detailed information can be 

placed in Appendix, but company submitted BART information is not a substitute for 

State decision processes. 

b. The information presented in the tables 9.3a through 9.3d is difficult to follow. 

Earlier in this chapter, the BART-eligible units are identified by name, with Facility 

14
ID, AFIN, and Unit ID noted (table 9.1). Subsequently, the Subject-to-BART source 

subset is listed, again by name with Facility ID and Emission Unit descriptions, but 

no AFIN numbers (table 9.2). But, tables 9.3a thru 9.3d omit the source names, list 

the units apparently with the AFIN number (but in the column titled “Source and 

Unit”), and include what appears to be a reference to a State-issued operating permit 

number that presumably contains the emission limits provided in those tables. It 

would be very helpful for the tables throughout this chapter to be consistent in the 

syntax of referencing the specific BART units. We suggest that the tables do include 

the source names to help those unfamiliar with the syntax of the air pollution source 

ID listings and ADEQ’s permit number assignments. 

c. Tables 9.3a thru 9.3d appear to have some errors, and/or information that may need 

further explanation: 

• Table 9.3a, sixth data row – we believe that this source AFIN number should be 

“30-00011,” for the Entergy-Lake Catherine facility, instead of “30-00110.” The 

latter does not appear on the BART-eligible list of Table 9.1. But, note that the 

unit listed for this entry in table 9.3a, “SN-03 oil” does not match any BARTeligible unit for the Entergy-Lake Catherine facility, per table 9-1; it does match 

the unit description for this facility in table 9-2. 

• We do not understand the information presented in these tables across the 

following columns: “Baseline Peak 24-hour Emissions (lb/hr),” “BART Level of 

Control %,” and “Future Peak 24-hour Emission Rate (lb/hr).” For the first 

several entries in table 9.3a, the calculation of Future Peak 24-hour Emission Rate 

is consistent with applying the listed BART Level of Control to the Baseline Peak 

24-hour Emissions values. But, the listings for three units with “0%” control are 

confusing. The footnote indicates that the BART Level of Control is “only listed 

if facility is adding controls or taking limits that will reduce emission per BART 

requirements. Facilities which are not adding controls or using controls which are 

already installed have a 0% BART control efficiency.” Yet, one of these three 

units shows that, after applying a 0% BART control level, its emission will still be 

reduced by nearly half. In addition, there are two entries that state the BART 

Level of Control will be “up to 95%,” but that only calculate a Future Peak 24-

hour Emission Rate representing approximately 80% control each. Similar 

confusing data is presented in tables 9.3b (for the four units with 69% NOX 

BART control), and for the entries of table 9.3c. The single footnote under table 

9.3a does not adequately explain the data that ADEQ includes in these tables. 

The added discussion of the BART determinations that we recommend earlier in 

this comment (see paragraph a, above) will help a lot, but ADEQ should ensure 

that the meaning of the data in the tables is clear to the reader. 

d. Section 9.4 introduces a statistically based test (TTEST in Excel) as a way for the 

State to evaluate BART control significance. This test or cumulative modeling is not 

a substitute for 5 factor analysis. 

12. (a) ADEQ does not feel the need to expand the discussion on the subject-to-BART 

sources. All information pertaining to BART sources is located in Chapter 9 appendices. 

12. (b) ADEQ has added the information to Tables 9.3a – 9.3d as requested. 

15
12. (c) ADEQ has corrected the percent BART level controls as requested in Table 9.3a. As 

stated in footnote 1 of Tables 9.3a – 9.3b, the percent removal is only listed if a source is 

taking limits that will reduce emissions per the BART requirements. Otherwise, the percent 

is shown as zero percent.

12. (d) In response to this comment, ADEQ has reviewed its BART determinations. The 

TTEST was not intended as a substitute to 5-factor analysis. ADEQ required each BARTeligible facility to submit a five-factor analysis as part of their engineering analysis and 

reviewed these submittals prior to approving the results. 

Area of Influence

13. The Consultation Plan and associated information that is included as Appendix 10.2 to the 

Draft SIP contains a general AOI map for the combined Arkansas-Missouri Class I areas, and 

several assorted graphics for each Class I area of interest. However, the results of these 

studies, concepts, and graphics, are not presented in the Draft SIP text. They should be 

integral to the discussions of attribution of regional haze causing pollution, identification of 

reasonable progress goals, and development of long term strategies for this Regional Haze 

Plan. 

 

 Figures 9.1 and 9.2 of the Draft SIP present geographic representations of Arkansas’ 

BART-eligible and BART-subject sources with relation to the Arkansas and Missouri Class I 

areas. However, instead of overlaying AOI information, the diagrams use “300 km buffers” 

about those Class I areas. 

 In contrast, CENRAP conducted extensive AOI analyses, and produced graphic 

representations for each of the Class I areas within and near to the CENRAP region. 

However, the Draft SIP does not provide any of these graphics for the local Class I areas of 

concern, nor does it discuss any of the work or results from those analyses. 

 Overall, the Draft SIP fails to utilize appropriate Area of Influence (AOI) information 

generated by CENRAP and the other RPOs in its analyses of both contributions of other 

States’ sources to Arkansas’ Class I areas visibility impairment as well as contributions of 

Arkansas’ sources emissions to out-of-State Class I areas. 

13. Since the Consultation Plan adequately addressed causes of haze for Class 1 areas affected by 

Arkansas sources, ADEQ did not find it necessary to elaborate on the causes of haze in the body 

of the SIP. Reasonable Progress Goals were established based on CENRAP-modeled future-year 

visibility projections that were indicative of reasonable progress and did not require additional 

AOI assessments. Additional AOI analyses would be of little benefit in developing a long-term 

strategy for those sources under the control of the State. 

ADEQ used the CalPuff model to make BART determinations. The validity of CalPuff 

projections at a range beyond 300 km is highly questionable and has not been demonstrated. 

AOI has been a subject of considerable analysis by CENRAP as a whole and CENRAP states 

individually. Missouri used the AOI information generated by CENRAP to develop a list of 

states that should be included in the interstate consultations that were held jointly by MDEQ and 

16
ADEQ. This is further discussed in Appendix 10.2. The comment that “Overall the Draft SIP 

fails to utilize appropriate Area of Influence (AOI) information generated by CENRAP and the 

other RPOs in its analyses of both contributions of other States’ sources to Arkansas’ Class I 

areas visibility impairment as well as contributions of Arkansas’ sources emissions to out-ofState Class I areas.” is inaccurate. 

While ADEQ acknowledges that emissions from various source categories within the State 

contribute, or potentially contribute to impacts in other States, these other States have not 

requested that Arkansas participate in their emission reduction strategies. 

14. Arkansas Sources’ Impacts on Out-of-State Class I Areas: Section 1.2 identifies Class I 

areas affected by visibility impairing emissions originating from the State of Arkansas. 

Specifically, two such Class I areas are located within Arkansas (the Caney Creek and Upper 

Buffalo Wilderness Areas, both managed by the Forest Service), and two are located in 

Missouri (the Mingo Wilderness Area managed by FWS, and the Hercules Glades Class I 

area managed by the Forest Service). Although this section states that emissions from 

Arkansas are likely to cause or contribute to regional haze in the identified out-of-State areas, 

little to no consideration is afforded to the Missouri Class I areas and Arkansas sources’ 

impacts to visibility impairment in them, for the remainder of the Draft SIP. 

 The documents provided with appendix 10.2 of the Draft SIP include an August 17, 

2007, letter from ADEQ Air Division Chief Mike Bates to Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) Air Quality Division Director Eddie Terrill. This letter 

responds to ODEQ’s initial consultation meeting regarding the Regional Haze planning for 

its Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area. In this letter, Arkansas disagrees with ODEQ’s 

“assertion that sources in Arkansas contribute significantly to an inability to achieve 

reasonable progress [at Wichita Mountains].” It is unclear whether ODEQ has accepted 

Arkansas’ opinion in this matter. As an additional note, while the discussion in Section 11.3 

of Arkansas’ Draft SIP (quoted below in comment #18) says that visibility projections for 

outside-of-Arkansas Class I areas will meet or exceed the uniform rate of progress, this letter 

to ODEQ indicates that the projections for Wichita Mountains “will not meet the glide path 

representing a return to natural conditions by 2064.” In addition, one of the BART 

appendices identifies the Sipsey Wilderness Area (Forest Service managed) in Alabama as 

potentially being impacted by that company’s two BART-eligible units’ emissions (see 

appendix 9.3a, electronic file AECC BART Engineering Analysis.pdf, page 4). 

 The State should discuss in more detail how analysis of its sources’ impact became 

limited to only the Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas, and why the areas outside Arkansas 

itself did not appear to be part of the consideration when ADEQ evaluated emission controls 

for its sources. 

14. As discussed in Section 11.3, Arkansas and Missouri co-hosted the interstate consultations 

that were a required element of SIP development. Arkansas relied heavily on the analyses that 

Missouri conducted as a means of establishing which States contained source regions impacting 

either Arkansas or Missouri Class I Areas. These analyses are further described in the 

Consultation Plan that is included as Appendix 10.2. Both Arkansas and Missouri anticipate 

being able to achieve their established RPGs through the application of BART and other 

17
OTB/OTW control strategies. For these reasons, additional discussion of overall impacts on 

Missouri’s Class 1 areas is unnecessary. 

Disputes that might arise between states as part of the interstate consultations that the rule 

requires to be conducted do not have to be resolved prior to SIP submittal. They do have to be 

documented. As pointed out by the commenter, ADEQ has done so. As stated in Section 11.3, 

“Arkansas sources have not been shown to appreciably affect visibility in Class 1 areas other 

than the four located in Arkansas and Missouri.” For this reason, the discussion regarding 

Oklahoma’s inability to meet a glide path is irrelevant. 

15. Other States’ Sources Impacts on Arkansas’ Class I areas: As an example, the data 

contained within both the Draft CENRAP TSD and ADEQ’s Consultation Plan (appendices 

8.1 and 10.2 to the Draft SIP, respectively), indicate that the areas of influence that affect the 

Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas extend across several surrounding States. In fact, the 

CENRAP “PSAT” source apportionment modeling results for the Upper Buffalo Class I area, 

show that sulfur emissions from elevated point sources in Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, 

Kentucky, and the collective States to the east beyond those, and all more significant than 

Arkansas’ sulfate sources in contribution to the 2018 projected 20% worst visibility days. 

And, for the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, the impact of all pollutant emissions originating 

in Texas outweighs Arkansas’ own impacts to visibility impairment in the 2018 worst 20% 

projections. The Draft SIP needs to discuss the attribution of haze-cause pollution and the 

results of ADEQ’s consultations with neighboring States regarding achieving Reasonable 

Progress Goals at its local Class I areas. 

15. The SIP is a regulatory document containing Arkansas’ commitments to reduce regional 

haze. It is not intended to be an extensive technical analysis of the causes of haze. ADEQ has 

documented all consultations that it participated in. Since Arkansas expects to meet its RPGs, 

there is no need to further discuss the current impacts of other states. As required by the Rule, 

ADEQ will conduct reviews and submit any required SIP updates on five and ten-year intervals. 

This commitment is described in Section 13 of the SIP. 

16. The Draft SIP narrative does not include discussion of the causes of visibility impairment 

that affect the Class I areas of interest. At a minimum, it should present to the reader a 

summary description of the primary pollutant species that are the biggest contributors to 

haze, and the primary source categories that generate those pollutants, both for the base year 

and the projections for the year 2018. A portion of this information can be dug out from 

various graphics included in supporting documents found in the appendices, but the Draft SIP 

narrative itself is silent on the topic. 

16. The Regional Haze SIP is a regulatory document that describes ADEQ’s commitments to 

administer the federal Regional Haze Rule within the State of Arkansas. It is not intended to be a 

dissertation on the science and technical aspects of Regional Haze. As noted by the commenter, 

much of this material is incorporated as appendices to the SIP. ADEQ does not find it necessary 

to include this information in the body of the SIP in order for the SIP to be considered a 

complete regulatory document. 

18
Reasonable Progress Goals and Long Term Strategy 

17. The Reasonable Progress discussion in the Draft SIP presents a major content deficiency. 

The SIP document does not identify any procedure to address single sources, or combinations 

of sources, that are predicted to continue to significantly impact visibility conditions in the 

future after implementing BART, CAIR, and any other on-the-books and on-the-way 

programs. Although the State concludes that additional controls are not necessary, Arkansas 

does not summarize or offer any level of clarity on what controls the CENRAP4 Regional 

Planning Organization (RPO) utilized within Arkansas in its analyses. Model evaluation at 

the two Class I areas located within Arkansas (Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness 

Areas, both managed by the Forest Service) indicates significant under predictions of 

visibility impacts with regard to sulfates, and fails to address any significance of 2002 to 

2018 projections of increased point source sulfur emission within Arkansas. Although the 

model is used in a relative sense, no additional discussion or clarification is provided to 

address how model performance or model response is adequately addressing issues that may 

arise from impacts from sulfates. 

 CENRAP (as well as the VISTAS RPO in the southeast United States) produced analyses 

to assist States in identifying geographic areas which may represent the source area most 

likely for a State to target additional controls for Reasonable Progress consideration. The 

State appears to have disregarded these supporting documents, and in spite of increasing 

sulfur emissions, did not discuss whether additional BART (beyond presumptive levels) for 

sources subject to BART, or other controls at non-BART pollution sources, may constitute a 

reasonable control. The SIP does not address the four statutory factors when making 

decisions to control or not control additional sources. Analysis of all control alternatives of 

potentially significant sources is necessary in order to fully evaluate reasonableness when 

looking at the factors. Although it is possible for the State to arrive at the same conclusions 

as presented in the draft SIP, there is no evidence that the State had sufficient information to 

conclude as to the reasonableness of its strategy to achieve the 2018 milestones. 

17. Per EPA guidance on setting reasonable progress goals, in the case where modeled 

projections indicate that a rate of progress better that that represented by a uniform rate of 

progress can be achieved through the use of control measures such as BART, CAIR and other 

CAA programs, including the ozone and PM2.5, NAAQS, this “may be all that is necessary to 

achieve reasonable progress in the first planning period ---.”5

The modeling conducted by CENRAP and other RPOs represents “state of the science”. As such, 

it is difficult to provide a better estimate of future-year visibility conditions than that provided. 

Estimates of future-year emissions of sulfates and other visibility-related pollutants are contained 

in the inventory and were used in the model. Modeling science is constantly evolving. It is likely 

that future model runs will provide additional information that can be used to refine the 

understanding of the impacts of sulfates on visibility. 

 

4

 Central Regional Air Planning Association CENRAP is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies and other 

interested parties that identifies regional haze and visibility issues and develops strategies to address them. CENRAP 

is one of the five Regional Planning Organizations RPOs across the U.S. and includes the states and tribal areas of 

Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. 

5

 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program – USEPA, 06/01/07 – rev. 

19
Arkansas does not consider “beyond BART” or additional controls on facilities that the Rule 

does not explicitly require emission reductions from to be necessary to achieve its reasonable 

progress goals at this time. If, in the future, it is determined that RPGs are not being attained for 

whatever reason, additional control programs will be considered. This commitment is expressed 

in Sections 12 and 13 of the SIP. 

18. In Section 10, titled “Reasonable Progress Goals” the State does not specifically declare 

reasonable progress goals, in deciview, for the year 2018. Table 10.3, on page 59, speaks to 

an amount of improvement for the most impaired days from baseline conditions. The 

reasonable progress goals should be clearly stated as the projected 2018 average of the 20 

percent most impaired days and as the 20 percent least impaired days. These numbers are 

included in Figures 10.5 through 10.8 but are not declared in the text. Please revise the text 

in Section 10 to clarify ADEQ’s choice of the 2018 reasonable progress goal and revise 

Table 10.3 to include a column indicating the goals for the least impaired days, as required 

by the regional haze rule. 

18. ADEQ has provided an explicit statement of the Reasonable Progress Goals for each of its 

Class 1 areas. 

19. Section 11.3 is very confusing, switches back and forth between impacts at Arkansas’ Class I 

areas and impacts beyond the State’s borders, and declares that otherwise unspecified 

emission reductions will achieve the RPG goals across seemingly both geographic divisions 

of Class I areas. 

 The section opens with a paragraph indicating that the section will cover Arkansas’ 

demonstration that its SIP includes “all measures necessary to obtain its fair share of 

emission reductions needed to meet [reasonable progress goals] in other Class 1 areas.” The 

next paragraph identifies the categories of technical material that Arkansas relied upon to 

conduct a gross identification of other States with emissions that influence Arkansas Class I 

areas, says that those identified States were included in the consultation process, and then 

asserts that “CENRAP-modeled visibility projections indicate that the emission reductions 

planned for these States are sufficient to achieve the [reasonable progress goals] for all Class 

I areas located in Arkansas and Missouri.” Nowhere are the emission reductions further 

described or quantified. The next paragraph indicates that, since CENRAP and ADEQ 

analyses show that visibility projections for the Class I areas outside Arkansas and Missouri 

“will all be able to demonstrate a better than uniform rate of progress through the 

implementation of existing and forthcoming State and federal emission reduction 

programs.... The emission reductions described elsewhere herein are sufficient to constitute 

a fair share of emission reductions needed to meet RPGs in affected Class I areas.” 

 This is the bulk of Arkansas’ evaluation of its Long Term Strategy to achieve Reasonable 

Progress towards visibility improvement both for its Class I areas and for those outside of the 

State to which Arkansas source emissions contribute. This discussion, both independently 

and in conjunction with the complete Draft SIP narrative, fails to provide the reader with an 

understanding of the causes of visibility impairment at either Arkansas’ Class I areas or those 

20
in nearby States, the control strategies that were considered and levels of control that ADEQ 

decided to require for this SIP, or the anticipated results of those controls. 

19. ADEQ relied on the CENRAP Base G 2018 future-year modeling to establish its RPGs. This 

modeling included all known “on the books” and “on the way” control strategies such as BART, 

CAIR, federal fuel standards, etc. Since the RPGs are projected to be achieved without the need 

for additional control measures, a discussion of such measures is not required. 

20. At the beginning of Section 10 of the Draft SIP, ADEQ outlines the four statutory factors that 

each State must consider in setting its Reasonable Progress Goals. These factors are intended 

to be applied holistically, across all contributing sources of visibility impairing pollutants, to 

inform the decision being made by the State. However, the remainder of the chapter never 

connects back to the four statutory factors, and in fact points to appendix 10.1, “Analysis of 

Control Strategies and Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals,” which argues that 

meeting the uniform rate of progress glide slope obviates any need for analyzing the four 

statutory factors for Reasonable Progress. Thus, the Draft SIP omits the required four-factor 

analysis for establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals. 

20. Per EPA guidance on setting Reasonable Progress Goals, four factor analysis may not be 

required in those instances where an RPG that outperforms a URP can be achieved. ADEQ has 

taken what it considers to be a reasonable position regarding the level of effort required to 

demonstrate an ability to achieve its state-established RPGs. 

21. In Section 11.4.1.6, the Draft SIP identifies “source retirement and replacement,” saying that: 

“retirement and replacement will be managed in conformance with existing SIP requirements 

pertaining to PSD and New Source Review. Source retirement and replacement will be 

tracked through on-going point source inventories.” Please elaborate on how the PSD and 

NSR permitting programs will be utilized by ADEQ as part of its Long Term Strategy for 

meeting Reasonable Progress Goals. 

21. Both PSD and NSR are administered through the federal Title 5 Permit program. Five-year 

reviews for the purpose of incorporating any new federal requirements are inherent to this 

program and do not require further elaboration in the Regional Haze SIP. 

Fire

22. The Arkansas Smoke Management Plan (SMP) and the summary discussion in section 

11.4.1.8 of the Draft SIP properly identify Class I areas as being smoke-sensitive, and the 

SMP instructs prescribed burners to apply the appropriate smoke management techniques to 

minimize impacts. Overall, this is one of the best presentations of fire-emission-related 

Regional Haze considerations that we have seen to date. 

22. ADEQ worked extensively with the State Forestry Commission, FLMs, prescribed-burn 

practitioners and other stakeholders to develop what it considers to be an effective SMP. ADEQ 

appreciates this acknowledgement of its efforts. 

21
23. We recommend that ADEQ ensure that its Regional Haze SIP refers to the Arkansas SMP in 

a way that does not require SIP updates each time the SMP is updated. Also, please indicate 

whether Arkansas intends to “certify” its SMP as provided for by the 1998 EPA Interim Air 

Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire. 

23. The description of the Arkansas Smoke Management Plan (SMP) is provided in the Section 

describing elements of the States’ long-term strategy. The SMP itself is included as an appendix. 

ADEQ has included the SMP as documentation of its efforts and does not consider its inclusion 

to constitute a commitment that would require a SIP revision if it is revised in the future. The 

question of whether or not Arkansas intends to certify its SMP is not relevant to the Regional 

Haze Rule. 

Regional Consistency

24. Arkansas is situated geographically at the boundary between three multi-state Regional 

Planning Organizations (RPO): CENRAP running along the west of the Mississippi River 

from Minnesota south to Texas and Louisiana; VISTAS, comprised of the southeastern 

United States, and MWRPO, from the Ohio River Valley north through the Great Lakes 

region. As a member State of the CENRAP organization, Arkansas has utilized the technical 

products that were produced by the CENRAP efforts as the information upon which it has 

built its Regional Haze SIP. The VISTAS and MWRPO technical work also cover the Class 

I areas of concern to Arkansas, as several of their western member States may have emission 

sources that influence visibility at those Class I areas. The results indicated by each of the 

three regional planning organizations are different. While it is fully appropriate for Arkansas 

to rely upon the CENRAP work, ADEQ might consider highlighting the importance of the 

ongoing verification and contingency provisions in view of the varying results of the RPOs. 

24. Section 12 contains ADEQ’s commitment to conduct comprehensive periodic 

implementation plan provisions on the schedule required by the Rule. 

Verification & Contingencies

25. Section 13 of the Draft SIP discusses the options for action following the five-year review. 

However, the document does not provide any criteria that ADEQ will use in evaluating the 

five-year progress report to decide which of the listed actions would be indicated. Please 

include discussion of the anticipated criteria that ADEQ will use to both evaluate the 

progress at the five-year review and to select the course of action that will be taken based 

upon that review. 

25. The criteria are already spelled out in the list of possible actions. The review will be 

conducted according to the findings of the reports that are described in Section 12. The 

appropriate action to take will be based on a determination of whether established RPGs have 

been met and, if not, a determination of which factors are likely to have contributed to not 

meeting the RPG. This process does not require a discussion of the criteria that will be used for 

future reviews at this time. 

22
Coordination & Consultation

26. The Draft SIP references to its Appendix 10.2 for documentation of the consultation process 

that Arkansas and Missouri jointly conducted for the four Class I areas in their two States. 

However, the Draft SIP lacks discussion of Arkansas’s decisions based upon the results of 

those meetings. 

26. ADEQ has added language to address this comment. 

27. Chapter 4 of the Draft SIP explains past consultation with the Federal Land Management 

agencies, and commits to future consultation, saying: “ADEQ will continue to coordinate 

and consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and plan 

revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs having the potential to contribute 

to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I areas. The FLMs must be consulted in the 

following instances: 

• Development and review of implementation plan revisions 

• Review of 5-year progress reports 

• Development and implementation of other programs that may contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas.” 

We appreciate ADEQ’s acknowledgement of this ongoing consultation requirement, and 

look forward to working with you in the years to come. 

27. No response required 

23
24

 

TALKING POINTS – 4/17/08 Conference Call between FLM agency staff and ADEQ 

Regarding AR Draft Regional Haze SIP 

Original draft April 1, 2008; REVISED April 14, 2008 

This document is an attachment to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) comments on the 

Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan prepared by Arkansas and received by the FWS 

on February 25, 2008. It provides source-specific recommendations regarding the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations contained within that package. 

Entergy Services, Inc. BART Determination for the Lake Catherine Plant 

Table 9.2 of the ADEQ RH SIP shows that the Lake Catherine Plant is a subject-to-BART 

source, but Tables 9.3 a-d do not include emission reductions from the 2002 Baselines for this 

source. Either the data for the Plant should be included or a reason for its exclusion should be 

noted. 

Response: Tables 9.3a – 9.3d contains the emission reductions for Entergy – Lake Catherine 

Plant. 

The low 10% plant utilization rate causes any capital equipment alternative to magnify the cost 

per ton or incremental cost per ton, thus eliminating standard alternatives available to other 

BART determinations. For this reason it is important to impose strict emission limitations 

commensurate with 10% plant utilization in the plant’s permit. 

Section 3.1 of the BART determination proposes that boiler tuning, BOOS and IFGR is NOx

BART for gas firing. The addition of overfire air to the above three controls results in an 

annual cost effectiveness of $1,700 per ton for NOx control and a $1.3 million cost per 

deciview. This is not an unreasonable cost for BART and should be considered. The value of 

this step would be to decrease the visibility impact from 0.56 deciviews to 0.34 deciviews. 

The Arkansas Regional Haze SIP acknowledges that BART requirements are applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and they will be included as title V permit conditions. It 

would be desirable that systems be installed to automatically monitor and trim oxygen and fuels 

for peak performance. Emission limits reflecting the above BART should be met on a 

continuous basis. For a discussion of this topic please refer to EPA’s BART Guidelines.6

 

6 See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized it’s BART Guidelines on 

June 15, 2005, and published the preamble and final rule text in the Federal Register on 

July 6, 2005. The rulemaking action added Appendix Y to Part 51, titled “Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule.” See Section V. 
25

 

The costs of alternatives were stated by Entergy, but there was no documentation or detailed 

break-out of the costs. The basis for equipment cost estimates also should be documented either 

with data supplied by an equipment vendor (i.e., budget estimates or bids) or by a referenced 

source (such as the EPA OAQPS Control Cost Manual), where possible.7

 A discussion of 

amortization of costs is presented, but the actual amortization factors are not given. 

Response: ADEQ has not officially approved the subject-to-BART sources’ engineering 

analyses. These analyses will be reviewed and approved or rejected during the permit process. 

Entergy Services, Inc. BART Determination for the White Bluff Steam Electric Station 

Entergy proposes to install SO2 and NOx control equipment that will meet the presumptive 

requirements of the EPA’s BART Guidelines. The Arkansas Regional Haze SIP acknowledges 

that BART requirements are applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and they will be 

included as Title V operating permit conditions. Emission limits such as BART must be met on 

a continuous basis. Although this provision does not necessarily require the use of continuous 

emissions monitoring (CEMs), it is important that sources employ techniques that ensure 

compliance on a continuous basis. The only such reference found in the BART determination 

was in Section 3.1 relating to boiler tuning, so further discussion of meeting emission limits on 

a continuous basis should be included. For a discussion of this topic please refer to EPA’s 

BART Guidelines.8 

Though presumptive BART is met for both NOx and SO2 using the proposed emission controls, 

Table 5-1 shows that the White Bluff Station will still “cause” visibility impairment at the 

Caney Creek Class I area. In considering its Long Term Strategy in the Regional Haze SIP for 

Caney Creek, the State should hold discussions at this time with the source to determine the 

possible need for additional future controls. Entergy might consider an altered mix of capital 

expenditures for emission control at this time given that information. 

Response: ADEQ has not officially approved the subject-to-BART sources’ engineering 

analyses. These analyses will be reviewed and approved or rejected during the permit process. 

Domtar Industries Inc. BART Determination for the Ashdown Mill 

The costs of the NOx control alternatives of low NOx burners (LNB) and overfire air (OFA) for 

boilers #1 and #2 are presented in Table 4-3, and the conclusion is that the average cost per ton 

of NOx control is cost-prohibitive. Costs in Table 4-3 are derived from total costs shown in 

Appendix B. The total costs from Appendix B and the Total Annualized Cost for LNB and 

OFA shown in Table 4-3 seem excessive. For example, the total capital costs are not generally 

consistent with those presented in Appendix E of the National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement (NCASI) paper entitled, “NOx Control in Forest Products Industry Boilers: A 

7

 See EPA’s BART Guidelines, Section IV.D.Step 4. 

8

 See EPA’s BART Guidelines, Section V. 
26

 

Review of Technologies, Costs, and Industry Experience.”9 Also, the amortization factors of 

5% interest and 10 year life are not consistent with the 7% and 15 year life required by the 

OAQPS Control Cost Manual.10 The basis for equipment cost estimates should be documented 

either with data supplied by an equipment vendor (i.e., budget estimates or bids) or by a 

referenced source (such as the EPA OAQPS Control Cost Manual), where possible.11 More 

realistic figures may make LNB and OFA cost-effective BART alternatives. 

Response: ADEQ has not officially approved the subject-to-BART sources’ engineering 

analyses. These analyses will be reviewed and approved or rejected during the permit process. 

Table 4-7 shows that the Ashdown Mill will still “cause” visibility impairment at the Caney 

Creek Class I area after implementation of controls. In considering its Long Term Strategy in 

the Regional Haze SIP for Caney Creek, the State should hold discussions at this time with 

sources to determine the need for additional future controls. The sources might consider an 

altered mix of capital expenditures for emission control at this time given that information. 

Response: The Regional Haze Rule and the BART Rule does not specify the increment a 

subject-to-BART source must meet in its visibility improvement. Domtar’s post-control 

emissions show improvement to visibility to Caney Creek Wilderness Area albeit not a 

significant improvement which is not the measure require by §51.308. 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation BART Determination for Bailey and 

McClellan Stations 

Pages 2 and 5 state that because pollutant-specific modeling for these facilities showed that NOx

did not cause or contribute to visibility impacts at any Class I areas and since the PM impact 

was less than NOx, only SO2 BART controls would be considered. This is not correct. 

BART exemption modeling uses emissions from facility-wide eligible units to evaluate 

significance against a State determined visibility threshold. In the case of Arkansas, that 

threshold was 0.5dv. Once a facility has been determined to be significant, each eligible unit is 

evaluated for reasonable controls. To determine what is reasonable, the State considers all 

possible control mechanisms by way of the five statutory factors. Each unit is not 

independently reevaluated for significance. Therefore, NOx and PM should have been included 

in the BART determinations for the Bailey and McClellan Stations. 

The SO2 BART determination concluded that “a lower-sulfur fuel oil” should be considered as 

BART. Only a footnote to a table indicated that 1% low sulfur fuel oil was used for modeling 

the post-control scenario. First, the BART determination should have considered 1% sulfur fuel 

9

 Report by the National Council For Air and Stream Improvement entitled, “NOx Control in Forest Products 

Industry Boilers: A Review of Technologies, Costs, and Industry Experience”, Special Report No. 03-04, August 

2003, by Arun V. Someshwar, Ph.D. and Ashok K. Jain, NCASI Southern Regional Center, Gainsville, Florida, 

Appendix E. 

10 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, OAQPS Control Cost 

Manual, Fifth Edition, February 1996, EPA 453/B-96-001. 

11 See EPA’s BART Guidelines, Section IV.D.Step 4.a.5. 
27

oil along with other ultra-low sulfur fuel oils in the analysis and then should have shown the 

economic viability of one fuel over the others. Serious consideration should be given to a 

lower-sulfur fuel. Second, a more definitive description of the chosen fuel should be stated and 

ADEQ should make it an enforceable permit condition. 

Other BART determinations reviewed by the FWS contain more supporting documentation than 

the subject determination in terms of exemption modeling data (before and after controls), 

scrubber cost estimates, fuel alternatives and the Section 4.4 claim that “. . . high capital cost 

control of the scrubber alternative (emphasis added). . . may cause the retirement of these units.” 

The EPA’s BART Guidelines describe an analysis to be followed when viability of continued 

plant operations is an issue.12

Finally, since the Bailey plant is currently operated at only 20% of capacity and since the use of 

1% sulfur fuel oil results in a continuing “contribution” to visibility impairment at Mingo; 

ADEQ should place a permit condition on the facility to operate with emission limitations 

reflecting 20% of capacity. Of course, if technology with higher emissions control efficiency 

can be provided, then such a permit condition can be relaxed. 

Response: ADEQ has not officially approved the subject-to-BART sources’ engineering 

analyses. These analyses will be reviewed and approved or rejected during the permit process. 

AEP Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) BART Discussions for the Flint 

Creek Power Plant 

A two-page letter from SWEPCO to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, dated 

October 26, 2006, is the only information we have available regarding the subject Plant’s effort 

to meet BART. The RH SIP and/or appendices should contain all of the BART-related data so 

that they are available to third-party reviewers. 

With reference to Item 1, electrostatic precipitators may be BART for particulate matter (PM), 

but not for the reason cited. For BART purposes it is inappropriate for a source to model for a 

single pollutant (e.g., PM) and if that single pollutant does not impact a Class I area by more 

than the threshold, to eliminate emission units which emit that pollutant from BART for that 

pollutant. As discussed in EPA’s BART Guidelines, the total emissions (SO2, NOx and PM) 

from all emission units from the source should be summed.13 If the potential to emit of any 

single visibility impairing pollutant exceeds 250 tons per year then that collection of emissions 

units is a BART-eligible source. Each emission unit is then subject to a BART review for each 

of the visibility impairing pollutants. Thus, a BART review should have occurred for the 

emission units that feed the electrostatic precipitators. It is acknowledged that on a cost basis, it 

is likely that no other control equipment would be required other than possibly adjustments to 

the ESPs. 

Item 2 of the letter is not clear as to whether control equipment is already functioning at the 

presumptive limits of 0.15 lbs/mmBTU for SO2 and 0.23 lbs/mmBTU for NOx or whether such 

 

12 See EPA’s BART Guidelines, Section IV.D.Step 4.k. 

13 See EPA’s BART Guidelines, Section II.A.3 and 4. 
28

equipment is proposed to be added to meet BART. The record should contain information that 

describes the control equipment that is already or will be installed, along with the data that 

demonstrates how it is deemed to meet BART. If BART is met by the current plant 

configuration then Item 3 referring to “post-control” CALPUFF modeling should not show 

visibility improvements. 

Item 3 of the letter seems to imply (but does not state) that visibility impairment still exists at 

one or more Class 1 areas. In considering its Long Term Strategy in the Regional Haze SIP, the 

State should hold discussions at this time with sources to determine the need for additional 

future controls. The sources might consider an altered mix of capital expenditures for emission 

control at this time given that information. 

Response: ADEQ has not officially approved the subject-to-BART sources’ engineering 

analyses. These analyses will be reviewed and approved or rejected during the permit process. 
29
30

EPA Region 6 Comments on the Arkansas Draft Regional Haze SIP 

7/21/08 

1. EPA has submitted these comments on the Arkansas draft Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan SIP) with the intention of addressing the more significant issues that 

could be identified considering the review time available. Due to time and resource 

constraints, and the fact that that the ADEQ has elected not to submit a paper copy of the 

SIP (which consists of approx. 50 separate electronic files), it has not been possible to 

conduct a completely thorough review, particularly with regard to modeling. It is possible 

that additional concerns, not discovered during the review of this draft, will surface during 

the review of the final version of this SIP. 

Since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will have to conduct an extensive 

review prior to eventual approval or denial of the Arkansas Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (the SIP), the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) does not understand the concern regarding the time available for EPA review 

of its draft SIP during the Public Comment period. It is also unclear why EPA would 

find its review to be hampered by documents submitted in electronic format. It should be 

noted that ADEQ has not yet made a formal submittal of the SIP package. Some of the 

documentation submitted as part of the SIP is in formats (model input and output files, 

spreadsheets, etc.) that are not particularly suited to traditional means of presentation 

such as bound documents. If EPA requires particular documents to be submitted as hard 

copies, this can be arranged. As an alternative, EPA could print copies of the electronic 

documents for review purposes. 

2. ADEQ should ensure, with the submittal of the final SIP, it demonstrates it has followed the 

requirements of Appendix V to Part 51. EPA also suggests that ADEQ edit the paragraph 

"Public Notice" page 2.1 to include a reference to Appendix V of Part 51. Lastly, EPA 

suggests the documentation showing that ADEQ complied with Appendix V of Part 51 be 

included in SIP Appendix 2-1 ("Public Participation Process") of the SIP submittal. 

ADEQ accepted the EPA’s comment and amended Chapter 2 to reference Section 2.1(f) 

of Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51. ADEQ reviewed the contents of Appendix 2.1 and 

added a photocopy of public notice of the opportunity to comment on the Regional Haze 

SIP. Appendix 2.1 now contains the required documentation of compliance with the 

provisions of Appendix V to Part 51. 

3. In general, ADEQ should ensure that it has specifically addressed each requirement of 

Section 51.308, even if it feels specific requirements don't apply or appear to be self evident. 

In the Regional Haze SIP package sent to the EPA, ADEQ inadvertently submitted an 

incomplete draft version of Appendix 1.2, Guide to Locating Section 308 Requirements. 

The final SIP package contains the completed Appendix 1.2. ADEQ asserts that all 

requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.308 have been addressed in its draft SIP and does 
31

not find it necessary to elaborate further. Appendix 1.2, Guide to Locating Section 308 

Requirements references the locations in the SIP where these requirements are located. 

4. In the final SIP submission, all graphs and charts originally produced with color coded lines 

and bars should be reproduced in color, as black and white reproduction does not allow the 

identification of the individual items. This should be ensured in both printed and electronic 

versions of SIP, including all appendices. 

All material intended for reproduction in color will be so. 

5. In section 10.3, ADEQ states that a description of the consultation process can be found in 

Appendix 10.2. However, Appendix 10.2 itself contains additional appendices that are 

named in the sequence from “Appendixe-1” to “Appendixe-11,” plus an additional directory 

entitled "Stakeholder Consultations," which itself contains an additional ten documents. It 

does not appear these appendices are discussed; therefore their significance is difficult to 

determine. Other examples exist in other appendices. 

The “additional appendices” contained in Appendix 10.2 were sequentially 

numbered one through ten. For clarification they have been combined into one 

document. Additionally, Appendix 10.2b, Stakeholder Consultations, has been 

changed to Appendix 10.3 Arkansas Consultation Letters. 

a. ADEQ should informatively and uniquely name all appendices and list all 

appendices (even the sub appendices) in the table of contents so the reader can easily 

determine what documents an appendix contains and where that document can be 

found. 

The format of the draft Arkansas Regional Haze SIP follows the CENRAP SIP 

template as applicable. Referenced appendices are listed at the end of each 

chapter. 

b. ADEQ should ensure each appendix is referenced within the body of the SIP text in 

the appropriate section, and its contents discussed and related to satisfying a 

particular aspect of the regional haze regulations. 

A revision was made to reference Appendix 5.3 in Chapter 5. All other 

appendices are discussed in their relevant chapters. 

6. It appears the New IMPROVE equation on page 17 should be re-written as there are font 

problems and the equation is not clear. 

The new IMPROVE equation reflects the differences from the default IMPROVE 

algorithm by the use of bold-faced notation. The distinction in fonts was introduced in 

the original documentation, is faithfully reproduced and intentional. 

7. On page 19, ADEQ states, regarding the natural visibility conditions, "Appendix 5.1 

provides calculations and methodologies. Appendix 5.2 includes a demonstration of the 
32

appropriateness of these values for Caney Creek WA and Upper Buffalo WA as well as a 

discussion of the reasons for the selection of the methodology." Appendix 5.1 does not 

appear to contain the stated material and instead contains a paper on the new IMPROVE 

equation. Appendix 5.2 is missing, as is Appendix 5.3, which is listed at the end of Chapter 

5. It does not appear that ADEQ has provided the necessary data and calculations to enable 

Region 6 to assess whether it has satisfied the requirements in Section 5 1.308(d)(2) 

regarding the calculation of the natural visibility and baseline values. ADEQ should provide 

this information, including all data and calculations so that its calculations for natural 

visibility, current conditions, and consequently Arkansas' uniform rate of progress can be 

evaluated. 

The natural background conditions were calculated by Scott Copeland, CIRA/USFS, and 

Rodger Ames, Colorado State University. The conditions were calculated using a SAS 

program. ADEQ does not have SAS capability; therefore, EPA can access all of Mr. 

Copeland and Mr. Ames’ work on the following ftp site: 

ftp://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Public/Schichtel/ . The username is cira\guest and the 

password is orion. In addition, Mr. Copeland, Mr. Ames, and Mr. Pitchford wrote a 

paper detailing the methodology used in the development of the natural background 

conditions titled “Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the Revised 

IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed Light Extinction Algorithm”. Therefore, ADEQ is 

submitting the afore-mentioned paper in Appendix 5.1. ADEQ is of the opinion the 

papers in Appendix 5.1 will satisfy the requirements in §51.308(d)(2). 

8. In its consultation letter to ODEQ, dated 8/17/07, ADEQ responds to ADEQ's concern 

regarding the Future Fuel Chemical Facility. Additional information should be provided that 

explains why this facility was not considered for inclusion in ADEQ's reasonable progress 

strategy. This should include emission information and the levels of control currently 

employed at this facility on the more significant emission sources, and an evaluation of the 

potential of additional controls. 

The Regional Haze Rule does not require ADEQ to single out non-BART sources for 

inclusion in its reasonable progress strategy. ADEQ determined that the subject facility 

was BART-Eligible, conducted modeling analyses and determined that it was not 

subject to BART. ADEQ’s progress strategy does not include “beyond BART” controls 

at permitted facilities. Additional analysis and evaluation of the potential for additional 

controls is not required at this time. It should also be noted that ADEQ’s BART 

determination modeling was a more conservative approach because the maximum 

impact rather than the 98th percentile was used to determine a subject-to-BART source. 

Using this conservative assumption, ADEQ determined that the subject facility is not a 

significant emission source. 

9. Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires ADEQ to submit an emissions inventory that must include 

emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are 

available, and estimates of future projected emissions. ADEQ has supplied an inventory for 

the baseline year, and for 2018. EPA understands that ADEQ has emission inventory data 

available for 2005 and requests that it be included in the SIP. The preamble to the 1999 
33

Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35745) clarifies EPA authority for requiring the emission 

inventory of the "most recent year for which data are available," under 51.308(d)(4)(v): 

“Requirements Under Section 110(a) (2) of the CAA. Visibility SIP submittals must 

document certain program infrastructure capabilities consistent with the requirements of 

section 169B(e)(2) and section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Section 169(B)(e)(2) requires 

States to revise their section 110 SIPS to "contain such emission limits, schedules of 

compliance, and other measures as may be necessary" to carry out regulations 

promulgated pursuant to this section. 

The EPA believes that this language authorizes EPA to ensure that States review their 

existing program infrastructures to ensure that the types of elements required by section 

1 10(a)(2) for programs addressing the NAAQS are also sufficient for adoption and 

implementation of SIP measures for regional haze. The final rule does not include 

specific provisions addressing all elements of section 110(a)(2). However, section 5 

1.308(d)(4)(iv) of the final rule requires the State to maintain and update periodically a 

statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. 

Where a State is also revising its SIP to incorporate changes to address the PM2.5 

NAAQS, many of these revisions may be sufficient to address both PM2.5 and regional 

haze. The EPA encourages States to consider the needs of both programs when updating 

the provisions required by section 110 of the CAA to minimize any administrative 

burdens." 

EPA requests that ADEQ contrast its 2005 emission inventory with that from its baseline 

year of 2002, and 201 8, in order to serve as a check of the EI projection methodology. 

In a conversation with Guy Donaldson, of EPA Region 6, discussing this comment, Mr. 

Donaldson stated that ADEQ should have available the emission inventory for 2005. 

ADEQ has included in Appendix 7.1A the 2002 point source inventory, but not the onroad, off-road and nonpoint inventory, which will be developed by EPA Headquarters. 

 ADEQ contacted Anne Pope, Environmental Engineer, in the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. She reported that the 2005 emission inventory will not be 

ready until the end of September 2008. Until the 2005 emission inventory is published, 

we will not be able to provide that information. 

10. As required by Section 51.308(d)(4)(v), ADEQ should include in its SIP a commitment 

to update the emission inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in its Class I areas 

periodically. It is suggested this commitment be placed within the "Future Monitoring 

Strategy" section on page 23. 

ADEQ’s commitment to conduct on-going inventories is contained in Chapter 7 

of the draft SIP, and reads, “the point source inventories will be updated on an 

annual basis and the nonpoint, on-road, nonroad mobile inventories will be 

updated every three years according to the Consolidated Emissions Reporting 

Rule.” 
34

11. ADEQ should confirm that all significant sources of PM, SO2 and NOx were included 

in its 2018 modeling projections, including those sources that will be online prior to 

2018 (e.g., SWEPCO John W. Turk, Jr. Power Plant, Plum Point II). This is a 

requirement under Section 51.308(d)(3)(iv): "The State must identify all anthropogenic 

sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its long-term 

strategy. The State should consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, 

and area sources.” 

To the best of ADEQ’s knowledge, all currently operating facilities were 

included in the 2018 modeling projection. The specifically-referenced facilities 

are not currently under construction and have not received the air permits 

necessary to commence construction and operation. At such time as these and 

other facilities go “on-line” they will be considered as existing facilities and 

treated accordingly in future assessments. 

12. Language on page 24, states the complete 2002 emissions inventory is contained in 

Appendix 7.1. However, the point source data is missing, and should be supplied, in 

accordance with the requirements of Section 51.308(d)(v). 

ADEQ has amended Appendix 7.1A to include the point source data, see 

response to EPA comment number nine. 

13. It does not appear that ADEQ has provided any information regarding its consultations 

with Texas, as required by Section 5 1.308(d)(l)(iv). As is noted in Appendixe-9 (and in 

the Texas regional haze SIP), TX contributes more SO4 to the visibility problem at 

Caney Creek than does any other state, including Arkansas. Region 6 would like to 

know what consultations occurred between Arkansas and Texas regarding this situation, 

and what attempts were made by ADEQ to secure commitments from Texas to reduce 

the emissions from its sources that are contributing to the visibility problems at its Class 

I areas. 

As described in Chapter 10 and its appendices, Texas participated in the Interstate 

Consultations that were hosted jointly by Arkansas and Missouri. Arkansas also 

participated in the Interstate Consultations that have been hosted by Texas. Due to the 

fact that modeled visibility projections for Class 1 Areas in Arkansas showed a rate of 

progress exceeding that representing a uniform rate of progress, ADEQ did not find it 

necessary to “secure commitments from Texas” or other states as a means of reaching 

its progress goals. Additional documentation of consultations with Texas has been 

incorporated in the draft SIP Appendix 10.3. 

14. It would be helpful if ADEQ listed the facility names in the BART emission reduction 

summaries in Tables 9.3 so the reader doesn't have to jump back and forth to Table 9.2 

to get that information. In addition, a common method of referring to sources should be 

adopted between the tables and figures (e.g., SWEPCO, Fig 9.1 = 04-00107, Table 9.3a 

= AEP/Gentry, Table 9.1 = American Electric Power, Figure 4 BART modeling 

protocol). 
35

The Tables and Figures have been reformatted as requested. 

15. ADEQ should greatly expand its discussion of BART in the main body of the SIP. All of 

the many BART appendices should be individually addressed and their significance 

integrated into the Section 9. Each BART source should be individually discussed and 

the rational for its BART determination should be made clear. 

ADEQ does not feel the need to expand the discussion on the subject-to-BART sources. 

All information pertaining to BART sources is located in Chapter 9 appendices. Each of 

Chapter 9’s appendices are referenced in the text and discussed where applicable. 

16. ADEQ should discuss why there is not exact correspondence between those sources 

identified as BART (presumably BART-eligible) in Table 9.1B-2 (spreadsheet) and the 

BART-eligible sources listed in Table 9.1, and Table 2 of the BART Modeling Protocol 

in Appendix 9.2a. (e.g., Entergy Blytheville and others). ADEQ should also explain 

why the sources included in the BART exemption modeling protocol in Appendix 9.2d 

do not seem to match the listing of BART eligibles in the above mentioned spreadsheet. 

A new appendix, Appendix 9.4B, has been added to Chapter 9 to include 

correspondence between ADEQ and the subject-to-BART sources. Table 9.1B-2 has 

been corrected to reflect the removal of Entergy/Blytheville and Terra Nitrogen from the 

BART-eligible sources. Both facilities’ permits were voided and the plants are no 

longer in operation. Entergy/Blytheville’s permit was voided December 2, 2000 and 

Terra Nitrogen’s was voided January 19, 2004. Tables 2, 3 C-1 and C-2 in the ADEQ 

BART Modeling Protocol have been corrected to reflect the name changes of the 

following BART-eligible sources: International Paper, Pine Bluff; Eastman Chemical, 

El Dorado. International Paper is now Evergreen, Pine Bluff and Eastman Chemical is 

now FutureFuel. 

17. Section 5 1.308(e) requires "The State must submit an implementation plan containing 

emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for 

each BART eligible source that may reasonably [emphasis added] be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal 

area." As discussed in the BART rule (70 FR 39161): 

"In setting a threshold for "contribution," you should consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' 

impacts. In general, a larger number of sources causing impacts in a Class I area may 

warrant a lower contribution threshold. States remain free to use a threshold lower than 

0.5 deciviews if they conclude that the location of a large number of BART-eligible 

sources within the State and in proximity to a Class I area justify this approach." 

Although ADEQ mentions this on page 43, it does not discuss why, when performing 

BART modeling, it selected a threshold of 0.5 dv. The exemption threshold value 

selected by ADEQ in determining whether a BART-eligible source can reasonably be 
36

 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment must be specified in the SIP 

documentation, as must the basis for the selection of this threshold. ADEQ should 

discuss why the selection of a 0.5 dv threshold was determined to be reasonable under 

Section 51.308(e). This is especially important in light of this statement on page 4-1 of 

the EVIRON BART modeling report in Appendix 9.2d: "Despite these apparent 

visibility improvements, the cumulative visibility impacts due to all Arkansas BART 

sources in the post-control case still exceed 1 del-dv at most Class I areas of interest." In 

light of this, Region 6 feels that ADEQ should give strong consideration to setting a 

lower threshold. 

In accordance with the discussion in the BART Rule that describes how to establish 

an appropriate contribution threshold, ADEQ used the 0.5 dv value that is described 

as the highest appropriate threshold14. Since one deciview (1 dv) constitutes the 

lowest measurable degree of light extinction, ADEQ finds a threshold of 0.5 

deciview (dv) to be more than reasonable. While model outputs may be expressed in 

decimal notation, this does not represent a measurable difference. ADEQ would be 

hard-pressed to justify a lower threshold if challenged to demonstrate the ability to 

measure the degree of change in light extinction. There is no requirement to provide 

a rationale for use of a particular threshold value of 0.5 dv or less. 

18. On page 43, ADEQ briefly transitions from sources that were found to be BARTeligible, to those found to be subject to BART. However, very little information was 

presented that describes how the BART-eligible sources were examined to determine 

which were actually subject to BART. ADEQ should therefore greatly expand this 

section of its SIP. ADEQ states that Appendix 9.2B contains the modeling input and 

output files for each BART-eligible source. However, these files were not found in 

Appendix 9.2B. Appendix 9.2C contains zipped "Entergy" and "Trinity" files but these 

are not discussed and it is not apparent these files cover all BART exemption modeling. 

ADEQ disagrees with the first part of EPA’s comment number 18. The appropriate 

Information is provided in Appendix 9.2C, Subject-to-BART CALPUFF postcontrol modeling input and output files. The ADEQ BART Modeling Protocol 

located in Appendix 9.2A describes “how the BART-eligible sources were examined 

to determine which were actually subject to BART.” Hence, ADEQ does not feel 

the need to “expand this section in of its SIP.” ADEQ has added BART-exemption 

CALPUFF modeling input and output files to Appendix 9.2B that were inadvertently 

left out of the SIP package. 

 

19. ADEQ should ensure that it includes in its regional haze SIP a five factor analysis for 

each source that undergoes a BART determination, in compliance with Section 

51.308(e)(l)(ii)(A). 

14 As a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source “contributes” to visibility 

impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. – 70 FR 39161 
37

The five-factor analysis for each facility is contained in the Engineering Analysis 

that ADEQ required each facility to submit for subsequent BART reviews and 

determinations. These analyses are included as Appendix 9.3A. 

20. ADEQ has not adequately addressed the requirements under Section 51.308(d)(l) to 

address reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. On page 59, 

ADEQ refers the reader to Appendix 10.1 for its reasonable progress analysis. Appendix 

10.1 consists of two pages that discuss why Arkansas should not have to address the four 

factors that States are required to take into consideration in determining reasonable 

progress under CAA § 169A(g)(l) and 40 CFR §51.308(d)(l)(i)(A). ADEQ seems to be 

arguing that because its rate of progress, if sustained, will result in a return to natural 

visibility prior to 2064, then consideration of the four statutory factors are moot. As 

Region 6 has consistently informed States throughout the regional haze SIP 

development process, this interpretation of the regional haze rule is incorrect. The 

glidepath is an analytical requirement; it is neither a target nor a safe harbor. As such, 

ADEQ cannot rely on meeting the glidepath to justify its reasonable progress goals. In 

fact, this subject is covered under Reasonable Progress Question 3 under the 9/27/06 Q 

and A document: 

"What if a State is on the glidepath, but can still install cost effective controls? Is it 

obligated to install those controls? 

From the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35732), EPA explained: 

"If the State determines that the amount of progress identified through the analysis is 

reasonable based upon the statutory factors, the State should identify this amount of 

progress as its reasonable progress goal for the first long-term strategy, unless it 

determines that additional progress beyond this amount is also reasonable. If the State 

determines that additional progress is reasonable based on the statutory factors, the State 

should adopt that amount of progress as its goal for the first long-term strategy." 

The statutory factors must be applied before determining whether given emission reduction 

measures are reasonable. For example, even if emissions reductions from one source category 

are projected to be enough to achieve the uniform rate of progress towards natural background 

in 60 years, States should not forego an analysis of what degradation is being caused by 

pollutants from other source categories, or what improvements could be made by controlling 

them. 

Considering the influence of neighboring states on the visibility at its two Class I areas, Region 

6 emphasizes that it is very important that ADEQ not only revisit this process but also reopen its 

consultation process under Section 5 1.308(d)(l)(iv) and, where appropriate, aggressively 

negotiate emission reductions from those states whose sources cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment at its Class I areas. 

From the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35721), EPA explained “The EPA 

anticipates that as a result of the more-refined analyses required by this rule, some States 

may conclude that control strategies specifically for protection of visibility are not 
38

 

needed at this time because the analyses may show that existing measures are sufficient 

to meet reasonable progress goals.” ADEQ is not relying on the “glidepath” representing 

a uniform rate of progress to meet reasonable progress goals. ADEQ relied on the 

language of the Regional Haze Rule and interpretive guidance provided by the EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division when 

developing its approach to determining reasonable progress goals. Much of the guidance 

contained in the document cited in EPA’s comment15 was superseded by the EPA 

guidance that ADEQ followed when developing its reasonable progress goals16. Section 

4.1 of this guidance indicates that reductions associated with the application of BART 

and other CAA programs “will be an important step in determining your RPG, and it 

may be all that is necessary to achieve reasonable progress in the first planning period 

for some States.” ADEQ stands behind its assertion that it has established reasonable 

progress goals in an appropriate manner. ADEQ addressed the four-step analytical 

requirement described in the referenced Preamble and determined that its primary means 

of achieving visibility improvement goals would be through control of BART sources. 

The modeling assessments that were conducted by CENRAP on behalf of Arkansas and 

other CENRAP states project substantial visibility improvements at Arkansas’s Class 1 

Areas. 

21. ADEQ devotes two sentences on page 64 to its consultation process and references 

Appendix 10.2. Region 6 does not regard this information as satisfying the consultation 

requirements under Section 5 1.308(d)(l)(iv). The following comments pertain to this: 

a) As stated elsewhere, Appendix 10.2 contains many documents, none of which are 

discussed or related to the regional haze SIP. Region 6 regards the State consultation 

requirements under Section 5 1.308( d)(l)(iv) as being very important to the development of 

Arkansas' reasonable progress goal and ADEQ should greatly expand this part of its SIP. 

As stated in ADEQs response to EPA comment number 5(a) above, the format of 

Appendix 10.2 has been modified for clarification. Appendix 10.2 is a description of the 

consultations that were hosted by Arkansas and Missouri, the document is entitled, 

“Interagency Consultation Process in Establishing Reasonable Progress Goals,” and is 

directly related to the draft regional haze SIP. ADEQ has provided additional 

information regarding its consultations with other States in Chapter 10.3 of the draft 

Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. 

b) Appendix E to the CENRAP modeling TSD in Appendix 8-1 indicates that the Class I 

areas in Arkansas are significantly impacted by other States. In fact, it appears that Texas 

sources contribute more to the visibility problem at Caney Creek than do Arkansas' own 

sources. Other States, both inside and outside of Region 6 and CENRAP also significantly 

15 Additional Regional Haze Questions – Sept. 27, 2006 Revision 

16 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards – Air Quality Policy Division Geographic 

Strategies Group, June 1, 2007 - rev. 
39

contribute to that visibility problem. However, it does not appear that ADEQ has taken any 

significant steps to attempt to obtain source reductions from these states. 

Since projected visibility improvements at Arkansas’s Class I areas met the reasonable 

progress goals developed by ADEQ, there was no need to attempt to obtain specific 

source reductions from other States. It should be noted that other States will be 

achieving reductions that will benefit Arkansas Class I areas without ADEQ interference 

with their programs. 

c) ADEQ states it consulted with the other states and Tribes which are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in its Class I areas. In so doing, it 

references Appendix 10.2. However, this appendix only contains minimal documentation on the 

consultations and nothing from Texas and Oklahoma. 

Additional documentation regarding ADEQ’s participation in interstate consultations 

has been provided. Both Texas and Oklahoma were participants in ADEQ-sponsored 

consultations and ADEQ participated in consultations hosted by these States. Tribal 

participation was also solicited. EPA staff participated in many of these consultations. 

ADEQ has committed to on-going consultations to the extent that they might be 

reasonably required in the future. 

d) Appendix 10.2 includes a 7/23/2007 letter sent by ADEQ to participants in its 

consultation process. That letter apparently describes a position ADEQ adopted in which it 

determined that since it projects, it will meet its Uniform Rate of Progress goals, it did not need 

to pursue source reductions with States whose sources affect the visibility at its Class I areas. As 

indicated in the previous comment above, this is a flawed strategy and has fundamentally 

undermined Arkansas' consultation efforts. 

See (b) above. The Regional Haze Rule does not require a State to seek specific 

emission reductions from other States when its established reasonable progress goals can 

be met. The implication that “this is a flawed strategy and has fundamentally 

undermined Arkansas’s consultation efforts” is without merit and demagogic. The 

interstate consultation requirement is described in the Regional Haze Rule at 

51.308(d)(3)(i). This section states 

“Where the State has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another 

State or States, the State must consult with the other State(s) in order to develop 

coordinated emission management strategies. The State must consult with any 

other State having emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State.” 

As described elsewhere, Arkansas and Missouri hosted joint consultations with all States 

that were determined to have a reasonable potential for contributing to visibility 

impairment in their respective Class I areas and participated in consultations hosted by 

other States as well. These consultations included discussions of how each State 
40

intended to achieve the emission reductions considered necessary for reasonable 

progress in each identified Class I area. There was general consensus that Arkansas 

would be able to achieve its goals without requiring other States to achieve specific 

reductions beyond those already planned for by those States. 

22. It does not appear that ADEQ has included the Alpine Geophysical CENRAP 

Regional Haze Control Strategy Analysis Plan within its SIP. This document, along with the 

EnvironLJCR Technical Support Document which was included, should be featured in its 

SIP, broadly discussed along with any additional pertinent data, and used to inform ADEQ 

in the revision of its reasonable progress goal. 

ADEQ did not use the Alpine Geophysics Control Strategy Analysis Plan in the 

development of its SIP. ADEQ does not intend to revise its reasonable progress goals. 

23. ADEQ should greatly expand its reasonable progress section. In particular, ADEQ 

should provide documentation for the reasonable progress goals depicted in Table 10.3. 

ADEQ’s reasonable progress goals are based on CENRAP-modeled projections of the 

future-year base case run. As referenced in Chapter 10, a discussion of this approach is 

included in Appendix 10.2. 

24. ADEQ should demonstrate, as required by Section 5 1.308(D)(l)(vi) that its 

reasonable progress goal does not represent less visibility improvement than is expected to 

result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA. 

ADEQ relied on the modeling assessments conducted by CENRAP. This modeling included 

all reductions associated with all federal “on the books” control strategies. Since this 

modeling also included the reductions associated with implementation of BART at selected 

Arkansas facilities, it represents more visibility improvement than would be recognized 

through implementation of other federal CAA requirements. 

25. ADEQ should discuss the PSAT Source Apportionment results of the CAMx runs 

(Appendix E of the TSD) in the context of the development of its reasonable progress 

strategy and long term strategy. Region 6 also considers this a valuable tool in the 

consultation process for informing ADEQ of the potential emissions impact on neighboring 

states. 

The referenced PSAT Source Apportionment results, while informative to some extent, 

were not useful for determining reasonable progress and not discrete enough to use for longterm strategy development. These results were useful in the determination of which states, 
41

based on modeled contributions, Arkansas and Missouri decided to include in their interstate 

consultations. 

26. Region 6 does not believe that ADEQ has adequately addressed the requirements 

under Section 5 1.308(d)(3) regarding its obligation to construct a long term strategy for 

regional haze. As stated above, Arkansas' Class I areas are significantly impacted by sources 

in other States. Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that Arkansas consult with any other State 

having emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State. It does not appear that ADEQ has 

conducted that consultation for all the States that significantly affect the visibility at its 

Class I areas (e.g., Texas) nor does it appear that ADEQ has attempted to secure emissions 

reductions from those States as part of its long term strategy. 

ADEQ has conducted interstate consultations to the extent that it found appropriate. 

Texas did participate in consultations co-hosted by Arkansas and Missouri and, 

conversely, ADEQ participated in consultations conducted by Texas. EPA staff also 

participated in these consultations. There is no obligation for ADEQ to seek reductions 

from other states. The comment fails to acknowledge that emission reductions from 

other States will be realized through actions being taken by those states and that the 

consultation process that was conducted included discussions of expected control 

measures on a state-by-state basis. 

27. On page 66, ADEQ states that CENRAP and ADEQ analyses indicate that the 

impact of anthropogenic emissions from Arkansas sources has not been shown to 

appreciably affect visibility in Class 1 areas, other than the four located in Arkansas and 

Missouri. However, although Appendix E to the CENRAP modeling TSD in Appendix 8-1 

discusses Arkansas' contribution to Class I areas to its north and west, it does not address 

those directly to its northeast or East (e.g., Sipsey). ADEQ should quantify the effect of its 

sources on the visibility of these Class I areas. 

ADEQ has quantified Arkansas’s subject-to-BART source cumulative contribution of 

visibility degradation at ten Class I areas of interest, including Sipsey. ADEQ has also 

quantified Arkansas’s individual subject-to-BART source visibility impacts across the 5 

primary Class I areas of interest, Caney Creek, Hercules Glade Mingo, Upper Buffalo, 

and Sipsey Wilderness Areas. This information is contained in Appendix 9.2D, 

ENVIRON Final Report, and is consistent with the ADEQ’s subject-to-BART 

CALPUFF modeling. 

 

28. Regarding its consideration of the need to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities on page 68, ADEQ states: "Due to certain limitations on regulatory authorities that 

are included in the Arkansas Water and Air Quality Control Act, the opportunities to 

mitigate air emissions from construction activities are limited." ADEQ should provide more 

information on these limitations and how they impact its ability to address this requirement. 
42

Section 8-4-305 of The Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act states that “The 

provisions of this subchapter do not apply to: ---; (4) Land clearing operations or land 

grading; (5) Road construction operations and the use of mobile and portable equipment and 

machinery incident thereto; ---.” It would require legislative action for these exceptions to 

be removed from the Act and to give ADEQ explicit regulatory authority over these 

activities. A footnote referencing this regulatory citation has been added to Section 

11.4.1.5. 

29. On pages 69 and 71, ADEQ evaluates the need for additional control measures as 

part of its Long Term Strategy. Considering the above comments on Arkansas' reasonable 

progress goals, ADEQ should: 

a) Reconsider its response on page 69 to the requirement in Section 

5 1.308(d)(3)(v)(C) to consider emissions limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve its reasonable progress goal. 

b) Correct the language on page 71 : 

"Since Arkansas has demonstrated that it can meet or exceed established 

URPs, it is not necessary to evaluate the emission reductions potential of 

point sources other than those BART-eligible sources that are specifically 

regulated in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.” 

As stated above, the statutory factors must be evaluated before a State can conclude that 

additional control measures are not necessary. 

ADEQ asserts that it has addressed the statutory factors and does not find it necessary to 

make the suggested changes. 

30. ADEQ should indicate where in its SIP it addressed the requirement under Section 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(G) to consider the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the longterm strategy. Region 6 is particularly interested in information that would confirm the 2018 

projections summarized in Table 7.2. 

Changes in the emission inventory for all anthropogenic source categories were projected as 

described in Section 7 of the SIP. Figures 7.1, and 7.2 show the relationship between 2002 

and 2018 emissions by anthropogenic source category. The net effect of emissions from all 

source categories was modeled and shown to result in significant visibility improvement. 

31. ADEQ should indicate where in its SIP it addressed the requirement under Section 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(A) to consider emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
43

programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment 

[emphasis added]. 

ADEQ’s current Visibility Protection SIP was promulgated on September 24, 2007. As 

required by this SIP, ADEQ’s latest three-year review was submitted on July 17, 2007. Until 

such time as Arkansas’s Regional Haze SIP is approved, the Visibility Protection SIP will 

continue to serve as the mechanism for compliance with the requirements of 

§51.308(d)(3)(v)(A). In accordance with its current Visibility Protection SIP, ADEQ will 

continue to comply with the requirements of §51.308(d)(3)(v)(A) by starting the three-year 

visibility review in February 2009 if its Regional Haze SIP is not approved prior to January 

2009. 
44

Response to Region 6 Review of ADEQ’s Responses to BART Engineering Analyses 

Comments Emailed on 5/1/07 

Comments 1 – 9 ADEQ has not officially approved the subject-to-BART sources’ engineering 

analyses. These analyses will be reviewed and approved or rejected during the permit process.

Region 6 Review of ADEQ's Responses to BART Engineering Analyses 

Comments Emailed on 5/1/07 

Note: The following are extracted from ADEQ’s response to comments Region 6 emailed on 

5/1/07 concerning the BART engineering analysis that was reviewed prior to the draft SIP. 

Region 6 focuses herein on major points that it feels remain to be resolved, although it reserves 

the right to offer further comments during the final review of the SIP.

1. Arkansas Electric Cooperative's (AEC) SO2 analysis for the Bailey and McClellan units 

considered two options - wet scrubbers and switching to low sulfur fuel. The wet scrubbers 

would have cost $2,108.25/ton for the Bailey unit and $1,658.32/ton for the McClellan unit. 

Switching to 1% sulfur fuel would have resulted in a cost to the units of $54.90/ton and 

$158.60/ton, respectively. However, the scrubbers would have removed 95% of the SO2 in 

comparison to the fuel switch removing only 55% of the SO2 at the Bailey unit, and only 65% 

at the McClellan unit. How was it determined that the $2100/ton and $1600/ton controls, 

which would have removed another 40% were not cost effective? Why did ADEQ not require 

both scrubbers and low sulfur fuel, since the latter's cost is relatively minor? 

ADEQ Response: The five-factor analysis considers more than economic feasibility. ADEQ 

ruled out SO2 scrubbers based on the energy impacts and non-air quality environmental impacts 

as well as the significant increase in costs. 

Region 6 Response: Tables 9.4b and 9.4c,on page 50, indicate that even after switching to 1% 

sulfur fuel, these facilities are still projected to have very significant impacts on both the Caney 

Creek and the Upper Buffalo Class I areas. ADEQ states in its response: "The five-factor 

analysis considers more than economic feasibility. ADEQ ruled out SO2 scrubbers based on 

the energy impacts and non-air quality environmental impacts as well as the significant increase 

in costs." It does not appear that ADEQ included its five factor analysis for these facilities, so 

Region 6 cannot evaluate the energy impacts and non-air quality environmental impacts. 

However, it does appear the costs are reasonable. Region 6 notes that since ADEQ states in 

Appendix 9.1 the primary fuel for these boilers is natural gas, a permit revision restricting the 

fuel to natural gas is also an option. 

2. AEC proposes a switch to 1 % sulfur fuel oil. On page 39171 of the July 5, 2005 BART 

rule (70 FR 39171), EPA states, "For oil-fired units, regardless of size, you should evaluate 

limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil burned to 1 percent or less by weight." Region 6 notes 

that similar facilities across the U.S. use fuel oil with a sulfur content as 
45

 

low as 0.05%. What criteria did ADEQ use to make a determination that a lower sulfur content 

was not cost effective?

ADEQ Response: 0.05% fuel oil is significantly more expensive. For example, the cost could 

be 16 times greater than the cost of 1% sulfur content fuel oil. 

Region 6 Response: Concerning BART limits for SO2 from oil-fired units, EPA notes in 70 FR 

39134 (published July 6, 2005): "States should accordingly evaluate a one percent sulfur content 

limitation as a starting point of their BART determination for oil-fired EGUs subject to BART." 

Accordingly, ADEQ should supply the documentation for the cost for lower sulfur content fuel 

oils, and by application of the five factors reassess whether a lower sulfur fuel oils should be 

required. 

3. The Domtar Ashdown Mills BART analysis states on page 4-3 that even 100% SO2 

control on Boiler 1 would not significantly affect visibility at any Class I area, because that 

boiler burns predominantly wood products. However, R6 notes that boiler (p. 2-1) is actually 

permitted to burn up to 2,700,000 gallons per year of fuel oil, and the sulfur content of the fuel 

used is limited to 3.0 percent by weight. ADEQ should explain how the addition of fuel oil to 

the fuel mix was considered in the BART analysis, and why a restriction on burning low sulfur 

fuel (see above comment on sulfur content) should not be viewed as BART. 

ADEQ Response: At the Department's request, Domtar revised the SO2 limits for Boiler 1. 

Domtar will be restricted to an SO2 limit of 1.12 lb/MMBtu at this source. This is consistent 

with the BART limits imposed on the other sources in the state. 

Region 6 Response: What is the percentage of sulfur in this fuel oil? 

R6 also notes both Boilers 1 and 2 are permitted to burn tire-derived fuel (TDF). The Domtar 

Ashdown Mills BART analysis states on page 4-3, TDF usage (total for No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 

Power Boilers) is limited to 220 tons per day. Although TDF can contain a lower sulfur content 

than some coals, it has been estimated to contain between 0.86 - 2.8%17, which is potentially 

significant, considering the visibility impact the Domtar facility has on the visibility of the 

Caney Creek Class I area. Therefore, ADEQ should explain how the addition of TDF to the fuel 

mix was considered in the BART analysis, and why conventional sulfur control should not be 

considered in the BART analysis. 

Domtar Response: The addition of TDF to the fuel mix was part of the composite fuel mix 

utilized in the BART analysis. No. 2 Power Boiler has an existing wet scrubber for SO2 and 

particulate control. Since wet scrubbing is the most effective method of controlling SO2 

emissions, no additional analysis was needed for SO2 emissions from No. 2 Power Boiler. On 

No. 1 Power Boiler, the addition of caustic to the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator was evaluated 

through modeling at a 90% SO2 reduction level. 

17 U.S. EPA, Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers, April 2002, EPA-600/R01-109, Table A-11 at:http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/aptb/EPA-600- R-01-109 A.pdf 
46

 

The results of the modeling showed no additional improvement at Caney Creek with this 

amount of SO2 control on No. 1 Power Boiler, and therefore add-on controls were not 

considered further. 

Region 6 Response: Regarding the No. 1 boiler, Domtar states that the addition of caustic to the 

wet precipitator was evaluated but did not show any improvements in visibility at Caney Creek. 

The evaluation does not appear to be included in the SIP. 

4. The Domtar Ashdown Mills BART analysis states on page 4-3 that no further BART 

analysis is merited for Boiler 2, since it employs a wet scrubber with a 90% control efficiency. 

R6 notes the presumptive limit for SO2 control for EGUs at power plants with a total generating 

capacity in excess of 750 MW is 95% control or 0.15 lbs/mmBtu. This indicates EPA believes 

this level of control can typically be met through the use of 

wet scrubbers at coal fired boilers. Regarding this, ADEQ should address how pollution 

prevention techniques, improvements to existing controls, and combinations of inherently 

lower-emitting processes (70 FR 39164) were considered. 

Domtar Response: The No. 2 Power Boiler is a swing boiler in a pulp and paper facility. It is 

not a base-loaded boiler at an EGU. As stated on page 4-3 of our BART analysis, the 90% 

control efficiency is the BART-based control efficiency presumed by the Central Regional Air 

Planning Association (CENRAP) and the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) for 

pulp and paper industry power boilers. 

Region 6 does not believe ADEQ has provided the kind of documentation necessary to 

demonstrate that it has considered, "[The use] of (and where already in place, improvement in 

the performance of) add-on controls, such as scrubbers, fabric filters, thermal oxidizers and 

other devices that control and reduce emissions after they are produced."18

5. Domtar eliminates the use of SNCR on the No. 1 and 2 power boilers due to technical 

infeasibility. The No. 1 boiler is primarily wood-fired and the No. 2 boiler is primarily coalfired. A review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (Process types 11.120 and 11.190) 

indicates there are several wood-fired utility boilers that employ SNCR. In particular, a very 

similar source, the bark boiler at the Temple Inland Kraft Linerboard Mill in Orange, TX 

employs SNCR, Low Excess Air (LEA), and low NOx gas burners. In addition, the 

Weyerhaeuser Red River Mill in Campti, Louisiana is planning on installing SNCR on its 940 

MMBtu/hr hogged fuel boiler. Both of these boilers exhibit some load swing. The 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse also lists numerous examples of SNCR being used on coalfired utility boilers. As a consequence, ADEQ should ensure that Domtar revises its BART 

analysis to consider the use of SNCR for both boilers. 

6. In its letter to the ADEQ, dated March 1,2007, Entergy addresses an ADEQ inquiry 

concerning why it feels the Lake Catherine Unit 4 boiler should be exempt from installing post 

combustion NOx controls. In its response, Entergy references the BART Guidelines 

18 70 FR 39164 
47

(70 FR 39172): 

"For oil-fired and gas-fired EGUs larger than 200MW, we believe that installation of 

current combustion control technology to control NOx is generally highly cost-effective 

and should be considered in your determination of BART for these sources. Many such 

units can make significant reductions in NOX emissions which are highly cost-effective 

through the application of current combustion control technology." 

The context of the above reference is with regard to whether EPA felt a presumptive emissions 

limit was appropriate for gas-fired EGUs. It was not intended to limit the consideration for 

BART of possible choices of cost effective post combustion controls for these sources. As a 

consequence, Region 6 does not believe Entergy adequately followed the BART guidelines, 

since it has not completed STEP 1-Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies, as 

outlined in 70 FR 39164, July 6, 2005. Region 6 requests that ADEQ direct Entergy to reassess its BART analysis for the Lake Catherine Plant to properly assess all control options, 

including post combustion controls, as outlined in the BART Guidelines. This should be done 

for both gas and oil firing and should include documented and detailed cost estimates for all 

control options that are technically feasible. 

 

Entergy should provide documentation for the efficiencies of the control equipment evaluated 

within its BART analysis for the Lake Catherine Plant. 

ADEQ Response: ADEQ copied a response from Entergy. Summarized herein, this response 

stated that Entergy had run a computer program that evaluated electrical generating unit 

performance and the capital and O&M cost associated with each identified control technology 

in a stepwise fashion and stopped the analyses when it felt that a cost threshold ceiling had been 

met. Entergy then supplied additional information that partially evaluated some additional 

control options that were not evaluated in its initial analyses, such as SNCR and SCR. 

Region 6 Response: ADEQ should ensure that the initial BART analysis for the Entergy the 

Lake Catherine Unit 4 boiler is revised to include this and the additional information that 

Entergy provide in response to the remaining Region 6 comments on its BART analysis. 

ADEQ should ensure this BART analysis specifically addresses all the steps outlined in the 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39 164, July 6, 2005). Region 6 emphasizes EGUs are required to 

follow the BART Guidelines in preparing their BART analyses.

Although Region 6 is not concerned the analyses be performed in a specific order, all the steps 

outlined in the BART Guidance must be specifically addressed. 

7. Entergy has conducted its BART analysis for the Lake Catherine Plant assuming the use 

of (1) 1% sulfur fuel when the Unit 4 boiler is oil fired, and (2) a 10% future capacity factor. To 

R6's knowledge, these limitations of Entergy's operations are not housed within its Title V 

permit. ADEQ should therefore include a commitment in its SIP to modify Entergy's Title V 

permit in time to ensure these limitations, should they be deemed BART, are operational no 

later than 5 years after SIP approval. 

ADEQ Response: As stated in a previous response, ADEQ has provided provisions in 
48

Reg 19 for all subject-to-BART sources to re-open their Title V permits. 

Region 6 Response: This response does not address the specific questions as to whether (1) 1% 

sulfer fuel limit will be imposed when the Unit 4 boiler is oil fired, and (2) a 10% future 

capacity factor will be imposed. Neither of these limitations is discussed in Reg 19 (although 

there is a 0.562lb/MMBtu SO2 limit). ADEQ should include a commitment in its SIP to modify 

Entergy's Title V permit in time to ensure these limitations, should they be deemed BART, are 

operational no later than 5 years after SIP approval. Region 6 has some remaining reservations 

regarding the level of NOx control Entergy has proposed for BART that may be submitted 

during the final review that could be attenuated depending on the outcome of this issue. 

8. The Entergy Lake Catherine BART analysis is limited to the analysis of the effects of 

the NOx emissions for Unit 4. However, the Title V permit for the Lake Catherine Facility 

indicates the permitted PM and SO2 emissions are above the de minimis limits of 40 tpy for 

SO2 and 15 tpy for PM10. Therefore, Entergy should either take a permit limit of these levels 

or lower, or Entergy should expand its BART analysis to include PM and S02. 

Response: The Entergy Lake Catherine BART analysis included PM and SO2 for oil firing. 

Species specific screening modeling conducted by ADEQ determined that PM and SO2 

emissions when combusting gas did not contribute to visibility degradation in any Class I area. 

Additionally, 

Region 6 Response: It does not appear ADEQ finished the response to this comment. 

9. The Entergy Lake Catherine and White Bluff BART analyses apparently assumes the 

auxiliary boiler, SN-05 is not subject to BART. Through correspondence with ADEQ, Region 

6 understands Entergy's reasoning for this is the answer to No. BART 19 of the document, 

"Additional Regional Haze Questions," dated 8/24/07: 

"Note, however, that if the auxiliary boilers are only used during startup, then since we do not 

model startup conditions, those boilers would not contribute any emissions to the modeled 

visibility impact from the source; therefore those particular boilers may be exempted." 

However, SN-05 is permitted for 8760 hrs/yr of operation. Although Entergy has historically 

employed this unit far less than that, the potential for greater use exits due to the permit limit. 

Therefore, Entergy should either include SN-05 in the BART analysis assuming 8760 hrs/yr of 

operation, or revise its permit to reflect this unit's historical function. 

Response: At the Department's request, Entergy - White Bluff accepted an operation limit of 

4360 hours annually. Please refer to Regulation 19.1505 (L). 

Region 6 Response: Since Entergy feels it must retain this level of operational flexibility for 

SN-05, then it should perform its BART analysis on this basis.

EPA submitted several comments specific to engineering analyses that were submitted 

by BART-eligible facilities, the control scenarios that were proposed and the resulting 
49

ADEQ determination of appropriate BART emission limits. ADEQ reviewed the 

information provided by these facilities to establish BART emission limits. These limits 

were modeled for each source in order to establish that the reductions achieved would 

mitigate impacts on affected Class I areas. The resulting emission limits were 

incorporated in the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Regulation Number 19, 

Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control. 

Regulation 19 does not specify the control technologies that each BART source will 

eventually install. At such time as a facility is required to install BART controls, it will 

be required to submit a Title 5 Permit application that specifies controls that result in 

emission reductions that are equivalent to, or greater than, those specified in the SIP. 

EPA will have an opportunity to review these permit applications at such time. 
50

Comments Received From Entergy and AEP 

Note: The only timely public comments that were submitted were from two electric utilities 

that would be directly impacted by the BART provisions in the SIP. The following 

addresses these comments collectively. The public comments submitted by these companies 

are included below, followed by ADEQ’s response. 

Arkansas Environmental Support

425 West Capitol Avenue 

A-TCBY-22D 

Little Rock, AR 72203 

Mark C. Bowles, Manager 

Arkansas Environmental 

Support

AR-08-048 

July 21, 2008 

Doug Szenher 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Public Outreach and Assistance Division 

5301 Northshore Drive 

North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118-5317 

Subject: Comments on Arkansas Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan (SIP)

 

Dear Mr. Szenher, 

Entergy commends the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for the steps 

taken to implement the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), 40 CFR 51.308. 

Entergy is pleased to have the opportunity to submit the following comments on the draft 

Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. 

1. Regulatory Certainty: As stated in prior comments to the Agency dated July 10, 2007, 

Entergy requests that ADEQ modify the required compliance schedule in the Arkansas SIP and 

in Reg. 19 1504(B) to match guidance issued by EPA in the Regional Haze Regulations and 

Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations. Current language 

in the SIP requiring implementation no later than 6 years after the effective date of Reg. 19 

(incorporation of BART SIP) should be stricken since that date is likely to be in advance of the 

deadline established by the EPA. EPA’s Final Rule (70 Fed. Reg. 39158 (July 6, 2005)) 

requires that States must ensure compliance with BART requirements no later than 5 years after 

EPA approves the SIP. Entergy requests that the Arkansas SIP and Reg. 19 be modified to 

require compliance in the same fashion – five years from EPA approval of the SIP – in order to 

avoid this potential timing problem. 
51

Additionally, some of the controls required to comply with BART represent a major 

undertaking, requiring significant funding, long-term planning and engineering, and decisionmaking and financial commitments well in advance of implementation. Entergy is concerned 

that the current language requiring implementation no later than six years after the effective date 

of Regulation 19 will drive companies to make critical decisions and commitments prior to 

EPA’s approval of the SIP. The current schedule suggested by the SIP unnecessarily creates 

significant risk and financial exposure for both companies and rate-payers in the event the SIP 

is modified by EPA. ADEQ should consider changing the language in 11.4.1.2 to require that 

BART controls be in place no later than five years after the EPA approves the Arkansas 

Regional Haze SIP.

2. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR): On July 11, 2008 the United States Court of Appeal for 

the D.C. Circuit vacated CAIR. Numerous states surrounding Arkansas based their BART 

compliance strategy on the premise that CAIR was “better than” BART. Many if not all of 

these states have not conducted BART assessments for NOx and SO2 for their BART sources, 

since they were relying on CAIR to satisfy BART. Additionally, all states conducted BART 

modeling assuming emission reductions from CAIR. These assumptions are no longer correct, 

implying that all states may need to halt BART implementation and re-evaluate their BART 

strategy. If Arkansas continues the implementation of BART no later than 6 years after the 

effective date of Reg. 19, Arkansas facilities will be required to expend billions of dollars while 

other states conduct BART assessments that may impact EPA’s review of state SIPs. This 

multiplies the regulatory uncertainty detailed above in comment Number 1. In light of the 

vacatur of CAIR, it is not prudent to require Arkansas sources to proceed with BART 

implementation in a timeline driven by Arkansas’ own adoption of its SIP or Reg. 19, because 

the uncertainty created by the vacatur (and the expected requirement that other states perform 

new BART assessments) adds significant uncertainly to the expected timing of EPA’s approval 

of the various state SIPs, including Arkansas’. Instead, the implementation of BART in 

Arkansas should be timed from EPA’s approval of the SIP. 

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. is concerned that EPA may choose to reject the AR SIP because it relies 

in part on CAIR, which the D.C. Circuit previously vacated. For this reason, we again request 

that Arkansas revise Regulation 19 and any associated SIP language so that compliance dates 

are tied to the approval of this SIP by EPA. The Arkansas SIP directly references CAIR in at 

least two important places. The first reference is in “Section 7.2: Overview of the 2018 

Emission Inventory,” which describes that the 2018 Emission Inventory used for modeling was 

developed using the IPM model that included CAIR emission reductions. Entergy Arkansas, 

Inc. is unsure how EPA will view the 2018 Emission Inventory since the CAIR vacatur and 

questions whether EPA will approve the Inventory as currently developed. The second direct 

reference of the Clean Air Interstate Rule is in “Section 11.4.1.1: Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR)” - This section directly refers to assumed NOx reductions in Arkansas based on the 

2015 CAIR seasonal cap. This statement is no longer valid with the D.C. Circuit decision to 

vacate CAIR, and Entergy Arkansas, Inc. is concerned that EPA may not find the SIP valid. 

ADEQ should consider striking “Section 11.4.1.1: Clean Air Interstate Rule” from the state SIP 

given that CAIR has been vacated by the D.C. Circuit. 

3. International Transport: The preamble to the RHR states that the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) will work with the governments of Canada and Mexico to seek cooperative 
52

solutions on trans-boundary pollution problems. We are concerned that EPA may not take 

action to address these transport issues in a timely fashion to help meet the natural visibility 

goal in 2064. These transboundary problems should be resolved by EPA prior to seeking 

additional emission reductions from sources located in Arkansas to meet the reasonable 

progress goals. A similar approach should be employed for Class 1 areas outside of Arkansas 

where modeling indicates an impact from Arkansas sources, prior to pursuing additional in-state 

reductions. 

4. Class 1 Area Monitoring: It is essential that Class 1 area monitoring be implemented in 

Arkansas. The SIP indicates that the availability of monitors necessary to assess compliance 

with the reasonable progress goals at Class I areas will be contingent upon availability of funds 

to the custodians of these Class 1 areas. Industry in Arkansas will be expending billions of 

dollars to address visibility issues; therefore, monitoring must be employed to document the 

benefits of these expenditures. The Arkansas Regional Haze SIP should include a firm 

commitment that monitoring equipment will be installed and reliably maintained to gauge 

visibility improvements. Since visibility goals are Class 1 area-specific, it is not reasonable to 

use data from other Class 1 areas or from EPA network monitors to verify progress goals in an 

individual Class 1 area or for requiring additional emission reductions to meet future progress 

goals. 

5. Smoke Management Plan: FLM prescribed burning can result in visibility-impairing, healtheffecting, NAAQS-violating emissions. The Arkansas Regional Haze SIP should contain 

enforceable conditions to mitigate these activities. The smoke management plan included in the 

SIP is a good qualitative document but should be supplemented with appropriate enforceable 

standards. 

6. Typographical Corrections and Suggestions: Please see below for corrections and 

suggestions for Tables 9.3a and 9.3b of Chapter 9 denoted in red text. 
Table 9.3a BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Source and 

Unit

Maximum 24-

Hour Actual 

Emissions 

(lb/day) 2

Baseline Peak

24-hour 

Emissions 

(lb/hr) 2

BART Level 

of Control % 

Removal1 2

Future Peak 

24-hour 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 2

Emission 

Limit 3

04-00107 

276-AOP-R1 

American 

Electric Power 

SN-01 

113483.81 4728.49 78.3% 1026.08 0.15 lb/MMBtu

74-00024 

154-AOP-R0 

AR Electric 

Coop Bailey 

Plant 

SN-01 

57018.10 2375.75 55% 1069.09 1034.17 lb/hr 

(1% S fuel oil) 

52-00055 

181-AOP-R1 

AR Electric 

Coop 

McClellan 

Plant 

SN-01 

65942.06 2747.59 65% 961.66 

982.47 lb/hr 

(1% S fuel oil) 

41-00002 

287-AOP-R2 

Domtar 

SN-03 

10620 442.5 0% 442.5 1.12 lb/MMBtu

41-00002 

287-AOP-R2 

Domtar 

SN-05 

18916.8 788.2 

0% 

(using existing

scrubber) 

788.2 1.20 lb/MMBtu

30-00011 

1717-AOP-R1 

Entergy Lake 

Catherine 

Plant 

SN-03 oil

126647.84 5276.99 46% 2860.4 

0.562 

lb/MMBtu 

(0.5% S fuel oil)

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

186319.32 

SN-01 

7763.3 82% 1400.8 

0.15 lb/MMBtu

(Bituminous & 

sub-bituminous 

coal) 

53
Source and 

Unit

Maximum 24-

Hour Actual 

Emissions 

(lb/day) 2

Baseline Peak

24-hour 

Emissions 

(lb/hr) 2

BART Level 

of Control % 

Removal1 2

Future Peak Emission 

24-hour Limit 3

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 2

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

187799.35 

SN-02 

7825.0 80% 1533.2 

0.15 lb/MMBtu

(Bituminous & 

sub-bituminous 

coal) 

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

SN-05 

No emission standards have been established for this source. Rather the state has 

established work practice standards for this source pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iii). 

1. Only listed if facility is adding controls or taking limits that will reduce emission 

per BART requirements. Facilities which are not adding controls or using 

controls which are already installed have a 0% BART control efficiency. 

2. Modeled 

3. 30-day rolling average 

Table 9.3b BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOx)

Source and 

Unit

Maximum 24-

Hour Actual 

Emissions (lb/day) 

1 

Baseline Peak

24-hour 

Emissions 

(lb/hr) 1

BART Level 

of Control % 

1

Future Peak 

24-hour 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 1 

Emission 

Limit 2 

04-00107 

276-AOP-R1 

American 

Electric Power 

SN-01 

46680.0 1945 16.8% 1618.24 0.23 lb/MMBtu

41-00002 

287-AOP-R2 

Domtar 

SN-03 

4309.0 179.54 0% 179.54 0.46 lb/MMBtu

41-00002 

287-AOP-R2 

Domtar 

SN-05 

12643.2 526.8 30% 368.76 0.450 

lb/MMBtu 

54
Source and 

Unit

Maximum 24-

Hour Actual 

Emissions (lb/day) 

1 

Baseline Peak

24-hour 

Emissions 

(lb/hr) 1

BART Level 

of Control % 

1

Future Peak Emission 

24-hour Limit 2 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 1 

30-00011 

1717-AOP-R1 

Entergy Lake 

Catherine 

Plant 

SN-03 gas

58960.0 2456.67 69.6% 746.82 0.15 lb/MMBtu

30-00011 

1717-AOP-R1 

Entergy Lake 

Catherine 

Plant 

SN-03 oil

60273.0 2511.38 47.6% 1315.96 0.25 lb/MMBtu

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

104920.0 

SN-01 

4371.7 69% 1355.23 

0.28 lb/MMBtu

(bituminous 

coal) 

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

104920.0 

SN-01 

4371.7 69% 1355.22 

0.15 lb/MMBtu

(sub-bituminous 

coal) 

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

113540.0 

SN-02 

4730.8 69% 1466.56 

0.28 lb/MMBtu

(bituminous 

coal) 

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

113540.0 

SN-02 

4730.8 69% 1466.56 

0.15 lb/MMBtu

(sub-bituminous 

coal) 

35-00110 

263-AOP-R1 

Entergy White

Bluff Plant 

SN-05 

No emission standards have been established for this source. Rather the state has 

established work practice standards for this source pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iii). 

1. Modeled 

2. 30-day rolling average 

55
Table 9.3c BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Particulate Matter 10 

micrometers (PM10) 

Source and 

Unit

Maximum 24-

Hour Actual 

Emissions (lb/day) 

1

Baseline Peak

24-hour 

Emissions 

(lb/hr) 1 

BART Level 

of Control % 

1

Future Peak 

24-hour 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 1

Emission 

Limit 2

41-00002 

287-AOP-R2 

Domtar 

SN-03 

4068.0 

169.5 

(filterable) 

76% 40.6 0.07 lb/MMBtu

41-00002 

287-AOP-R2 

Domtar 

SN-05 

1958.4 

81.6 

(filterable) 

29.7% 

(using existing

scrubber) 

57.4 0.10 lb/MMBtu

1. Modeled 

2. 30-day rolling average 

Table 9.3d BART-Level Emissions Reductions from the 2002 Baseline, Particulate Matter 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5) 

Source and 

Unit

Maximum 24-

Hour Actual 

Emissions (lb/day) 

1

Baseline Peak

24-hour 

Emissions 

(lb/hr) 1

BART Level 

of Control % 

1

Future Peak 

24-hour 

Emission Rate 

(lb/hr) 1

Emission 

Limit 2

30-00011 

1717-AOP-R1 

Entergy Lake 

Catherine 

Plant 

SN-03 oil

6810.0 283.75 69.4% 86.83 

0.037lb/MMBtu 

(filterable & 

condensable) 

0.5% S fuel oil 

1. Modeled 

2. 30-day rolling average 

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call Tracy Johnson 

or me at 501-377-4033 or 501-377-3958, respectively. 

Sincerely, 

Mark C. Bowles, Manager 

Arkansas Environmental Support 

56
Bcc: Myra Glover 

 Jim Schott 

Joe Hantz 

 Renee Keys 

 Tracy Johnson 

 Chuck Barlow 

 

 

Files –8111.30 

 

 

 

57
58
59
60
ADEQ’s Response to Comments Received From Entergy and AEP 

Due to the DC Circuit Court’s recent vacatur of the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), one commenter requested that ADEQ consider putting off submittal of its 

Regional Haze SIP and wait for additional guidance from EPA. Two comments 

recommended removing language that potentially requires implementation of BART 

prior to final EPA approval of the SIP. In the following discussion, it should be noted 

that the Regional Haze Rule, including the BART provisions, and the CAIR Rule are 

two distinct rules. The Regional Haze Rule pre-dates the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

and States are obligated to implement its requirements regardless of the status of the 

CAIR Rule. 

The federal court’s vacatur of the CAIR Rule has no effect on implementation of the 

BART Rule for Arkansas sources. While it is true that Arkansas’s reasonable 

progress goals were partially based on reductions associated with the implementation 

of the CAIR rule for out-of-state sources, CAIR was not used for the purpose of 

determining BART for facilities in Arkansas. All States were required to conduct 

BART-eligibility determinations for facilities (or develop similar emission reduction 

strategies) before making BART determinations. It appears that, in the absence of 

CAIR, many States will have to initiate BART determinations for those “BARTeligible” sources that elected to use CAIR reductions in lieu of BART determinations. 

While there is considerable uncertainty regarding the emission reductions associated 

with these new analyses, it is likely that the reductions achieved through the 

application of BART to these facilities will be similar to those using the now outdated 

assumption that CAIR reductions constitute BART. As an alternative, there are 

several efforts underway that would provide short-term “fixes” as a means of 

achieving the reductions that were expected from implementation of the CAIR Rule 

requirements. 

ADEQ is obligated to submitting a Regional Haze SIP. The Regional Haze Rule 

requires implementation of BART controls “as expeditiously as practicable

(emphasis added), but in no event later than five years after approval of the 

implementation plan revision.” When establishing its BART deadline, ADEQ 

intended to reduce the uncertainty associated with EPA review and approval of its 

SIP while at the same time assuring that BART implementation would not be unduly 

delayed. The CAIR Rule vacatur does not affect this intent. 

The Regional Haze Rule gives States the discretion to establish what constitutes 

BART. ADEQ contacted each of its BART-eligible sources and collaboratively 

established the level of control that would constitute BART for each affected facility. 

The potential emission reductions associated with the CAIR Rule were not relevant to 

these determinations thus, its vacatur has no effect on them. 

Comments included concerns regarding the contribution of international emission 

sources and how these were treated in the determination of natural background 

conditions and the development of the SIP. EPA’s guidance on determining natural 

61
background does not currently include a procedure for determining trans-boundary 

contributions. While international emissions do contribute to regional haze and 

natural background conditions, they had no influence on the BART determinations 

that ADEQ conducted. The determination of the extent of international contributions 

is an on-going effort. As the understanding of trans-boundary influences grows, 

ADEQ will take this into consideration. 

The Regional Haze Rule does not require States to mitigate impacts associated with 

international emissions. Trans-boundary influences are poorly understood and 

difficult to determine without significant additional information regarding the source 

and intensity of international emissions and the meteorological conditions associated 

with their influence. These factors are beyond the scope of the analyses that have 

been conducted by Regional Planning Organizations in their attempts to address the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. ADEQ has established reasonable progress 

goals that can be met without having to consider trans-boundary contributions. As a 

better understanding of the nature of trans-boundary contributions is developed, 

ADEQ will re-evaluate their impacts on the ability to achieve reasonable progress. 

Comments were received regarding the expression of emission rates in Tables 9.3a - 

9.3d. A commenter suggested the footnote “modeled” be added to columns 2 – 4 of 

Tables 9.3a – 9.3d. The commenter also suggested ADEQ add footnote “30-day 

rolling average” to column 6 of the afore-mentioned tables. ADEQ used the numbers 

in columns 2, 3, and 5 of Tables 9.3a – 9.3d for BART determination modeling and 

subject-to-BART post-control modeling. The emission rates are actual emissions 

which were provided to ADEQ by the facilities shown in these tables. Column 4 is 

the percent of removal due to the BART level of controls and represents the reduction 

of pollutant emissions after BART controls are installed. Therefore, ADEQ is of the 

opinion it is not necessary to add the footnote “modeled” to the suggested columns in 

Tables 9.3a – 9.3d. As for the request to add the footnote “30-day rolling average” to 

column 6 of Tables 9.3a – 9.3d, ADEQ agrees with the commenter and has added the 

requested footnote to the afore-mentioned column and tables. 

ADEQ agrees that the goal for the 20% best days is “no degradation” and has revised 

tables that appeared to establish specific goals other than “no degradation”. 

Comments were received regarding the contribution of prescribed burning to regional 

haze and the advisability of establishing quantitative emission limits for prescribed 

burning operations. Arkansas’s Smoke Management Plan, while voluntary, is adhered 

to by federal land managers and other major entities that conduct prescribed burns. It 

effectively limits emissions in an air-shed to a level that minimizes the potential for 

smoke-related impacts. ADEQ does not have the regulatory authority to specifically 

regulate emissions from prescribed burning. 

Comments were received regarding the need to continue monitoring regional haze in 

Class I areas. ADEQ cannot require FLMs to fund on-going monitoring effort 

62
funding in a State rule. In the absence of continued funding, ADEQ intends to 

continue operation of its existing monitoring network with State funds. 

63
Appendix 5.1 

Revised Algorithm for Estimating Light 

Extinction from IMPROVE Particle Speciation 

Data 











Appendix 5.2 

Determination of Baseline Visibility Conditions 
Baseline conditions for the 20% worst and 20% best days for Caney Creek Wilderness 

Area and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area were determined from data collected at the 

IMPROVE monitoring site located on Eagle Mountain, Polk County, Arkansas and the 

IMPROVE monitoring site located in Deer, Newton County, Arkansas respectively. The 

aforementioned data is housed at the Visibility Information Exchange Web System 

(VIEWS) web site (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/). The IMPROVE calculated 

variables and Regional Haze data derived from the New IMPROVE Algorithm (IRHR2) 

was downloaded from the VIEWS website. It was from this dataset ADEQ calculated 

baseline conditions for the two Class I areas located in Arkansas (Tables 5.2A and 5.2B). 

Table 5.2A Summary data for Caney Creek’s baseline conditions 

Parameter Baseline 20% Worst 

Days 

Baseline 20% Best 

Days 

Units sRay* 

Aerosol Bext 134.1 20.61 Mm-1 11 

Bext Coarse Mass 3.73 1.82 Mm-1 11 

Bext Elemental 

Carbon 

4.8 1.5 Mm-1 11 

Bext Nitrate 13.76 4.04 Mm-1 11 

Bext Organic Mass 23.44 4.33 Mm-1 11 

Bext Sulfate 87.05 8.53 Mm-1 11 

Bext Soil 1.12 0.25 Mm-1 11 

Bext Ss 0.18 0.16 Mm-1 11 

Coarse Mass 6.21 3.03 μg/m3 11 

Deciview 23.36 11.24 11 

*sRay is the abbreviation for site specific Rayleigh extinction 
Table 5.2B Summary data for Upper Buffalo’s baseline conditions

Parameter Baseline 20% Worst 

Days 

Baseline 20% Best 

Days 

Units sRay* 

Aerosol Bext 131.95 22.19 Mm-1 11 

Bext Coarse Mass 6.85 2.81 Mm-1 11 

Bext Elemental 

Carbon 

4.72 1.51 Mm-1 11 

Bext Nitrate 13.3 4.55 Mm-1 11 

Bext Organic Mass 22.54 4.24 Mm-1 11 

Bext Sulfate 83.18 8.68 Mm-1 11 

Bext Soil 1.21 0.34 Mm-1 11 

Bext Ss 0.16 0.06 Mm-1 11 

Coarse Mass 11.41 4.69 μg/m3 11 

Deciview 26.27 11.71 11 

*sRay is the abbreviation for site specific Rayleigh extinction
Appendix 5.3 

Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions 
Natural conditions for Caney Creek Wilderness Area and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

both located in Arkansas was developed by the IMPROVE Steering committee using the 

“refined” algorithm (Equation 1) and Trijonis’ eastern values for natural background 

concentrations for ammonium sulfate (sulfate), ammonium nitrate (nitrate), organic 

carbon mass, elemental carbon, soil, and coarse mass (Table 5.2). 

Equation 1 

Bext ~ 2.2 x fS(RH) x [Small Sulfate] + 4.8 x fL(RH) x [Large Sulfate] 

 + 2.4 x fS(RH) x [Small Nitrate] + 5.1 x fL(RH) x [Large Nitrate] 

 + 2.8 x [Small Organic Carbon] + 6.1 x [Large Organic Carbon] 

 + 10 x [Elemental Carbon + 1 x [Fine Soil] + 1.7 x fss(RH) x [Sea Salt] 

 + 0.6 x [Coarse Mass] + Site Specific Rayleigh scattering 

 + 0.33 x [NO2 (ppb)] 

Table 5.3 Average natural levels of aerosol components for the eastern half the United 

States of America (Trijonis, J.C., NAPAP State of the Science & Technology, Vol. III, 

1990) 

Average Natural Concentrations (microgram per cubic meter, μg/m3) 

Aerosol Component Eastern Concentrations 

Ammonium sulfate 0.23 

Ammonium nitrate 0.10 

Organic carbon mass 1.40 

Elemental carbon 0.02 

Soil 0.50 

Coarse mass 3.0 
Additionally, the following equations were used to determine the natural concentrations 

(NC) for large and small sulfate fractions. 

Equation 2 

[Large Sulfate] = [Total Sulfate] x [Total Sulfate], for [Total Sulfate] <20 μg/m3

 20 μg/m3 

Equation 3 

[Large Sulfate] = [Total Sulfate] for [Total Sulfate] > 20 μg/m3

Equation 4 

[Small Sulfate] = [Total Sulfate] – [Large Sulfate] 

Equations 2 – 4 were also used to apportion the natural concentrations of nitrate and 

organic mass concentrations into the small and large size fractions. Please refer to the 

Revised Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from IMPROVE Particle Speciation 

Data (Pitchford, et al, AWMA 57:1326-1336, 2007) located in Appendix 5.1 for further 

discussion on the development of Equations 2 – 4. 

As per Marc Pitchford (personal comm. 2007), the following methodology was used to 

determine the natural conditions: 

1. Average the current yearly concentrations for the individual aerosol components 

2. Perform the following calculations using the values in Table 5.3: 

a. 0.23/Average Current [Sulfate] 

b. 0.1/Average Current [Nitrate] 

c. 1.4/Average Current [Organic Mass] 

d. 0.02/Average Current [Elemental Carbon] 

e. 0.50/Average Current [Soil] 

f. 3.0/Average Current [Coarse Mass] 

3. Determine the daily natural concentrations for the individual aerosol components 

by multiplying the daily current concentrations by the results in step 2. For 

example, Day 1 Current [Sulfate] x(0.23/Average Current [Sulfate]) = Day 1 

Natural [Sulfate] 

4. Equations 2 – 4 were used to apportion the daily natural [Large Sulfate], [Small 

Sulfate], [Large Nitrate], [Small Nitrate], [Large Organic Mass], and [Small 

Organic Mass] 
5. The daily light extinction (βext) for the individual aerosol components was 

calculated. 

a. Sulfate βext = 2.2 x fS(RH) x Natural [Small Sulfate] + 4.8 x fL(RH) x 

Natural [Large Sulfate] 

b. Nitrate βext = 2.4 x fS(RH) x Natural [Small Nitrate] + 5.1 x fL(RH) x 

Natural [Large Nitrate] 

c. Organic Mass βext = 2.8 x Natural [Small Organic Mass] + 6.1 x Natural 

[Large Organic Mass] 

d. Elemental Carbon βext = 10 x Natural [Elemental Carbon] 

e. Fine Soil βext = 1 x Natural [Fine Soil] 

f. Sea Salt βext = 1.7 x fss(RH) x Natural [Sea Salt] 

g. Coarse Mass βext = 0.6 x Natural [ Coarse Mass] 

6. Total daily βext was determined using Equation 1 

7. The daily deciview (dv) value was calculated using the following equation: dv = 

10 x ln(Total βext /10) 

8. The 20% best and 20% worst days were determined for each year by sorting the 

dv values from lowest to highest. The top 20% was used for the 20% best and the 

lowest 20% were used for the 20% worst. 
Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the 

Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed Light 

Extinction Algorithm 

Final Paper # 48 

S. A. Copeland, CIRA/USDA Forest Service, 333 East Main Street, Lander, WY 82520; 

M. Pitchford, Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA, 755 East Flamingo Rd, Las Vegas, NV 

89119; 

R. Ames, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

CO 80523 

INTRODUCTION 

In 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Region Haze Rule 

(RHR)1

 that established a program to mitigate existing visibility impairment in 156 

visibility-protected federal class I areas (i.e. certain large national parks and wilderness 

areas as specified by the Clean Air Act). RHR implementation guidance requires states 

to determine the uniform rate of haze reduction that would result in reaching natural haze 

level from current conditions for the five-year mean of the annual 20% most impaired 

visibility condition for each protected area.2 They must also show that the five-year mean 

of the annual 20% least impaired visibility conditions at each protected area do not 

degrade. For the RHR, haze levels are expressed using units of deciview, which is a logtransformation of light extinction that results in a more perceptually uniform metric of 

haze than either light extinction or visual range.3

 Light extinction is estimated from 

particle speciation data generated by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE)4 monitoring network that samples on a one day in three 

schedule at 110 monitoring sites representative of the class I protected areas. Though 

states may ultimately justify adoption of an alternative rate of progress in their RHR 

implementation plans, they must first determine the uniform rate of progress for their 

state’s class I areas. 

Haze levels for the 20% worst natural haze conditions need to be estimated in order to 

determine the 60-year uniform rate of progress for each protected area. EPA provided a 

default approach5 for estimating worst natural haze levels that involves a three step 

process. First the mean natural haze levels are estimated using the original IMPROVE 
algorithm6

 for estimating light extinction from PM speciation data applied to estimates of 

natural PM species concentrations developed by John Trijonis7

 and a spatiallyinterpolated 10-year measured relative humidity data set that provides distinct values for 

each visibility protected area. The second step is to convert the mean natural light 

extinction levels for each protected area to deciview values using the simple logtransformation that defines the deciview scale.3

 The final step is to add 1.28 times the 

assumed standard deviation of the natural haze distribution in deciview units to the mean 

value from the second step to get an estimate of the 90th percentile that was thought to be 

a reasonable approximation of the mean of the 20% highest haze levels. Estimates of the 

20% least impaired natural conditions were made in a similar way by subtracting 1.28 

times the assumed standard deviation of the natural haze distribution in deciview units. 

The assumed standard deviation of 3dv for eastern class I areas and 2dv for western class 

I areas was based on the distribution of data at the most pristine locations in the east and 

west.8

 Following this procedure, EPA provided estimated default mean, worst and best 

natural haze levels for all of the protected areas as part of their guidance which states 

could use unless they chose to refine the approach. 

The default approach for estimating natural conditions was the subject of technical 

reviews as a result of its role in determining the uniform rate of progress for the RHR.9, 10, 

11 The Trijonis estimates of typical natural species concentrations which provided one set 

of values for the eastern U.S. and another set for the western U.S. were based on the 

limited available PM composition monitoring data in the late 1980s, so were seen as not 

likely to be representative of all of the visibility protected areas. The statistical approach 

that calculated the 90th and 10th percentile natural levels for use as estimates of the mean 

of the 20% best and 20% worst haze levels was shown to be flawed in a number of ways. 

The IMPROVE algorithm was shown to overestimate light extinction at low levels and to 

underestimate it at high levels. It also didn’t work well for data from coastal monitoring 

sites because it didn’t account for light scattering by sea salt. 

The IMPROVE algorithm was revised in 2005 to reduce biases at the high and low light 

extinction extremes, to incorporate more recent information from the literature, to include 

extinction from sea salt (an important component at some coastal sites), and to include 

elevation-specific estimates of Rayleigh light scattering.12 Many states indicated their 

intent to adopt the new algorithm for RHR assessment and planning purposes. For 

consistency in the determination of a uniform rate of progress, the use of the revised 

algorithm for estimating current haze levels implies the need to use it to estimate natural 

conditions. 
In 2006 the Regional Planning Organizations (i.e. five regional organizations of state, 

tribal, federal and stakeholder organizations established to promote regionally consistent 

RHR implementation) established an ad hock committee to establish a uniform approach 

for the application of the revised IMPROVE algorithm to estimate natural levels and to 

remedy other flaws in the default methodology where possible. A presentation of the 

results of their work is available on the IMPROVE web site.13 In the sections that follow 

is a description of the revised natural haze estimation methodology, the results of its 

application, and a discussion of the differences between the default and revised natural 

haze estimates and uniform rate of progress results. 

METHODOLOGY 

There are two fundamental differences between the default and the revised approach for 

estimating the 20% highest and 20% lowest natural haze levels for each of the visibility 

protected areas. The first difference involves the use of the revised IMPROVE algorithm 

for estimating light extinction from PM speciation data in place of the original 

IMPROVE algorithm. The second difference addresses the flaw in the default 

approach’s use of a statistical method to estimate the highest and lowest natural haze 

levels. The revised approach adjusts each sample period’s species concentration to 

generate a simulated natural haze distribution with the annual mean for each species 

being equivalent to the Trijonis estimated natural concentration for that species. The step 

by step details of this approach are described below. 

1. Start with the “Daily Values Including Patched Values” data set from the on the 

Visibility Information Exchange Web Sites (VIEWS) data summary website14. 

2. For sites with fewer than three valid sample years from the 2000-2004 baseline period, 

use the substituted data15 set in place of the standard VIEWS data from step 1. 

3. Select records with sample dates from 2000-2004 for each site of interest. 

4. Retain only records from “valid” years based on EPA RHR guidance2. 

5. Retain only records that have “valid” sample codes for each of the seven aerosol 

species (i.e. sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, fine soil, coarse mass, and 

sea salt) needed to reconstruct aerosol extinction using the revised IMPROVE 

algorithm12. 

6. Discard records which have any patched values from the EPA RHR patching 

technique2

. 

7. Calculate arithmetic means for each of the seven species for each site and each 

calendar year. 

8. Divide the resultant means by the Trijonis-based EPA default natural conditions 

estimates5

 for the six species (i.e., all except sea salt, which is included in the revised 
IMPROVE algorithm but not included in the default estimates). “East” and “West” are 

defined as east or west of the 98th meridian respectively for purposes of determining 

which default natural conditions to use. The ratio of baseline annual mean to default 

natural annual mean becomes the scaling factor for each of the species. 

9. In cases where the baseline annual mean concentration of a species is less than the 

EPA default estimated concentration, the baseline values are retained (i.e. the scaling 

factor is 1). Similarly, sea salt concentrations have a scaling factor of 1, which defines 

the baseline condition as the natural condition. 

10. Every observation is divided by the appropriate species specific scaling factor, 

creating a new distribution for each species which has the same annual mean as the EPA 

default natural annual mean (or the baseline value when a scaling factor of 1 is used) 

while retaining the shape of the baseline distribution. Figure 1 illustrates the adjustment 

of species concentration for one site-year. 
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of the current (i.e. measured) species concentration for Sipsey 

Alabama (top) and the species concentrations adjusted to Trijonis-based natural levels (bottom). 

The use of a logarithmic concentration scale means that the distributions are the same shape for each 

current and natural species, though translated horizontally. No log transformation is performed in 

the approach however. The hanging bars at the top of each plot show the mean for each species (see 

color key) with short solid lines being current and longer dotted lines being adjusted means. 

11. Keeping the observations grouped by the sample date, convert the scaled masses of 

each species to extinction values using the revised IMPROVE algorithm. 

12. Sum the resultant species specific extinctions for each sample date, and add the site 

specific Rayleigh scattering value. 

13. Convert this daily extinction value to a deciview value. For pristine conditions at 

high elevation sites (i.e. >2200m) these deciview values are sometimes negative. While 

counterintuitive, this is mathematically appropriate and negative or zero values are 

retained. The result is up to five years worth of daily deciview values adjusted to be 

simulated natural haze levels at each IMPROVE site. Figure 2 illustrates the current and 

natural haze distributions that result from this process. 

Figure 2. Frequency distribution of current and adjusted natural haze levels in deciview units for 

Sipsey Alabama. Notice that the distribution shape is not the same. 
14. Determine the highest and lowest 20% simulated natural deciview days for each year 

and site in the same way that the highest and lowest 20% deciview days are determined 

for baseline haze levels. Note that these sample dates will probably not be the same 

sample dates that were the highest and lowest 20% dates for the baseline calculations. 

15. Calculate the arithmetic mean for each year and each species for sample dates which 

comprise the lowest 20% and highest 20% haze days. 

16. Calculate the arithmetic mean across the five annual means for each species including 

deciview. 

The results of these steps are lowest 20% and highest 20% natural conditions estimates 

for each site with species compositions, and the natural deciview values needed for glide 

slope calculation. Note that since the deciview transformation is non-linear, the mean 

deciview value will not equal the deciview value calculated from the sum of the mean 

aerosol extinction values plus Rayleigh. 

RESULTS 

Estimates of the mean, highest 20% and lowest 20% haze levels for each of the 

IMPROVE monitoring sites representing visibility protected areas is available as the 

Natural Haze Levels II (version 2) spreadsheet on the VIEWS website16. Figure 3 

contains contour maps that show the spatial distribution of the EPA default and revised 

approach estimates for the highest 20% values. Both have the same striking east – west 

gradient that results directly from the different Trijonis estimates of natural species 

concentrations for the eastern and western states. The greatest difference between the 

patterns on the two maps is along the California coast where sea salt contributes 

significantly to the PM2.5 concentration and hence to the haze at coastal monitoring sites. 

The default approach doesn’t account for sea salt while the revised approach explicitly 

includes it. The natural haze levels from the revised approach at some high elevation 

sites are lower due to the use of a lower, elevation-dependent Rayleigh light extinction 

value compared to the default approach. However many other high elevation sites have 

higher natural haze level estimates using the revised approach (principally those in the 

Pacific Northwest), probably due to the broader distribution of current and thus simulated 

natural haze levels associated with a higher incidence of wildfire influence. 
Figure 3. Contour maps of the revised (top) and default (bottom) natural haze level estimate. 

Perhaps of greater interest is a comparison of the uniform rate of progress values for the 

revised approach compared to the default approach. Figure 4 shows contour maps of the 

uniform rate of progress in units of deciview per decade. As with the natural haze level 

contour maps, the two algorithms yield similar looking spatial patterns, with the greatest 
rates centered on the Ohio River basin in the East and Southern California in the West. 

Notice that the revised approach uniform rate of progress values for California coastal 

sites are not obviously affected by sea salt since its contribution to haze is counted in both 

the natural and baseline condition estimates. 

Figure 4. Contour maps of the 10 year haze reduction in deciview per decade units for a uniform 

rate of progress for the revised (top) and default (bottom) approaches of estimating natural levels 

and current conditions. 
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS 

The decision by a number of states to adopt the revised IMPROVE algorithm to estimate 

haze levels from IMPROVE speciation data resulted in the need for a consistent approach 

for estimating natural haze levels. In addition to using the new IMPROVE algorithm, the 

methodology for estimating revised natural haze levels changed the method of estimating 

the 20% haziest and 20% clearest conditions to avoid the flawed statistical approach that 

was used to generate the default natural haze levels. 

Both the default and revised approaches for estimating natural haze levels rely 

extensively on the Trijonis East and West estimates of natural species concentration 

levels, which is undoubtedly why the spatial distributions in Figure 3 show the similar 

strong gradients along the arbitrarily selected demarcation line between east and west. 

The only justification for using only two geographically distinct sets of natural PM 

speciation concentration estimates for all of the visibility protected areas is the lack of 

estimates for other smaller regions. Tombach9

 shows that up to 15 geographically 

distinct regions are justified based on similar characteristic of current PM species 

concentrations, but his work doesn’t offer estimates of natural levels for these regions. 

Global scale modeling may ultimately provide better estimates of natural haze levels on a 

more spatially and temporally resolved basis, as well as address the related issue of 

estimating haze from non-U.S. man-made emissions for each visibility protected area.15 

The inclusion in the revised approach of sea salt with the assumption that all sea salt is 

from natural sources demonstrates how sample-period-specific monitoring data can be 

used to refine the estimate of natural levels. However, most PM species are from a 

combination of natural and man-made sources so some type of attribution analysis would 

be needed to apportion how much of each species is from either source category on a 

sample-specific basis. It’s unclear whether application of either receptor or air quality 

simulation modeling would sufficiently improve the accuracy of natural level 

concentrations over those provided by Trijonis or similar estimates that could be 

developed for a greater number of regions. 

The 60-year schedule of the RHR with its periodic planning and technical review 

provides the time needed to further expand our knowledge and technology to improve our 

estimates of natural levels. Ultimately as man-made emissions that contribute to haze in 

visibility protected areas are reduced, current conditions will more closely match natural 

haze levels, perhaps making the task of specifying them somewhat easier. 
References 

1. 40CFR Part 51: Regional Haze Regulation: Final Rule; Fed. Regist. 1999, 64 (126), 

35714-35774 

2. Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-004, 

September 2003, available at the IMPROVE web site, 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GuidanceDocs/guidancedocs.htm

 (accessed 3/19/2008).

3. Pitchford, M.L.; Malm, W.C., Development and Application of a Standard Visual 

Index, Atmos. Environ., 28: 5, pp1049-1054, 1994. 

4. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) web site, 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Default.htm (accessed 3/19/2008). 

5. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze 

Program, EPA-454/B-03-005 September 2003, available at the IMPROVE web site, 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GuidanceDocs/guidancedocs.htm

 (accessed 3/19/2008).

6. Sisler, J.F., Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Long Term Variability of the 

Composition of the Haze in the United States: an Analysis of Data from the 

IMPROVE network: 1996 CIRA Report to the National Park Service, ISSN:0737-

5352-32; available at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/improve_reports.htm

 (accessed 3/19/2008).

7. Trijonis, J.C., Characterization of Natural Background Aerosol Concentrations, 

Appendix A in Acidic Deposition: State of the Science and Technology, Report 24, 

Visibility Existing and Historical Condition – Causes and Effects, National Acid 

Precipitation Assessment Program, 1990. 

8. Ames, R.B.; Malm, W.C., Recommendations for Natural Condition Deciview 

Variability: An examination of IMPROVE Data Frequency Distributions, In (CDROM) Proceedings of the AWMA/AGU Specialty Conference on Regional Haze and 

Global Radiation Balance – Aerosol Measurements and Models: Closure, 

Reconciliation and Evaluation, Bend OR, October, 2001. 

9. Tombach, I., Natural Haze Levels Sensitivity -- Assessment of Refinements to 

Estimates of Natural Conditions, Report to the Western Governors Association, 

January 2008, available at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/aamrf/projects/NCB/Haze_Sensitivity_ReportFinal.pdf (accessed 3/19/2008). 

10. Ryan, P.A. Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Default 

Implementation Guideline for the Regional Haze Rule, report number 1011119 

prepared for EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2004. 
11. Ryan, P., Lowenthal, D., Kumar, N. Improved Light Extinction Reconstruction in 

IMPROVE, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 55, 1751-1759, 2005. 

12. Pitchford, M., Malm, W., Schichtel, B., Kumar, N., Lowenthal, D., Hand, J., Revised 

Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from IMPROVE Particle Speciation Data, 

J. Air & Waste Manage, Assoc. 57: 1326 – 1336, 2007. 

13. Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural 

Species Concentration Estimates, a final report presentation by the Natural Haze 

Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Work Group, July 2006, 

available at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/natur

alhazelevelsIIreport.ppt

14. Visibility Information Exchange Web Site (VIEW), accessible at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Web/IMPROVE/SummaryData.aspx

 (accessed 3/19/2008).

15. Visibility Information Exchange Web Site (VIEW), accessible at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/web/documents/substitutedata.aspx

(accessed 3/19/2008). 

16. Visibility Information Exchange Web Site (VIEW), accessible at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Web/DataRepository/DataRepository.htm

(accessed 3/19/2008). 

17. Park, R.J. Jacob, D.J., Kumar, N., Yantosca, R.M., Regional Visibility Statistics in 

the United States: Natural and Transboundary Pollution Influences, and Implications 

for the Regional Haze Rule, Atmos. Environ 40: 5405-5423, 2006. 
Appendix 6.1 

Monitoring and Data Analysis to Support the 

Regional Haze Rule 
In 1991 the Upper Buffalo Wilderness area was selected as a site for an Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) system, and the IMPROVE 

monitor was installed on 12/18/1991. IMPROVE monitors the ambient atmosphere for 

visibility impairment from fine aerosols such as sulfates, nitrates, organic and elemental 

carbon, and crustal material. The Upper Buffalo Wilderness area site is located near 

Deer, Arkansas, at the 11,801 acre Upper Buffalo Wilderness in the Ozark National 

Forest in Newton County. The Upper Buffalo Class I area includes the original 

wilderness area and the additions to it, but it does not include the Buffalo National River. 

The figure below shows the Upper Buffalo Wilderness area site. 

Trend analysis at the Upper Buffalo Wilderness area site shows a slight two to three 

deciview visibility improvement. The figure below shows an improvement of the 20 

percent worst visibility days, and a prevention of degradation of the 20 percent best 

visibility days at the Upper Buffalo Wilderness area IMPROVE site using the original 

IMPROVE algorithm. 
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Deciviews

All Days (dv) 20% Best Days (dv) 20% Worst Days (dv)

Annual Average Visibility

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR

The Caney Creek Wilderness area IMPROVE monitor was added on 6/22/2001. The 

Caney Creek Wilderness area site is located at the 14,460 acre Caney Creek Wilderness 

area near Mena, Arkansas, in the Ouachita National Forest in Polk County. The figure 

below shows the Caney Creek Wilderness area site. 
In 2007 trend analysis at Caney Creek Wilderness area site was limited to four years of 

data. The data indicates the average visibility for all days has slightly improved since 

2001. The figure below shows visibility data at the Caney Creek Wilderness area 

IMPROVE site using the original IMPROVE algorithm. 

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Deciviews

All Days (dv) 20% Best Days (dv) 20% Worst Days (dv)

Annual Average Visibility

Caney Creek Wilderness Area, AR
Appendix 6.2 

CENRAP Regional Haze Monitoring Strategy 
CENRAP MANE-VU Midwest RPO VISTAS

November 29, 2005 Final Draft 

Monitoring & Data Analysis to Support the Regional Haze Rule – A Strategic 

I. Objectives of this RHR Monitoring Strategy 

The purpose of this document is to identify the ambient haze related monitoring and data analysis activities 

the next 10 years of the regional haze implementation plans (i.e., over the first planning period of 2008 to 2implement the RHR. It provides a framework for the integration of the core national IMPROVE monitorin

monitoring and analysis activities that are needed to support continued improvement in the monitoring met

understanding of the contributors to visibility impairment. This document was prepared by representatives 

planning organizations (RPOs) to describe the monitoring activity needed and desired to support the collecdata of sufficient quality, representativeness, and quantity to support both the national visibility goal and th

tribes, and RPOs in the initial regional haze SIPs and TIPs. The document provides a list and description the RPOs need to provide the federal, state, tribal, and non-go

organizations that sponsor or conduct air quality/haze monitoring programs for information to support their 

framework can also help illuminate potential for collaboration, efficiencies and opportunities associated widocument may also be included or referenced in regional haze SIPs and TIPs to provide a description of thactivity needed to support their programs and context for the additional monitoring and analysis States and necessary to support their implementation plans. The description of the monitoring activities that are required for progress tracking and the activities the RP

the initial, and future plans to be based on the most current science, is included to support considerations bland management agencies in their fiscal planning. This document is limited to national and regional moni

not attempt to include any of the site-specific or local issues that individual SIPs and TIPs may address. Ta

identifies the existing and future needs for regional haze monitoring and data analysis programs. The balanorganized into sections that describe the objectives of ambient monitoring and data assessment, the relevan
haze monitoring to other national air monitoring programs, and a priority rating of various monitoring and 

based on their support of the RHR. Two appendices are included as well. 
Table 1: Priority and ranking of activities for the RHR and other air quality issues. 

Activity Scope Issues & Requirements Resources 

Geographic Temporal Funds Sponsors 

IMPROVE 110-site aerosol speciation monitoring 

National Long-term trends network Trends tracking for each of the visibility protected class I areas; $3.85M/yr2 $0.55M/yr EPA FLM R

VIEWS data archive & analysis tools 

National Long-term 

Integrated data access & analyses tools to promote consistency & efficiency in assessments among RPOs, states, tribes, etc. 

$120k/year RPOs (EPA) E

5-year technical assessment National Periodic Progress assessment in 2013 will require 2 to 3 years of effort $100k/year/RPO RPOs (EPA) R10-year technical assessment for SIP revisions 

National Periodic 

Technical assessment to support RHR SIP revisions in 2018 will require 2 to 3 years of effort 

$100k/year/RPO RPOs (EPA) R

Ammonia/ Ammonium monitoring 

CenRAP, MWRPO & VISTAS 

Special studies for X years (or trends) 

Ammonia emissions inventory assessment & the role of ammonia in nitrate formation 

$200K/year RPO (EPA) I

RAIN program oversight & data analysis 

MANE-VU Long Term Detailed aerosol & precursor gases at 3 regional scale sites $100k/year MANE- VU (EPA) I

FASTNET National Long-term 

Real-time PM event tracking component of datafed.net (Husar) 

$50k/year RPOs (EPA) H

IMPROVE remote-area protocol sites 

Regional Long-term 

Track trends for those representative of class I areas; fill spatial gaps for regions without class I areas 

$35k/site/yr 

State, RPO, or tribe 

Sd

1 The rating scale for the RHR includes RHR-Required, Essential for efficient RHR implementation, Important for effective RHR-SIP de

better understanding of the causes of haze. Ratings are also suggested for other-than-RHR utility of the monitoring and data analysis acti

Important, Helpful, Limited or Unknown utility 

2 Totals are assuming $35k/site/year for EPA for laboratory/data/QA support, and $5k/site/year for FLM operator support. 
Activity Scope Issues & Requirements Resources 

 Geographic Temporal Funds Sponsors 

Carbonaceous aerosol speciation Regional Special studies Source attribution for carbonaceous aerosol $200K/yr RPOs IAdditional ambient characterization of the sources of ammonia emissions, their flux in the atmosphere, and the associated visibility and air quality impacts 

National 

Special studies for X years to support 5- and 10-year SIP assessments 

Studies’ scope to be defined in regional haze plans submitted in 2007, to include emissions inventories, additional monitoring, and modeling analyses 

$500k/year EPA (RPOs) R

Additional ambient characterization of the sources and chemical constituents of dust and fire emissions, their flux in the atmosphere, and the associated visibility and air quality impacts 

West of the 100th meridian 

Special studies for X years to support 5- and 10-year SIP assessments 

Studies’ scope to be defined in regional haze plans submitted in 2007, to include emissions inventories, additional monitoring, and modeling analyses 

$1,000k/year EPA (RPOs) R

IMPROVE optical monitoring 

National Long-term Refine aerosol extinction algorithms used in the RHR FLM, RPOs, EPA I

Haze cams 

National & Regional Programs 

Long-term 

Document actual scene and visual range in near-real time for outreach/education and research use 

$6k/site/yr RPOs, FLMs H

Optical method development National Long-term 

Development and deployment of routine continuous direct measurement of visibility or highly correlated indicators 

EPA, RPOs H
II. Introduction 

Regional Haze Rule monitoring requirements The goals of monitoring and data analysis activities supporting the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) are to provi

to track the expected visibility improvements resulting from emissions reductions obligations identified in provide the interpretation of the available data to identify areas where progress is being made and improve

Through routine regular sampling, the RHR monitoring program must provide comprehensive, consistent astandardized tracking of species (and by analysis, the source types) causing contributing to visibility impai

application to calculation of the visibility metric, analysis of the variation in haze species, including contrib

temporal and spatial variations and the distribution of visibility-impairing species, will provide the basic in

make sound decisions to support continued progress. Specific requirements of the RHR involving assessmare shown in Table 2. The history of Class I area visibility and regional haze regulatory monitoring since the 1977 CAAA shows choices leading to the adoption of a consistent federally-specified, operated, and funded system in their rul

approach. The process that has allowed the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMCommittee to build and evolve a robust monitoring network and the sample collection and analysis system

accessible national dataset for analysts. Given the historical success of the IMPROVE network (discussed future regional haze monitoring strategies must be based on, or directly comparable to IMPROVE. The primary monitoring network for regional haze is IMPROVE. The program currently consists of 110 amonitoring sites and additional instrumentation that operates according to IMPROVE protocols. The 110 Imonitoring sites were selected to provide regionally representative coverage and data applicable to all 156 

protected areas. The additional IMPROVE protocol sites include 65 aerosol samplers, plus transmissometecameras that fill identified data needs and enhance and fill spatial gaps in the core IMPROVE network. Thcollecting data in 1988, and along with the IMPROVE network expansion in 2000-01; provide the only lonfor tracking visibility improvement and degradation. In recent years, additional haze related measurements have been made by a number of organizations (princsupplement IMPROVE and answer fundamental questions about particle formation, speciation, transport, athese studies are tied through collocation, correlation, or method to the foundation provided by IMPROVEare typically more specialized, regionally focused, and generally have a 1-3 year lifetime. Establishing a lo

3 Mid-1980s Attributable Haze Monitoring requirements resulting from the Environmental Defense lawsuit settlement (date & citation) and 1999 Regio

1999) rulemakings.
permanent monitoring network is difficult for RPOs or States because a stable funding mechanism is not av

available funding varies from year to year. The data collected is used in multiple ways, but the overarching monitoring programs is to provide information that can be used to develop more technically sound State anImplementation Plans (SIPs and TIPs). For example, data collected from the Midwest RPO urban organic being used as part of a comprehensive source apportionment analysis, which includes comparison with preapportionment studies based on less detailed data. The study data will also be used in photochemical modeinventory evaluation, and model development, as well as contributing to the general characterization of org

environments (sources, concentrations, seasonality) and continued growth of the regional conceptual mode

All of these analyses are part of a weight-of-evidence approach to determining the contribution of emissiondownwind Class I areas, as required by 40CFR 51.308. Table 3 summarizes recent monitoring studies and by RPOs and stakeholders that have been implemented to investigate various aspects of regional haze. Continuing the IMPROVE network approach provides the stable foundation for long-term tracking and trecentralized funding used for IMPROVE supports the stability needed, but leaves individual states or Regio

Organizations little capability to augment or enhance IMPROVE regional haze monitoring for specific regimonitoring needs. The work done in RPO-sponsored studies shown in Table 3 in preparation for the initial 

development has addressed regional questions, raised others and helped advance understanding, capability 

both the requirements and needs of visibility improvement. The capability to build on a stable base of IMPwill be a valuable component of improving our understanding of the processes and effects, and the efficienand quality of the ambient data collection. Options for funding needed for special monitoring studies and dof RHR implementation will need to be identified, while maintaining the resources necessary to support IMthe essential state and RPO activities. Additional or ongoing special monitoring studies, and/or a better anregional haze monitoring network will likely be needed address data gaps and questions identified as a resustudy and evaluation of the analytical results and their inherent uncertainties driven by the development of due at the end of 2007. This document references the RHR requirements associated with monitoring and data analysis activities in Subpart P. (Reproduced in Appendix I of this document). 
Table 2. Regional Haze Rule requirements needing monitoring data collection and data analysis support 

Due Date (period) Supporting 

Activities 

Responsibility 

Regional Haze Rule Requirements 

Reasonable Progress Goals IMPROVE States, Tribes 30Calculation of Baseline Conditions 2005 IMPROVE States, Tribes 30Monitoring Strategy IMPROVE States, Tribes 30Reporting of visibility monitoring data 

Annually IMPROVE States, Tribes 30

Assessment of Default Rate of Progress (5 year) States, Tribes 30Technical Progress Review (5 year) States, Tribes Comprehensive SIP /TIP Revisions 2018 (10 year) States, Tribes 30

Additional Activities 

Additional ambient characterization of the sources of dust, fire, and ammonia emissions, their flux in the atmosphere, and the associated visibility and air quality impacts 

As needed, result of regional haze plans, especially west of the 100th meridian 

for dust and fire 

IMPROVE EPA, RPOs 30

Natural Background Level Refinement Model Evaluation EPA, RPOs 
Table 3: Existing/completed RHR-related monitoring and data analysis studies 

Project Sponsor Target 

Areas 

Parameters Goal Referen

Focus Sites VISTAS Class 1 and Urban Areas 

Mass, NO3, 

SO4, EC/OC, 

LAC, NOy, CO, 

SO2, O3

Collocated with IMPROVE or STN protocol, collect continuous speciated particulate, precursor gasses and met for model performance and method evaluation 

http://www.vistassesarm.org/document

Temporal variability iareas Model evaluation Method comparison 

RAIN MANE- VU Rural Mass, SO2, O3, SO4, EC/OC, 

bscat

Characterization of transported aerosol in the NE 

http://bronze.nescaum

len-awma_haze-rain-pOct%202004_proceed

SEARCH EPRI Urban and Rural pairs 

Mass, SO4, 

NO3, NH4, 

NOy, O3, NH3

CO, SO2, 

EC/OC, crustal, bscat, babs

Collect data for model evaluation, characterization of PM constituents and precursors, differences between urban/rural and coastal/inland aerosols, method investigation and development. 

http://www.atmosphe

research.com/studies/

Ammonia and HNO3 MRPO CENRAP 9 Rural (IMPROVE), 1 Urban site NH3, HNO3, SO2, SO4, NH4, NO3, Mass Determine PM2.5 limiting N species, characterize precursor gases, validate models and refine methods. http://64.27.125.175/r

ects/Monitoring/Year

Rural and Urban OC Speciation MRPO 

2 rural sites (1 Class 1), 5 urban sites 

Speciated OC 

Collection and analysis of organic compounds for use in CMB and PMF source attribution analysis, determination of primary/secondary source contributions. 

http://64.27.125.175/r

ects/Monitoring/SENEORT%20-%20UW%2

http://64.27.125.175/r

ects/Monitoring/Interi

Sources of Carbon VISTAS Southeast Class 1 areas SVOCs, C14 Collection and analysis of organic compounds for use in CMB source attribution analysis. http://www.vistas- sesarm.org/documentBRAVO Study 

EPA, NPS, Texas, EPRI 

Big Bend National Park, ~40 remote locations in Texas 

Mass, elements, ions, optical, artificial tracer, & meteorology 

Assess the causes of haze at Big Bend National Park. 

http://vista.cira.colost

BRAVO/Studybravo.Impacts from sources Improved understandirelationships. Improving regional mmodels.
III. Overall objectives of gathering and interpreting monitoring data for implementation o

rule through state and tribal plans 

A continuing program of haze-related measurements and data assessment generate information required to objectives that support regional haze rule implementation: 

• Documentation of haze trends for the protected areas; • Improved understanding of the haze-important atmospheric properties; 

• Identification of particulate species and emission sources responsible for haze; • Evaluation of regional atmospheric simulation models; and • Utilization, integration, and communication of monitoring data and derived policy-relevant informa

conceptual models). 

Each of these is discussed in the sections that follow. 

A. Track long-term trends as called for by the RHR 

The RHR calls for tracking of haze trends for all of the mandatory federal class I areas with visibility proteassess the effectiveness of SIP and TIP mandated emission control programs designed to reduce haze levelareas in 32 states. The 110-site Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) Ne

analyzes every third day 24-hour duration particle samples at sites chosen to represent 155 of the federal cl

Specifically, aerosol speciation data collected and processed in the manner of the IMPROVE Network from are representative of the visibility protected federal class I areas are required to establish the five-year aversubsequent five-year averages of haze levels for the haziest (worst) and clearest (best) 20% of days for as l

haze rule is in effect (currently envisioned as a 60-year process). The IMPROVE Network has been generally viewed as an efficient, uniform, and cost-effective means to g

class I area representative data needed for regional haze trends tracking. While long-term consistency is th

successful trends monitoring program, a number of issues should be explored that may result in changes to 

tracking over the next 10 years. These include: the degree to which the current monitoring sites represent t

Class I areas, and the advisability of continued use of filter-based sampling with the current suite of analys

4 Bering Sea Wilderness, on an uninhabited island in the Bering Sea about 200 miles off the Alaska Coast, was deemed impractical for routine monitori
The ultimate question for the issue of representativeness is whether the current network sites adequately re

areas without redundancy. Some of the class I areas are large and situated in complex terrains, so that even represents some portion of the class I area, it may not represent conditions in other parts of the same area. motivated Arizona to apply a share of its state and federal air quality monitoring resources to expand the IMfor their Class I areas5. On the other hand, the levels and temporal variations of some of the measured spec

nitrate, and organic carbon) are similar at multiple IMPROVE monitoring sites within a region, which raiseredundancy. However, simple comparisons of data from neighboring sites could be misleading since sites 

similar concentrations may not do so under future emissions configurations. IMPROVE is planning to conassessment that should be complete early in 2006 to explore these concerns. Possible changes to the IMPROVE sampling and analysis protocols need to be carefully tested and consideimplementation because of the possibility of introducing artifacts that would detrimentally impact trends as

is likely that some changes will be made over the next ten years. These may result from monitoring techno(e.g. high-time resolution speciation instrumentation for long-term monitoring application), or changes in oatmosphere processes that identify other critical components that should be monitored (e.g. inclusion of ammonitoring), or identification of problems with the current monitoring approach that need to be rectified in 

of adequate quality. In addition to understanding their impacts on the data trends, any potential change in t

practical consequences of potential changes need to be factored into all protocol change decisions. The IM

continually assesses and adjusts protocol for issues related to data quality, as well as considering the possib

innovated technology or changes to characterize additional atmospheric parameters. In summary the regional haze rule clearly calls for tracking haze trends via monitoring of aerosol species a

the class I areas over the anticipated 60-year period of haze reductions as a means to assess the effectivene

emissions changes. The 110-site IMPROVE network supplemented by some IMPROVE Protocol sites sel

of the larger class I areas currently fills this need. Over the next 10 years this trends monitoring approach m(i.e. minor changes in the number of sites and/or monitoring protocols), but remains necessary for implemehaze rule. 

5 Aerosol monitoring funded by individual state, federal or tribal agencies at sites beyond the 110-site IMPROVE Network but using identical procedure

Protocol. There are about 60 IMPROVE Protocol sites that serve a number of objectives with respect to the regional haze rule and other air quality prog

sites are representative of some of the larger class I areas, so are appropriate for use in regional haze trends tracking.

- - 
B. Support a better understanding of the atmospheric processes of importance for 

movement and dissipation 

The IMPROVE network provides the foundation for determination of long-term trends, detailed seasonal aultimately compliance with the haze rule’s “glide path” requirements. To go beyond that and obtain data thbetter understand the underlying processes of the formation, transport, and fate (removal or dissipation) of 

in the boundary layer in sufficient detail to determine appropriate control strategies, we need more temporameasurements than those provided by the 3rd-day integrated data provided by programs like IMPROVE, SRPO programs such as the VISTAS “Focus” sites or the MANE-VU “RAIN” sites provide highly time-res

hourly aerosol mass and composition data and related precursor gases (such as SO2, O3, and NOy) that allo

source characterization, aerosol formation processes (SO2 to SO4 conversion rates, secondary organic aeros

factors that drive short-term visibility, the role of meteorology in transport, and aerosol model performance 

latter is perhaps ultimately the most important use of these enhanced sites, since it is the modeling process generation of SIPs and TIPs. Many aspects of modeling need to take into account non-linear chemical proand deposition factors that are highly variable on a sub-daily time scale; 24-hour integrated samples do not 

how well models handle these factors. Deposition, both of haze-related aerosols and key gas-phase precursors, is another area where detailed mon

valuable insight. Wet deposition of aerosols can be through “in-cloud” processes or via a “wash-out” proc

measurements can help quantify the dry deposition of this critically important haze-aerosol precursor. Wit

sufficient spatial scale, better understanding of the dispersion and fate of haze-related aerosols can be obtaiwith actual visual range measurements (“wet” nephelometry), these data can also be used to validate and pof the underlying assumptions used in the IMPROVE reconstructed extinction equation. What is most notably missing in our current ability to routinely measure important haze-relevant pollutants resolution is the nitrogen species -- nitrate, ammonia, nitric acid, nitrous acid, et cetera. Real-time methodparameters, but are not yet sufficiently robust for routine deployment, or do not provide sufficient data quaresources for deployment. Progress is being made in this area however, and over the next few years we exthese parameters to these enhanced monitoring sites. 

- - 
C. Identify chemical species and make connections to man-made and natural emiss

contribute to existing haze levels 

The IMPROVE program is the primary source of data on PM composition in Class 1 areas. Its national sco

protocols allow us to make valid comparisons of data from one part of the country to another and to charac

components of haze. Its suite of measurements is also the basis for source apportionment analyses that indimportance of various sources (e.g., power plants, wildfires, cars and trucks) to visibility impairment. Theto the development of defensible control programs. In addition, source apportionment analyses based on aserve as the only independent verification of modeled estimates of source contributions, as well as the emisare input to the models. Thus they provide an invaluable real-world check on these vital components of reimplementation plans. Source apportionment analyses also provide key information for tracking progress, 

contributions must be tracked over time as controls are implemented. Without a long term consistent datathese analyses are severely hampered. Given these required applications of IMPROVE data, it is important to note that the IMPROVE data have limit our ability to discriminate among important sources. The chemical similarity of many organic carbon sources, industrial combustion, vegetative burning) makes them difficult to separate on the basis of the carbprovided by IMPROVE. Because organic carbon makes up a large percentage of PM2.5 mass, and because 

from natural biogenic sources and some from anthropogenic sources, better understanding of these particul

is necessary to establish realistic targets for potential reductions. More specialized monitoring, carbon anaapportionment studies are required to truly discern and quantify source contributions, to separate natural frinfluences, and to adequately distinguish impacts from local sources. These issues are critical elements to 

ongoing implementation of the RHR. The identity of the sources of dust and soil components monitored by IMPROVE is also limited by many o

organic carbon, i.e., many similar chemical sources, composition is assumed for the coarse (PM2.5 to PM10) 

emissions are natural and some anthropogenic in origin, while dust and soil are at the same time, noticeable 

visibility impairment west of the 100th meridian of longitude. Again, specialized monitoring and apportion

identify sources are needed. While the IMPROVE program, and to a lesser extent the EPA speciation network, can provide data suitabltracking of trends for haze and some of its major components (sulfate and nitrate), it has more limited utilit

sources of OC, dust, and soil components. Consequently it will be more difficult to track the effects of PM 

OC sources using this data. Differences among regions, and even among individual Class 1 areas, demand 

monitoring to truly discern and quantify source contributions, to separate natural from anthropogenic influe

- - 
adequately distinguish impacts from local sources. Resources to address these issues through ongoing app

needed critical elements to support implementation of the RHR. 

D. Evaluate regional meteorological and air quality models that are used for region

implementation 

The outputs of atmospheric models are a critical component in the development of emission reduction strat

demonstration of reasonable progress toward the goals of the Regional Haze Rule. Proposed strategies will application of the models and the most promising options will be incorporated into the PM2.5 and regional h

Implementation Plans. Measurements gathered through the fine particulate monitoring networks are the refirst step in the demonstration of atmospheric model performance and the credibility of the modeling resultconsistency and availability of the monitoring data affect the ability of organizations to evaluate model perthe models as the understanding of the processes involved, and our ability to account for them, improves. Implementation plans require a demonstration that the performance of the atmospheric model meets establi

goals. Model performance is constrained by measurement uncertainty, including that associated with fine p

precursor gases, and meteorological parameters, as well as the uncertainties in emissions inventories and thchemical and transport processes in the model. Monitoring data sufficient to represent the spatial variabilit

for speciated aerosol data and optical measurements and gaseous parameter measurements are needed to teSulfate measurements are comparable across the fine particulate monitoring networks but differences in exmeasurement methods contribute to measurement uncertainty for other components, especially for organic differences, and others, need to be considered when evaluating model performance using data from differeProper evaluation of the models demands not only adequate spatial distribution to capture variability, but aresolution sufficient to capture the short-term variability in the contributors and the results of particle produmonitoring has been designed around the need to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS and track longvisibility. The species monitored that are most closely related to regional haze are primarily sampled and re

average data. Related gaseous data, while available as hourly concentrations, are typically not collocated wsamplers. The atmospheric models generate hourly predictions and a comprehensive suite of collocated, honeeded to ensure adequate characterization of the diurnal profiles of the various species. The availability anof the hourly gaseous, fine mass, speciated aerosol and optical data is critical to model performance evaluaThe availability of vertical profiles of atmospheric conditions, whether gained through periodic soundings collected with the various profiler systems; provide the raw inputs to the met fields prepared for the modeldetailed understanding of the lower atmosphere is needed to understand the causes and contributors to shor

- - 
Profile data collection tends to be associated with population centers and is spatially removed from the typ

Class 1 areas. In many cases, topography and local meteorology in the areas of interest is markedly differen

locations. Collocation of profilers with fine particulate or haze related monitoring or at locations more repr

of interest would provide the inputs needed to improve the met fields, investigate local influences and betteperformance. Remote sensing is becoming a powerful tool for the tracking of particulate and visibility related events on t

regional, national and global models. The ground truth provided by meteorological, particulate, gaseous an

contribute to our ability to improve the quality of the analysis and improve the confidence in the interpretatdata at locations between the monitor locations. The availability of the large view provided by the sensors 

those planned, provide another tool, that when validated against the available monitoring data, can allow a model performance. As the understanding of the atmosphere and the processes effecting visibility impairment improve and the processes are captured in the models, there will likely be a need for improvement in the current measuremeenhanced measurement of additional species. Ammonia is recognized as a significant contributor, but ambi

not widely and consistently measured. The importance of speciated organic carbon, now only available for periods, will likely grow as sulfate concentrations decrease. The measurement of the impact of sea salt has is being recognized as significant at coastal sites. As visibility goals are approached, the contribution of am

become significant enough to make collocated measurements valuable. Changes in the relative importance of contributors to visibility impairment, improvement in the understandand their incorporation into more refined models will require that monitoring anticipate and collect the data next revisions of the models. 

E. Utilization, Integration and Communication of the Monitoring Data 

For each individual Class I federal area, the characterization of current baseline visibility conditions and fu

haziest and clearest days (Section IIIA) can be considered a critical but minimal requirement of a visibility

provide useful support for achieving the national visibility goal encoded in the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, t

monitoring data need to be efficiently stored, distributed, analyzed, integrated with other measurement or m

to support many additional objectives. These include: developing a clear understanding of the atmospheric 

species and emissions sources which cause or contribute to regional haze (sections II B and C), developing 

efficient regulatory strategies to reduce those contributions which are controllable (section IIC), providing 

feedback on the effects of emissions control programs and new source influences, adding technical support 

- - 
refinements to the regional haze regulatory metrics, and efficiently communicating all of the above to polic

to the public. Efficiently integrating the monitoring data with various other sources of information provides a “weight of for distilling the complex technical details of the regional haze phenomenon into a “conceptual model”, in 

evolving scientific knowledge is summarized, updated and communicated in terms that clearly define and lregional haze rule, regional strategies to attain those goals, and short and long-term measures of performan

most eastern US Class I areas, the monitoring data indicate that reconstructed extinction on the haziest 20% be predominantly due to hygroscopic aerosol sulfur compounds. The EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR

emissions reductions by 2015 of up to 70% in 28 eastern states. Have past eastern SO2 emission reductionrequired by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, resulted in measurable improvements in reconstructed ex

Class I areas? Can these past changes in measured extinction be reproduced by currently available emissio

the aerosol measurements and emission-based model results consistent with results from mathematical and 

receptor models? Are future CAIR reductions in eastern SO2 emissions expected to result in “linear” reducwill reductions in sulfate be partially offset by increases in aerosol nitrate at some locations? Will these imsufficient to meet the 2018 reasonable progress requirements of the Regional Haze Rule in all eastern ClasCAIR SO2 emissions reductions have any benefits in the central or western Class I areas? What kinds of a

strategies have been effective or will be needed to assure progress in central and western class I areas wher

visibility is clearer, and where extinction is proportionately less dominated by sulfates and more influenced mixture of aerosol species and emission sources? What additional data and analyses are needed for areas n

sulfate, such as most of the western Class I areas? How will 5- and 10-year SIP assessments and updates bwhat technical data, analyses, and studies need to be completed in advance of those SIP/TIP assessment mi

Developing and clearly illustrating answers to these kinds of questions with ambient measurement data is d

data and metadata which are of uniformly high quality relative to data quality objectives, have clearly docu

and are consistently collected and archived for multiple monitoring sites over long periods of time. The abdata and associated data quality information, the potential to analyze and illustrate their spatial, temporal an

patterns, and the ability to merge and integrate these data with other forms of haze-related data and informaelements of a comprehensive visibility monitoring strategy. These critical data usage, integration and comm

require efficient data storage/retrieval and analysis systems, such as the VIEWS (http://vista.cira.colostate.

FASTNET (http://datafed.net) tools developed by the RPOs. These analysis tools take on added value oveIMPROVE data accumulate, and are enhanced by new IMPROVE protocol sites adding more detail for esptopographically complex Class I areas, or filling regional holes between Class I areas to provide better regispatial, temporal and compositional trends. These data and analysis products are further enhanced with me

- - 
access to data from various IMPROVE special studies, the regional SEARCH, FOCUS and RAIN network

comparisons with the EPA STN and Canadian Speciation Networks, other national or international fine and 

monitoring programs, various NOAA and NASA satellite data and results from regional, national or global efforts. 

IV. Haze Monitoring as a Component of National (& Regional) Ambient Air Monito

(NAAMS) 

Section III summarized monitoring needs to meet the specific objectives required under the Regional Haze measurements have been and continue to be conducted for these Class I area/visibility-centric objectives, thand should also be viewed in the larger context of a comprehensive National Ambient Air Monitoring Strahttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monitor.html). Through this dynamic NAAMS process, all EPA supported aactivities are being reviewed, and in many cases revised, to provide more efficient, timely information on cgreatest concern from a human health perspective – ozone and PM2.5 – and more comprehensive informatio

precursors and interactions. IMPROVE data from Class I areas are the key component of the regional haze monitoring strategy, but becareas are nationally distributed, and since there is also a relatively widespread incidence of urban areas (an

fail to meet the primary health standard for PM2.5 (15 ug/m3 annual average), IMPROVE data have taken o

objective of defining both the fine mass and chemical composition of “regional background” PM2.5. The v

illuminating PM attainment issues may take on added future importance as EPA is currently considering rewhich include: a large reduction in the 24-hour primary PM2.5, a new secondary sub-daily PM2.5 standard (outside of Class I areas) and new primary and secondary PM10-2.5 standards (see for example: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20050630.pdf). A large new PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network (STN) was established in 1999, using methods adapted from 

IMPROVE. STN sites are primarily urban but there are also a number of new rural speciation sites, many IMPROVE methods. These include the former CASTNet “Visibility” sites, a number of State operated “S

rural and urban methods comparison sites where IMPROVE and STN sampling is conducted concurrently. IMPROVE protocol sites help fill in the national map, enhancing regional coverage in areas where Class 1 

this expanded IMPROVE coverage, in turn, defines regional-scale PM2.5 concentration and composition, en

the urban STN data, by allowing distinction between regional and local species composition and source co

STN data may in turn help identify the nature and location(s) of urban or industrial sources that contribute class I areas, and can also help quantify the spatial and temporal scales of large regional events (forest fires

- - 
nitrate episodes) that affect urban and rural sites alike. Haze-inspired data tools like VIEWS, CATT and F

been modified to accommodate analyses of STN and other haze-related PM data from other networks. This added new usage and expanded spatial coverage of data originally collected exclusively for regional himpose constraints, as it becomes increasingly important to employ consistent methods (for carbon for exam

urban monitoring sites, and to maintain this consistency in the future. Conversely, the current NAAMS ca

reduction in the number of PM2.5 speciation sites, and this may jeopardize continued operation of new rural 

protocol sites which are not in Class I areas. Maintaining rural and urban IMPROVE and STN protocol sit

high priority, since they already employ “consistent methods”, include both fine and coarse mass, and so co

effectively to both regional haze and PM monitoring objectives. While the NAAMS calls for a general reduction of filter-based speciation sites, it also emphasizes an incre

(about 500) using continuous methods for ozone and PM2.5, and a smaller number (about 75) of more comp

Core monitoring (NCore Level 2) sites with continuous methods for PM2.5 (and likely soon for PM10-2.5) mOC, etc.) and precursor gases or tracers (low level SO2, CO, NOy, NH3, O3). The NAAMS also advocates 

intensive (NCore Level 1) methods evaluation and technology transfer sites. While most NCore Level 1 an

be urban, some will be intentionally located in rural locations. This kind of multi species, highly time-resowould provide a valuable complement to existing routine regional haze monitoring programs (see section Ishould be made to assure that rural NCore sites are collocated with IMPROVE sites in Class I areas. 

The CASTNET (Clean Air Status and Trends Network) includes “visibility sites” which have already been IMPROVE program, and also includes “dry deposition” sites which, like IMPROVE, are rural, regionally rintended to evaluate long-term trends, which include some haze-relevant aerosol species (sulfate, nitrate an

precursors (SO2, HNO3, NH3), and which have been useful in combination with IMPROVE for evaluating 

trends. Under NCore, a subset of the CASTNET sites will deploy and evaluate sophisticated experimental for multiple ionic aerosol species and gaseous precursors. For purposes of assessing both regional haze anin acidifying compounds, every effort should be made to coordinate, and if possible collocate IMPROVE aespecially if new CASTNET continuous methods prove to be effective. In a similar way, NADP wet depo

measurements (some of which are already collocated at IMPROVE sites and which have otherwise good lospatial coverage) are not conducted with an objective of adding information on regional haze, but unavoida

indirect information by quantifying the removal of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, sodium chloride and soil-re

atmosphere. The combination of data from routine IMPROVE, IMPROVE special studies, STN, CASTNEPM and gaseous precursor monitoring programs, and intensive NCore Level I and II, and regional continuo

- - 
(i.e., VISTAS Focus and MANE-VU RAIN sites) provides a much more comprehensive view of atmosphe

compositions, sources, sinks and trends than is possible from any single monitoring network. Other valuable aerosol and haze-relevant information is provided by other national or international monitor

airport (ASOS) visibility observations, various real-time fire monitoring and forecast systems, solar radiati(AERONET, USDA UVB), lidar networks, a growing number of NOAA and NASA satellite sensors and daerosol forecast models like NAAPS and WRF – none of which have implementation of regional haze regubut all of which provide haze-relevant information, and can add dimensions to our understanding that can’t one monitoring approach alone. Regional haze monitoring can be substantially enhanced if the resulting dintegrated with these other information sources, in the same way that haze monitoring data can provide inv

to enhance the value of these other measurement programs.

- - 
Appendix I 

[45 FR 80089, Dec. 2, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 35764, July 1, 1999] 

[Revised as of July 1, 2004] 

[CITE: 40CFR51.308] 

[Page 259-267] 

(selected parts related to Visibility Monitoring) 

TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT 

CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) 

PART 51_REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTAT

Subpart P - Protection of Visibility 

Section 51.305 - Monitoring for reasonably attributable visibility impairment. (a) For the purposes of addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, each State containing a mandatory Class I F

in the plan a strategy for evaluating reasonably attributable visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area by vi

appropriate monitoring techniques. Such strategy must take into account current and anticipated visibility monitoring researc

appropriate monitoring techniques, and such guidance as is provided by the Agency. (b) The plan must provide for the consideration of available visibility data and must provide a mechanism for its use in decis

subpart. 

(4) Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements. The State must submit with the implementation plan a 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 

State. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in Sec. 51.305 for reasonably attri

impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected network. The implementation plan must also provide for the following:  (i) The establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals 

for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State are being achieved.  (ii) Procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from 

regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State. 
 (iii) For a State with no mandatory Class I Federal areas, procedures by which monitoring data and other information are u

contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas in o (iv) The implementation plan must provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least a

mandatory Class I Federal area in the State. To the extent possible, the State should report visibility monitoring data electron (vi) Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. 

 (g) Requirements for periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals. Each State identified in Ssubmit a report to the Administrator every 5 years evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandat

located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by emissState. The first progress report is due 5 years from submittal of the initial implementation plan addressing paragraphs (d) and progress reports must be in the form of implementation plan revisions that comply with the procedural requirements of Sec. Periodic progress reports must contain at a minimum the following elements: (1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonab

mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.  (2) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the measures describ

this section.  (3) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the State must assess the following visibility conditions and most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 5-year averages of these annual values.  (i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days;  (7) A review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary. 

(i) What are the requirements for State and Federal Land Manager coordination? 

 (1) By November 29, 1999, the State must identify in writing to the Federal Land Managers the title of the official to whicManager of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit any recommendations on the implementation of this subpart inclu (i) Identification of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area(s); and  (ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by Sec. 51.305 and this section. 

 (2) The State must provide the Federal Land Manager with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days public hearing on an implementation plan (or plan revision) for regional haze required by this subpart. This consultation mus

for the affected Federal Land Managers to discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Fede
Appendix II - Example Regional Haze Implementation Plan Chapter Application o

Monitoring Strategy (from CENRAP SIP Template) 

Chapter 6.0 

Monitoring 

Strategy 

6.0 A States/Tribes 

with Class I Areas 

6.0 B. States/Tribes without Class I areas

CONTENT 6.0A. Reference 

to monitoring strategy in 

appendix and commitment to 

maintain and evaluate 

monitoring network and 

commitment to reporting of 

results at least annually to 

EPA. 

6.0B. Statement of 

commitment to work with 

CENRAP to assess progress 

of visibility impairment in 

Class I areas from sources 

within the state. 

Map of CENRAP states and 

border state monitor 

locations and Class I areas 

State-specific map of class 1 

areas and monitors (if 

applicable). 

Ensure that text addresses possibility in future of technology changes/ need for new monitors and that 308(d)(4) subsections (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) requirements are specifically mentioned.

DESCRIPTION OF 

APPENDIX MATERIAL 

1. Demonstration that Data 

From Monitors Outside (but near) Class I Area Adequately Represents Air Quality in that Class I Area (if applicable) moved from Ch. 5.0 

2. Monitoring Strategy for 

Each Class I Area in the State 

3. Procedures for Use of 

Monitoring Data and Other Information in Determining the Contribution of Emissions From Within a State on Class I Areas inside and Outside of a State. 

4. Procedures to Address 

Elements Necessary to Assess and Report on Visibility (reporting, record keeping, etc.) 

Do we want to get letters of commitment from the Forest Service/Park Service? 

Write Ch. 6 template 

language 

CENRAP will do 

“skeletal appendices. 

CENRAP is working 

with Inter-RPO data 

analysis group to 

develop a monitoring 

plan that will form 

the basis for these 

appendices. Group 

could ID need for 

additional appendices 

AS is working with 

FLMs on plan to 

coordinate FLM 

review and need for 

“letters of 

commitment”