80084 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[AD FRL-1671-8, Docket No. A-79-40]

Visibility Protection for Federal Class I

Areas

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Today's action promulgates,

regulations to assure reasonable

progress toward "the prevention of any

future, and the remedying of any

existing, impairment of visibility in

mandatory Class I Federal areas which

impairment results from manmade air

pollution." The responsibility for

developing the program and making any

substantive decisions will lie with the

thirty-six States which contain

mandatory Class I Federal areas.

The principal effect of these

regulations will be to establish longrange goals, a planning process, and

implementation procedures. Preliminary

analyses have identified no existing

sources which will need to install

additional controls under these

regulations. Some large new sources will

be required to analyze their potential

impact on visibility in mandatory Class I

Federal areas; the State will retain final

authority over construction permits for

those sources.

Several changes have been made to

the regulations as proposed on May 22,

1980. Included among the more

significant changes are requirements

giving States more authority over

substantive decisions and provisions

that the State may consider energy and

economic impacts when evaluating

sources which have visibility impacts on

integral vistas of mandatory Class I

Federal areas.

DATE: These rules are effective Jnuary

2, 1981. Petitions for review of'these

regulations must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia by February 2, 1981.

ADDRESS: Docket No. A-79-40,

containing material relevant to this

action, is located in West Tower Lobby,

Gallery 1, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Central Docket Section, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

The docket may be inspected between

8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and

a reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Johnnie L. Pearson, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards (MD15), Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, Telephone: (919) 541-5497.

I. Background

A. The Statute

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act

requires visibility protection for

mandatory Class I Federal areas where

it has been determined that visibility is

an important value. "Mandatory Class I

Federal areas" are all international

parks and certain national'iarks and

wilderness areas as described in Section

162(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act). To

work toward meeting the national

visibility goal set out in Section

169A(a](1) of the prevention of any

future and remedying of any existing

man-made visibility impairment in such

areas, Section 169A requires that the:

* Department of Interior review all

mandatory Class I Federal areas and

identify those where visibility is an

important value [Section 169A[a)(2)].

* EPA, after consulting with the

Department of Interior, promulgate a list

of the mandatory Class I Federal areas

in which visibility is an important value

[Section 169A(a(2}].

* EPA prepare a report to Congress on

methods for achieving progress toward

the visibility goal. The report must

include methods to determine visibility

impairment, modeling techniques,

methods for preventing and remedying

man-made air pollution and resulting

visibility impairment, and a discussion

of visibility related pollutants and

sources [Section 169A(a)(3)].

* EPA promulgate regulations to

assure reasonable progress toward4he

national visibilitygoal which will,

among other things, (1) provide

guidelines to States for including

visibility protection in State

Implementation Plans (SIPs); (2) require

SIPs to include emission limits,

schedules for compliance, and other

measures as may be necessary to make

reasonable progress toward meeting the

national visibility goal; and (3)'provide

guidelines for determining emission

limitations representing best available

retrofit technology for fossil-fuel fired

power plants in excess of 750 megawatts

generating capacity [Section 169A(a)(4)

and Section 169A(b)].

1 EPA approve or disapprove SIP

revisions submitted in response to the

promulgated requirements [Section

110(a)(2)] and promulgate regulations for

those States which submit inadequate

regulations or fail to submit regulations

in response to EPA's requirements

[Section 110(c)].

In addition, Congress also included

visibility protection requirements in the

preconstruction review for prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) [Section

165] by:

* Giving Federal Land Managers "an

affirmative responsibility" to protect the

visibility values of a Federal Class I

area and the right to recommend the

denial of a PSD permit if an adverse

impact on visibility would result, even it

the Class I PSD increments would be

met [Section 165(d)].

Requiring PSD permit applicants to

analyze the visibility at the site of the

proposed construction and any area

potentially affected by the proposed

construction [Section 105(e)].

B. Rulemaking

On November 30, 1979, the Agency

published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (44 FR

69116), and also published Its final

determination under Section 169A(a)(2)

of mandatory Class I Federal areas

where visibility is an important value

(44 FR 69122). The purpose of that

ANPRM was to inform the public of the

impending regulatory development

effort and to solicit comment on various

major issues needing iesolutlon during

regulatory development. EPA, on May

22, 1980 (45 FR 34762), published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

and solicited comments on the

regulatory approach presented. The

Agency also announced two public

hearings which were held in

Washington, D.C., (June 30, 1980) and

Salt Lake City, Utah, (July 2,1980) for

the purpose of receiving oral public

comment on the proposed rules. The

Agency subsequently announced (45 FR

49110, July 23, 1980) the availability of

certain draft guideline documents,

solicited comments on those guidelines,

and established a public hearing for the

purpose of obtaining oral public

comment on these guidelines. This

hearing was held on August 25,1980 in

Washington, D.C. On July 31,1980 (45

FR 50825), EPA extended the public

comment period on the regulations to

August 22, 1980 in order to provide

sufficient time for commenters to

consider the guidelines and their effect

on the proposed regulatory program,

Transcripts of all public hearings and

copies 6f the public comments received

have been placed in Docket A-79-40.

The Agency received a total of 383

comments from the public relating to the

various aspects of the proposed

programs. This promulgation is based

upon the material in the docket

including EPA's review and

consideration of all comments received

during the public comment period,

Notice of the changes made from the

proposal is in the "Supplemental

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80084 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 80085

Statement of Basis and Purpose" which

follows the regulatory language.

Additionally, EPA has prepared a

document, "Summary of Comments and

Responses on the May 22, 1980 Proposed

Regulations for Visibility Protection for

Federal Class I Areas," which

specifically responds to the comments

received. This document has been

placed in Docket A-79-40 and,

depending upon available supplies, a

copy may be obtained from: EPA

Library (MD-35), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, N.C. 27711.

A copy of this document will be sent

to all commenters on the ANPRM,

NPRM, and guidelines.

C. Document Availability

The following documents were

developed by EPA and should be of use

to persons affected by today's

promulgation. These documents are in

Docket No. A-79--40 and are also

available from the sources indicated

below.

(1] "Protecting Visibility: An EPA

Report to Congress" (EPA-450/5-79-

0081. National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,

Virginia 22161.

(2) "The Development of

Mathematical Models for the Prediction

of Anthropogenic Visibility Impairment"

EPA-450/3-78-110 a, b, c), National

Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161

(PB 293119, PB 293120, PB 293121).

(3) "Guidelines for Determining Best

Available Retrofit Technology for CoalFired Power Plants and Other Existing

Stationary Facilities," (EPA-450/3-80-

009b), National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,

Virginia 22161.

(4) "Assessment of Economic Impacts

of Visibility Regulations," National

Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161.

(5) "User's Manual for the Plume

Visibility Model (PLUVUE]," (EPA 450/

5-80-032) National Technical

Information Service, 5285 Port Royal

Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161.

(6] "Workbook for Estimating

Visibility Impairment," (EPA 450/4-W031] National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,

Virginia 22161.

(7) "Interim Guidance for Visibility

Monitoring," (EPA 450/2-80-082)

National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia

22161.

II. Program Overview

This preamble provides a brief

description of the regulatory program,

serving to introduce the specific

regulatory languoge. Following the

regulatory language is a "Supplemental

Statement of Basis and Purpose" which

discusses the major changes between

the final and proposed rules. In addition,

we have placed in Docket No. A-79-40 a

document containing EPA's response to

comments.

The Problem

Congress has set aside certain

international parks and national

wilderness areas, national memorial

parks, and national parks (mandatory

Class I Federal areas) to preserve and

enhance their beauty for present and

future generations to enjoy. The intrinsic

beauty of these areas, however, has

been threatened by visibility-degrading

air pollution.1 Visibility is commonly

referred to as the relative ease with

which objects can be seen through the

atmosphere under various conditions.

Congress became aware of the need to

protect visibility in these areas and

directed EPA through the Clean Air Act

to explore the relationship between

man-caused pollution and visibility

impairment.

From this research we can say there

are generally two types of air pollution

which reduce or impair visibility:

(1) Smoke, dust, colored gas plumes,

or layered haze emitted from stacks

which obscure the sky or horizon and

are relatable to a single source or a

small group of sources, and (2)

widespread, regionally homogeneous

haze from a multitude of sources which

impairs visibility in every direction over

a large area.

These types of pollution are caused by

factories, plants, and other sources that

emit particles and gases into the air.

These substances either absorb or

scatter the light, thus reducing the

amount of light a person can receive

from a viewed object. The practical

effect is that impaired visibility

degrades the aesthetic value of

surrounding landscape by (1) discoloring

the atmosphere to produce a visible

plume, (2) whitening the horizon and

causing objects to appear flattened so

that landscape colors and textures

become less discernible, or (3) in the

case of a discernible plume, obscuring

some portion of the landscape.

'The National Parks and Conser atign

Association. n additiQn N3 many iar.J.iJlA

commenters. stated in comments on lie prcpms~d

regulations for the protehown of,,iibhty thata ir

pollution may well be the major threat to the

national parI, in the 1980's,

The Program

A PhasedApproach to the Problem

Congress, in recognition of the need to

protect the aesthetic value of visibility

in national parks and wilderness areas,

established a national visibility goal.

The goal specifies that existing pollution

be remedied and future pollution that

would interfere with visibility in

mandatory Class I Federal areas be

prevented. We reviewed the techniques

for identifying, measuring, predicting,

and controlling visibility impairment,

and in November 1979, published

"Protecting Visibility: An EPA Report to

Congress" which discusses in detail the

present scientific knowledge of

visibility, including monitoring,

modeling, and control of visibility

impairment.

As described in that report, we

determined that the present

mathematical models and monitoring

techniques show promise for being used

in a regulatory manner. However, these

techniques must be further evaluated

according to standard Agency

procedures before we can routinely

require their use in a regulatory program

for sources, either new or existing, that

may impair visibility. In some instances

we can identify the origin of visibility

impairment caused by a single source or

small group of sources without the use

of sophisticated analytical techniques.

Simple monitoring techniques such as

visual observation (either ground based

or with aircraft) can often identify

sources which contribute to the

impairment.

Recognizing the need to initiate

protection as soon as possible, while

also realizing that certain scientific and

technical limitations do exist, we are

today promulgating, essentially as

proposed, a phased approach to

visibility protection. Representatives of

industry, environmental groups, States,

Federal Land Managers, and the public

generally supported this phased

approach to regulatory development.

Phase I of this program will:

1. Require control of impairment that

can be traced to a single existing

stationary facility or small group of

existing stationary facilities,

2. Evaluate and control new sources

to prevent future impairment, and

3. Require States to adopt strategies

such as review and possible control of

other existing sources not meeting the

more stringent source-size requirements

for existing stationary facilities in order

to remedy existing and prevent future

visibility impairment.

Information derived from modeling

and monitoring can, in some cases, aid

the States in development and

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80085 1980
80086 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

implementation of the visibility program.

In the first phase, the States are required

to consider available modeling and

monitoring information. The use of such.

information will be at the discretion of

the State, and the States are not

required to establish monitoring

networks or perform modeling analyses.

Future phases will extend the

visibility program by addressing more

complex problems such asregional haze

and urban plumes. We will propose and

promulgate future phases when

improvement in monitoring techniques

provides more data on source-specific

levels of visibility impairment, regional

scale mbdels become refined, and our

scientific knowledge about the

relationships between emitted air

pollutants and visibility impairment

improves.

The Program-In Detail

We are promulgating regulations that

require the 36 States containing , mandatory Class I Federal areas to

submit revisions to their SIPs within 9

months. 2 These regulations require that

these States (1) revise their SIPs to

assure reasonable progress toward the

national visibility goal of preventing

future and remedying existing

impairment of visibility in mandatory

Class I Federal areas, (2) determine

whether certain existing stationary

facilities should install the Best

Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

for controlling those pollutants which

impair visibility (3) develop, adopt,

implement, and evaluate long-term

strategies for making reasonable

progress toward remedying existing and

preventing future impairment in'the

mandatory Class I Federal areas, and (4)

adopt certain measures regarding

visibility impacts that will supplement

the State's new source review program.

The assistance of the FederalLand

Managers, who are intimately familiar

with the mandatory Class I Federal

areas because of their responsibility for

managing the areas, will be important to

the Stdte during development of a

program to meet these requirements.

Since coordination' among the States, the

Federal Land Managers, and EPA will

be necessary to develop and implement

an effective visibility protection

program, we expect the State and the

Federal Land Manager to work closely

during the entire SIP development

process. While the State retains the

2We did not identify, nor did any commenters

identify any State that did not contain a mandatory

Class I Federal area, but which could contain a source the emissions from which could reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute to any

impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area.

primary responsibility for developing an

effective visibility program, the Federal

Land Manager has the responsibility of - characterizing the visibility of the

mandatory Class I Federal areas.

Therefore, the State should consider

carefully the Federal Land Manager's

comments and recommendations. These

two must work together to ensure that

visibility in these areas is protected.

EPA's-responsibility is to (1) promulgate

visibility regulations which would

require States to revise their State

Implementation Plans (SIPs), (2) provide

guidance to States for implementing the

program (3) continue research into

visibility for use in future phases, and

(4) promulgate regulations for States

which submit inadequate regulations or

fail to submit regulations in response to

these requirements.

Part of the participation process may

involve the identification of integral

vistas by the Federal Land Manager. An

integral vista is an important view front

a point in the mandatojy Class I Federal

area of a scenic landmark outside the .

boundary of the area. The vista must be

important to the visitor's visual

experience of the area. This

identification must be in accordance

with criteria formally adopted by the

Federal Land Manager and must occur

on orbefore December 31, 1985. The

State is not required to analyze

impairment of a vista if it determines

that the Federal Land Manager's

identification of the vista was not in

accordance with these criteria.

Under the authority of § 169A, the

regulations require the States to

consider the potential of new or existing

sources to impair visibility 6f an integral

vista. This consideration may include

the costs of compliance, the time

necessary for compliance, the energy

and nonair quality environmental

impacts of compliance, the remaining

useful life of the source, and the degree

of improvement in visibility anticipated

to result from control. A State, in its

initial SIP revision, would have to

consider an integral vista only if this

vista was identified at least 6 months

before plan submission or plan revision.

With regard to permitting new sources,

integral vistas identified at least 12

months before submission of a complete

permit application would have to be

* protected unless the Federal Land

Manager provided notice of and

opportunity for public comment on the

integral vista in which case the impact

.of the new source must be reviewed if

the integral vista is identified at least 6

months before submission of the

complete permit application. This

requirement to protect integral vistas is

part of the visibility protection program

promulgated today and Is not part of the

PSD program. EPA is currently reviewing new

sources under the PSD provisions (40

CFR Part 52.21) for many States. New

sources reviewed by EPA will be

required under the authority of § 169A

to assess their potential visibility

impacts on integral vistas if

identification of the integral vista meets

the above criteria prior to the

submission of a complete PSD permit

application to EPA.

A. BARTRequirements.

1. The State or the Federal Land

Manager determines whether, in any

mandatory Class I Federal area, there

exists ahy impairment of visibility. This

impairment must be identified at least 0

iionths prior to SIP submission (or

submission of any SIP revision) in order

to allow the State enough time to

develop a plan to remedy the

impairment. This provides the necessary "trigger" to inform the State If it needs

to be concerned with any existing

impairment, or if it needs to focus only

on prevention of future impairment. We

are defining "impairment" as any

"humanly perceptible change in

visibility (visual range, contrast,

coloration) from that which would have

existed under natural conditions."

Impairment which is identified too late

to be addressed by the initial plan

revision will need to be addressed

during the periodic review of the longterm strategy. 2. The State will identify the existing

stationary facilities which cause the

visibility impairment. Existing

stationary facilities are certain sources

which emit more that 250 tons per year,

and (1) were not in operation prior to

August 7, 1962, or (2) were reconstructed

after that date. During Phase I of the

visibility program, the State is required

to determine if visibility impairment In

any mandatory Class I Federal area "is

reasonably attributable" to an existing

stationary facility through visual

observation or any other technique the

State deems appropriate. The Federal

Land Manager may provide the State

with a list of sources suspected of

causing or contributing to visibility

impairment in the mandatory Class I

Federal area.

3. The State will perform a BART

analysis on existing stationary facilities

identified as impairing visibility. In the

BART analysis, the State identifies the

pollutant of concern and what

additional air pollution control

technologies are to be required in order

to reduce existing visibility impairment.

We believe that while pollutants may

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80086 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday. December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 80087

cause or contribute to visibility

impairment, the pollutants of primary

concern under this Phase I program are

particulate matter and NO. Emissions

of SOz primarily contribute to regional

haze which is beyond the scope of this

Phase I program. Therefore, we expect

very few, if any, BART analyses for SOt

in this phase of the program. It should,

however, be noted that we expect that

the Phase II program will result in

control of pollutants associated with

regional haze and urban plumes which

affect mandatory Class I Federal areas.

We therefore expect that sources would

be analyzed, at that time, for all

pollutants causing or contributing to

these types of visibility impairment.

After the State identifies the source of

the pollutant causing the visibility

impairment, the State then identifies

those control techniques that could

improve visibility. If a control technique

exists that would improve visibility in

the mandatory Class I Federal area, then

the State proceeds with the BART

analysis, but if the most stringent

control available would not result in any

improvement in visibility, then the State

may stop the analysis at this point. For

example, while control techniques exist

for NO., the reductions achievable by

the best available technology, generally

defined by current new source

performance standards, may not be

sufficient to achieve any perceptible

improvement in visibility. In such cases

the State is not obligated to require

controls at this time.

If control techniques do exist that

would improve visibility, the State

begins studying alternative control

strategies. The State should consider, on

a case-by-case basis, how much various

alternative control techniques would

cost, the energy and environmental

impact of the controls, what air pollution

technologies the source already has in

place, the remaining useful life of the

source, and to what degree the control

alternatives would improve visibility. In

order to assist States-in the analysis of

BART, the Agency has developed

"Guidelines for the Determination of

Best Available Retrofit Technology for

Coal-fired Power Plants and Other

Existing Stationary Facilities." For large

power plants, BART must be determined

pursuant to this guideline.

The last stage of the BART analysis is

for the State to specify an emission

limitation that reflects BART. The

source must then install, operate, and

maintain the control technology to meet

the emission limitation.

4. The State must reanalyze ceretain

existing stationary facilities that emit

pollutants which were not controlled in

a prior BARTreview. This reanalysis

would occur when the Administrator

determines new technology is available

which would more effectively control a

pollutant which interferes with

visibility. This reanalysis is only

required where the imposition of

controls representing BART have not

been previously required for the specific

pollutant. In this case, based upon the

BART criteria, the State must require

sources to install those controls called

for by the analysis.

5. The source may apply to the

Administrotor for an exemption from

BARTon the basis that the source does

not cause or contribute to siqnificant

impairment of visibility. The source

must notify the Federal Land Manager of

its application and must recieve written

concurrence from the State on the

application. To receive an exemption,

the source must demonstrate to the

Administrator that it does not cause or

contribute to significant impairment of

visibility.

By significant impairment we mean a

level of impairment that interferes with

the visitor's visual experience of the

area. When applying for an exemption, a

source should address the frequency,

extent, time, intensity and duration of

the impairment. If the Administrator

grants an exemption, the Federal Land

Manager must concur before the

exemption will become effective.

B. Monitoring of Visibility Impacts

1. The State will develop a monitoring

strategy. The State in developing this

strategy would assess the need for

visibility monitoring in the development

and implementation of the State's

visibility protection program taking into

consideration available and forthcoming

monitoring techniques, current research,

and guidelines.

2. The State will provide for

consideration of monitoring

requirements for neis, sources. The State

should assess on a case-by-case basis

the need for monitoring by a source, as

part of the new source review process,

to provide information on any potential

impacts on visibility in the Federal Class

I area review process. This assessment

will be based upon available data and

the adequacy of available monitoring

techniques.

3. The State ivill evaluate any

available monitoring data. Any existing

monitoring data available to the State

should be incorporated into the State's

decision-making process for BART

determinations and new source review

decisions.

C. Development of the Long-Term

Strategy

The regulations require each plan to

include a long-term (10-15 year) strategy

for making reasonable progress toward

remedying existing and preventing

future visibility impairment. The

requirements are summarized below,

Remedying E-visting Impairment

Some of the measures the State is to

consider for remedying existing

impairment are:

1. Existing landmanagement plans to

protect or enhance visibility in the

mandatorY Class I Federal area and

other plans relating. to local use around

the area that may affect visibililv in

these areas. This will also be useful in

developing the part of the long-term

strategy relating to prevention of future

impairment.

2. The effectiveness of existin3 air

pollution control programs in reducing

visibility impairment. For example, the

attainment and maintenance of National

Ambient Air Quality Standards may

reduce or eliminate visibility impairment

in mandatory Class I Federal areas. If

this Is the case, the State should explain

how this would contribute to reasonable

progress.

3. Additional emission limitations and

schedules for compliance for

uncontrolled or poorly controlled

sources not covered by HART. This

recognizes that States may have to

control sources not covered by BART to

make reasonable progress toward the

national goal.

4. Retirement of existing sources and

replacement with new, well controlled

facilities. The construction of new

sources which will ensure the early or

scheduled retirement of older, less well

controlled sources can greatly aid

progress toward the national visibility

goal over the long term.

Preventing Future Impairment

The States must review all major

stationary sources andmafor

modifications as defined in EPA

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

IPSDM regulations for their anticipated

impacts on visibility in mandatory

Class I Federal areas.

Under section 307, discussed below,

and §§ 51.24 and 51.18 of EPA's existing

PSD and new source regulations,a new

major stationary sources must be

reviewed for. among other things, its

effect on visibility in Federal Class I

.areas. Thus, implementation of the PSD

program will go a long way toward

preventing future visibility impairment

in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80087 1980
80088 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

There are, however, source which are

not subject to the PSD rules because the

PSD rules do not call for the review of a

major stationary source locating in a "nonattainment" area, even if that

source would impair visibility in a

mandatory Class I Federal area. Today's

action requires an analysis of visibility

impacts by all new sources which might

impair visibility in a mandatory Class I

Federal area irrespective of their

proposed location. However, unlike

review under the PSD provisions, the

State may. for these sources, consider

cost, energy, and other relevant factors

in determining whether to permit

construction of the new source.

The State will review its strategy in

consultation with the Federal Land

Manager and report its findings to the

public and the Administrator at least

every three years. We believe that the

periodic review of the long-term strategy

is an important part of assuring

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal. Since the visibilityt

program is new and evolving, a periodic

review is necessary to 1) take into - account advances in technology, 2)

evaluate progress toward the goal, 3)

evaluate specific program effectiveness,

4) consider any recently identified

integral vista, and 5) provide a

reassessment of the reasonableness of

measures incorporated into the long:

term strategy. In this review of the longterm strategy, the regulatidns would

require certain analyses, including: (1)

an assessment of the progress achieved

in remedying existing impairment, (2) an

assessment of the strategy's long-term

ability to prevent future impairment, and

(3) identification of advances in

technology and consideration of

additional measures that may be

necessary to make reasonable progress

toward the national goal. This periodic

review will require an evaluation of

available human observations, photodocumentation and monitoring data.

III. New Source Review Requirements

for Visibility Impacts

EPA's PSD regulations require that a

proposed major stationary source or

major modification evaluate its potential

impact on visibility and, if the source

would cause an adverse impact on

visibility in a Federal Class I area, that

the State deny the pernit. In this action

we are promulgating a definition of

"'adverse impact" and clarifying certain

procedural relationships between the

Federal Land Manager and the State in

the review of new source impacts on

visibility in Federal Class I areas and

integral vistas.

As the first step in the reviewprocess,

the State notifies the Federal Land

Manager of any potential new source

that may impact visibility in a Federal

Class I area. The State and Federal Land

Manager then initiate consultation

which will continue throughout the

permitting process. Early consultation in

the permitting process will be valuable

and the State should notify the Federal

Land Manager of the source that may

potentially affect the Federal Class I

area. This notification should take place

at the time the State reasonably believes

that a source intends to make an

application for a permit that would

affect the area. Under EPA's PSD

regulations and § 165 of the Act, the

Federal Land Manager may demonstrate

to the State that the source will have an

adverse impact on visibility in the

Federal Class I area even where the PSD

Class I air quality increments are not

violated. If the State agrees with the

Federal Land Manager's assessment that

the source will "adversely impact"

visibility in the Federal Class I area,

then the State will deny the permit. If

the State disagrees with the Federal

Land Manager's demonstration, then it

will provide a written explanation of its

findings to be made available to the

public prior to public hearings on the

permit. Where disagreements on the

permitting of a source exist between the

State and the Federal Land Manager, the

State may desire third-party input into

the decision process. In such cases, the

Administrator or appropriate Regional

Administrator will be available to assist

the State.

In addition, under authqrity of § 169A

of the Act, Section 307 requires an

analysis of the potential visibility

impacts of new sources on integral vistas identified at least 12 months

before submission of a complete permR

application. However, if the Federal

Land Manager provides an opportunity

for public comment on the potential

integral vista the analysis must include

the impacts of any integral vista so

identified at least 6 months prior to the

submission of a complete permit application. This protection for integral

vistas is governed not by the "adverse

impact" test of § 165 and the PSD

program, but rather by consideration of

the long-term strategy of § 169A

including cost, energy, and other

relevant factors.

Finally, Section 307 allows the State

to require the source to monitor

visibility at the proposed site or

potentially affected area as part of the

PSD permit application.

*IV. Regulatory Impact

The immediate, principal benefit of

these regulations will be (1) the

reduction or elimination of impacts

reasonably attributable to specific

existing sources, and (2) further

definition of procedures for the review

of new sources. The focus of these

regulations will be principally in the

West since western areas have

generally good visibility now and are

extremely sensitive to degradation.

Also, the majority of the mandatory

Class I Federal areas are located in the

western United States. We recognize

that States may permit construction of

new sources which may result in

visibility impairment of integral vistas If,

in the state's judgment, such impairment

is justified by the cost of additional

controls, the time necessary to install

controls, the energy and non-air quality

environmental impacts of additional

controls, and the useful life of the

source. * The phased approach of these

regulations will limit the amount of

resources the States will have to expend

on revising their SIPs. Preliminary

indications are that few, if any, existing

stationary facilities will haye to retrofit

controls. The one major r6quirement

applicable to all 36 States is the

development of a long-term strategy for

making reasonable progress toward the

national visibility goal. EPA believes,

hqwever, that many of the basic

elements of an acceptable strategy

already exist within the framework of

other air pollution programs. Therefore,

the State will need to examine the

feasibility and efficacy of only a few

other measures to determine if they

should or need to be included in the

long-term strategy.

The new source review program

required by these regulations takes into

account the new source review

programs which the States are now

called on to implement under the PSD

and nonattainment provisions of the

Clean Air Act.

As commenters, including major

industry representatives, noted, it is

impossible to prepare a precise

regulatory analysis since the State has

substantial discretion in developing a

visibility protection program. However,

since there will be individual cost

considerations for any source which

may be covered by the BART or

reasonable progress requirements, no

source is prejudiced by a less than

perfect regulatory analysis now.

A. Existing Source Impacts

The Agency released for comment

along with the proposed visibility

regulations a draft apalysis of the

impact of these regulations .on existing

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80088 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 233 / Tuesday, Decirbei 2. l180 1 Rules and Regulations 80089

sources. This analysis used visibility

screening curves generated by a

theoretical predictive model to identify

existing stationary facilities which

impair visibility in mandatory Class I

Federal areas. The analysis identified a

number of large power plants as

potential BART candidates. In order to

more realistically assess the impact of

these regulations, EPA discussed with

the Federal Land Managers the facilities

identified in the initial screening

process. We found that this initial

screening overstated the potential

impact of these regulations. Most of the

sources which were initially identified

as potential BART candidates are not

now anticipated to be affected because

the visibility impairment cannot be

reasonably attributed to these facilities.

Other sources identified in this analysis

are not now believed to be affected by

these regulations because either existing

problems are currently being dealt with

by other air quality programs or because

currently available control techniques

will not perceptibly improve visibility.

The analysis also examined the possible

economic impact on other existing

stationary facilities and did not find any

mandatory Class I Federal area in which

visibility impairment might be

reasonably attributable to any such

source.

Since it is virtually impossible to

perform an exhaustive analysis. there

may yet be impairment of visibility in a

mandatory Class I Federal area which

we can reasonably attribute to an

existing stationary facility.

As noted above, the State will need to

examine the existing impairment in the

mandatory Class I Federal areas and

determine if BART is necessary for

existing stationary facilities. There may

also be sources which do not qualify as

existing stationary facilities, but for

which an impact on visibility is

reasonably attributable. The need to

make reasonable progress will require

that the State examine these sources

and determine what action, if any. is

necessary to ensure progress toward the

national visibility goal.

B. New Source Impacts

Most new sources that may impair

visibility in the mandatory Class I

Federal areas are currently subject to

review under the PSD regulations. These

visibility regulations would impose only

a few additional procedural

requirements and should therefore have

little additional impact on these sources.

The regulatory impact of the PSD

program was addressed in that

rulemaking.

These regulations do, however, ensure

that certain sources exempt from the

PSD regulations because of geographic

criteria %i dl le adequately re% tewtd for

their potiential impact on v isibxIb in the

mandatory Class I Federal area, Where

.1 source could reduce ',isibili!y, se% eral

Options are available to the S'ate and

the source, The State could (1) require

the source to analyze alternatIe sites,

12) impose additional control

requirements, (3] limit the source's

capability to emit the pollutant %hich is

expected to cause the impairment by

limiting the source's operating

conditiuns. or (4) deny the source

permission to construct. Among the

options a\ai.dble to the source are

modifying its proposed operating

conditions to reduce its potential impact

and locating at other sites where the

potential impact on the area is expected

to be less,

While it is difficult to predict the

overall marginal impact of these

reguldtions on new sources, we can

state those geographic areas where we

would expect the major impact to occur.

Large sources desiring to locate close to

Federal Class I areas in the western

U.S., particularly if they emit NO., may

encounter difficulty due to the relative

inability to control NO, and because the

visibility impact is frequently a coherent

plume. In addition, dispersion conditions

around many of these areas, primarily

caused by their topography, will

generally not enable emissions to

disperse rapidly enough to prevent a

coherent plume.

V. Judicial Review

Under Section 307(b)[1) of the Clean

Air Act, judicial review of these

regulations for the protection of

visibility is available only by the filing

of a petition for review in the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia within 60 days of today.

Under Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air

Act the requirements which are the

subject of today's notice may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce

these requirements.

These rules are issued under the

authority granted in Sections 110,114,

121, 160-109, 169A, and 301 of the Clean

Air Act. 42 USC 7410, 7414, 7421, 7470-

7479. 7491. and 7601.

Doohd Niivtrmer 21,1960,

Douglas M, Cotle.

The Administrator establishes a new

Subpart P of Part 51, Title 40 of the Code

of Fedvrl Regulations to read as

folltm N,

PART 51-REQUIREMENTS FOR

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION

PLANS

Subpart P-Protection of Visibility

S

]4 )-ai Pdrpi;,,md apphcab:ily.

51 A2 Implimv at"Iion conhr-il sirdegies

51-303 Fxemphins from control

51'Y4 FI ntific An of intcgral vistas.

51 '_0 Longzt. rm siratcg.

51 V)7 N .w soirce review.

Authority: Secs, 110 114, 121,160-169.

R,9A., and 31 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

7410, 7414. 7421, 7-17G-7471, and 7t:ei

§ 51.300 Purpose and applicability.

(a) Purpos The primary purposes of

this Subpart are (1) to require States to

develop programs to assure reasonable

progress toward meeting the national

goal of preventing any future, and

remedying and existing, impairment of

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal

areas %hich impairment results from

man-made air pollution. and (2) 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 § 51.24.

(b) Applicability. (1) The provisions of

this Subpart are applicable to: (i) each

State which has a mandatory Class I

Federal area identified in Part 81,

Subpart D, of this title, and (ii) each

State in which there is any source the

emissions from which may reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute to

any impairment of visibility in any such

area, (2j The provisions of this Subpart

are applicable to the following States:

(i) Alabama

tit) Alaska

(iii) Arizona

(i ) Arkansas

Iv} California

(vil Colorado

(vii) Florida

fiii) Georgia

(ix) Hawaii

(xJ Idaho

(xti Kentucky

(xir Louisiana

Ixiii) Maine

!xmv I Michig;.m [\v) Minnesota

{xvi} Missouri

(x. ii) Montana l id)} Ne% ada

([i'l New tampshire

(%x) N vw Jersey

(xxij New \L-ico

{,.) North Carolina

{xxuiI North Dakota

(xxiVj Oklahima

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80089 1980
80090 Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 233 I Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

(xxv) Oregon

(xxvi) South Carolina

(xxvii) South Dakota

[xxviii) Tennessee

(xxix) Texas

(xxx).Utah

[xxxi) Vermont

(xxxii) Virginia

(xxxiii) Virgin Islands

(xxxiv) Washington

(xxxv) West Virginia

(xxxvi) Wyoming.

§ 51.301 Definitions.

For purposes of this Subpart:

(a) "Adverse impact on visibility"

means, for purposes of § 307, visibility

impairment which interferes with the

management, protection, preservation,

or enjoyment of the visitor's. visual

experience of the Federal Class I area.

This determination must be made on a

case-by-case basis taking into account

the geographic extent, intensity,

duration, frequency and time of

visibility impairments, and how these

factors'correlate with (1) times of visitor

use of the Federal Class I area, and (2)

the frequency and timing of natural

conditions that reduce visibility. This

term does not include effects on integral

vistas.

(b) "Agency" means the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

(c) "Best Available Retrofit

Technology (BART)" means an emission

limitation based on the degree of

reduction achievable tfirough the

application of the best system of

continuous emission reduction for each

pollutant which is emitted by an existing

stationary facility. The emission

limitation must be established, on a

case-by-case basis, taking into

consideration the technology available,

the costs of compliance, the energy and

nonair quality environmental impacts of

compliance, any pollution control

equipment in use or in existence 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.

(d) "Building, structure, or facility"

means all of the pollutant-emitting

activities which belong to the same

industrial grouping, are located on one

.or more contiguous or adjacent

properties, and are under the control of

the same person (or persons under

common control). Pollutant-emitting

activities must be considered as part of

the same industrial grouping if they

belong to the same "Major Group" (i.e.,

which have the same two-digii code) as

described in the Standard Industrial

Classification Manual, 1972 as amended

by the 1977 Supplement (U.S.

Government Printing Office stock

numbers 4101-0066 and 003-005-00176-0

respectively).

(e) "Existing Stationary Facility"

means any of the following stationary

sources of air pollutants, including any

reconstructed source, which was not in

operation prior to August 7, 1962, and

was in existence on August 7, 1977, and

has the potential to'emit 250 tons per

year or more of any air pollutant. In

determining potential to emit, fugitive

emissions, to the extent quantifiable,

must be counted.

(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,

(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.

(f) "Federal Class I area" means any

Federal land that'is classified or

reclassified "Class I."

(g) "Federal Land Manager" means

the Secretary of the department with

authority over the Federal Class I area

or, with respect to'RooseveltCampobello International Park, the

Chairman of the Roosevelt-Campobello

International Park Commission.

(h) "Federally enforceable" means all

limitations and conditions which are

enforceable by the Administrator under

the Clean Air Act including those

requirements developed pursuant to

Parts 60 and 61 of this title, requirements

within any applicable State

Implementation Plan, and any permit

requirements established pursuant to

§ 52.21 of this Chapter or under

regulations approved pursuant to § 51,

§ 52, or § 60 of this title.

(i) "Fixed capital cost" means the

capital needed to provide all of the

depreciable components. (j) "Fugitive Emissions" means those

emissions which could not reasonably

pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or

other functionally equivalent opening.

(k) "In existence" means that the

owner or operator has obtained all

necessary preconstruction approvals or

permits required by Federal, State, or

local air pollution emissions and air

quality laws or regulations and either

has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a

continuous program of physical on-site

construction of the facility or (2) entered

into binding agreements or contractual

obligations, which cannot be cancelled

or modified without substantial loss to

the owner or operator, to undertake a

_program of construction of the facility to

be completed in a reasonable time,

(1) "Installation" means an identifiable

piece of process equipment.

(in) "In operation" means engaged in

activity related to the primary deslgn

function of the source,

(n) "Integral vista" means a view

perceived from within the mandatory

Class I Federal area of a specific

landmark or panorama located outside

the boundary of the mandatory Class I

Federal area.

(o) "Mandatory Class I Federal Area"

means any area identified in Part 81,

Subpart D of this title.

(p) "Major Stationary Source" and "major modification" mean "major

stationary source" and "major

modification," respectively, "as defined

in § 51.24.

(q) "Natural Conditions" includes

naturally occurring phenomena that

reduce visibility as measured in terms of

visual range, contrast, or coloration.

(r) "Potential to emit" means the

maximum capacity of a stationary

,-source to emit a pollutant under its

physical and operational design. Any

physical or operational limitation on the

capacity of the source to emit a

pollutant including. air pollution control

equipment and restrictions on hours of

operation or on the type or amount of

material combusted, stored, or

processed, shall be treated as part of its

design if the limitation or the effect it

would have on emissions is federally

enforceable. Secondary emissions do

not count in determining the potential to

emit of a stationary source.

(s) "Reasonably attributable" means

attributable by visual observation or

80090 Federal Register No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / R~ules and Regulations / Vol. 45,

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80090 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 1 Rules and Regulations 80091

any other technique the State deems

appropriate.

(t) "Reconstruction" will be presumed

to have taken place where the fixed

capital cost of the new component

exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital

cost of a comparable entirely new

source. Any final decision as to whether

reconstruction has occurred must be

made in accordance with the provisions

of § 0.15 (f) (1)-{3) of this title.

(u) "Secondary emissions" means

emissions which occur as a result of the

construction or operation of an existing

stationary facility but do not come from

the existing stationary facility.

Secondary emissions may include, but

are not fini d to, emissions from ships

or trains coming to or from the existing

stationary facility.

(v) "Significant impairment" means,

for purposes of § 303. visibility

impairment which, in the judgment of

the Administrator, interferes with the

management, protection, preservation,

or enjoyment of the visitor's visual

experience of the mandatory Clals I

Federal area. This determination must

be made on a case-by-case basis taking

into account the geographic extent

intensity, duration, frequency and time

of the visibility impairment, and how

these factors correlate with (1) times of

visitor use of the mandatory Class I

Federal area, and (2) the frequency and

timing of natural conditions that reduce

visibility.

(w) "Stationary Source" means any

building, structure, facility, or

installation which emits or may emit

any air pollutant

[x) "Visibility impairment" means any

humanly perceptible change in visibility

(visual range, contrast, coloration) from

that which would have existed under

natural conditions.

(y) "Visibility in any mandatory Class

I Federal area" includes any integral

vista associated with that area.

§ 51.302 Implementation control

strategies.

(a] Plan Revision Procedures.

(1) Each State identified in § 300(b)(2)

must submit, no later than nine months

from the date of promulgation of-this

regulation, an implementation plan

revision meeting the requirements of this

Subpart.

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

any implementation plan required by

this Subpart, must conduct one or more

public hearings on such plan in

accordance with § 51.4.

(ii) In addition to therequirements in

§ 51.4, 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. (3) Submission of plans as required by

this Subpart must be conducted in

accordance with the procedures in § s55

(b) State and Federal Land Afanoger

Coordination.

(1) The State must identify to the

Federal Land Managers, in writing and

within 30 days of the date of

promulgation of these regulations, the

title of the official to which the Federal

Land Manager of any mandatory Class I

Federal area can submit a

recommendation on the implementation

of this Subpart including, but not limited

to:

(i) A list of integral vistas that are to

be listed by the State for the purpose of

implementing § 304,

(ii) Identification of impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area(s), and

(iii) Identification of elements for

inclusion in the visibility monitoring

strategy required by 1305.

(2) The State must provide

opportunity for consultation, in person

and at least 60 days prior to holding any

public hearing on the plan, with the

Federal Land Manager on the proposed

SIP revision 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 long.term strategy.

(3) The plan 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. (c) General Plan Requirements.

(1) The affected Federal Land

Manager may certify to the State, at any

time, that there exists impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area.

(2) The plan must contain:

(i) A long-term (10-15 years) strategy,

as specified in § 305 and 1 306, including

such emission limitations, schedules of

compliance, and such other measures

including schedules for the

implementation of the elements of the

long-term strategy as may be necessary

to make reasonable progress toward the

national goal specified in I 300(a).

(ii) An assessment of visibility

impairment and a discussion of how

each element of the plan relates to the

preventing of future or remedying of

existing impairment of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area within

the State-

(iii) Emission limitations representing

BART and schedules for compliance

,with BART for each existing stationary

facility identified according to

paragraph (c][41 of this section.

(3) The plan must requ:re each source

to maintain control equipment required

by this Subpart and establish

procedures to ensure such control

equipment is properly operated and

maintained.

(4) For any existing visibility

impairment the Federal Land Manager

certifies to the State under paragraph

(c)(1) at least 6 months prior to plan

submission:

(i) The State must identify and

analyze for BART each existing

stationary facility which may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to impairment of visibility in

any mandatory Class I Federal area

where the impairment in the mandatory

Class I Federal area is reasonably

attributable to that existing stationary

facility. The State need not consider any

integral vista the Federal Land Manager

did not identify pursuant to § 304(b] at

least 6 months before plan submission.

(ii) If the State determines that

technologicial or economic limitations

on the applicability of measurement

methodology to a particular existing

stationary facility 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 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.

(iii) BART must be determined for

fossil-fuel fired generating plants having

a total generating capacity in excess of

750 megawatts pursuant to "Guidelines

for Determining Best Available Retrofit

Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants

and Other Existing Stationary Facilities"

(1980), which is incorporated by

reference, exclusive of Appendix E,

which was published in the Federal

Register on February 6.1980 45 FR

8210). It is EPA publication No. 45013-

80-009b and is for sale from the U.S.

Department of Commerce, National

Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

It is also available for inspection at the

office of the Federal Register

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80091 1980
80092 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Information Center, Room 8301, 1100 I

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20408.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director, of the Federal

Register. These materials are

incorporated as they exist on the date of

approval and a notice of any change will

be published in the Federal Register. (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. (v) The plan must provide for a DART

analysis of any existing stationary

facility that might cause or contribute to

impairment of visibility in any - mandatory Class I Federal area

identified under this paragraph (4) at

such times, as determined by the

Administrator, as new technology for

control of the pollutant becomes

reasonably available if:

(A) The pollutant is emitted by that

existing stationary facility,

(B) Controls representing BART for

the pollutant have not previously been

required under this Subpart, and

(C) The impairment of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area is

reasonably attributable to the emissions

of that pollutaqt.

§ 51.303 Exemptions from control.

(a)(1) Any existing stationary facility

subject to the requirement under § 302

to install, operate, and maintain BART

may apply to the Administrator for an'

'exemption from that requirement.

(2) An application under this section

must include all available

documentation relevant to the impact of

the source's emissions on visibility in

any mandatory Class I Federal area and

a demonstration by the existing

stationary facility that it does not or will

not, by itself or in' combination with

other sources, emit any air pollutant

which may be reasonably anticipated to

cause or contribute to a significant

impairmdnt of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area.

(b) Any fossil-fuel fired power plant

with a total generating capacity of 750

megawatts or more may receive an

exemption from BART only if the owner

or operator of such power plant

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

Administrator that uch power plant is

located at such a distance from all

mandatory Class I Federal areas that

such power plant does not or will not,

by itself or in combination with other

sources, emit any air pollutant which

may reasonably be anticipated to cause

or contribute to significant impairment

of visibility in any such mandatory

Class I Federal area.

(c] Application under this § 303 must

be accompanied by a written

concurrence from the State with

regulatory authority over the source.

(d) The existing stationary facility

must give prior written notice to all

affected Federal Land Managers of any

application for exemption under this

§ 303.

(e) The Federal Land Manager may

provide an initial recommendation or

comment on the disposition of such

application. Such recommendation,

where provided, must be part of the

exemption application. This

recommendation is not to be construed

as the concurrence required under

Paragraph (h) below.

(f) The Administrator, within 90 days

of receipt of an application for

exemption from control, will provide

notice of receipt of an exemption

application and notice of opportunity for

public hearing on the application. (g)'After notice and opportunity for'

public hearing, the Administrator may

grant or deny the exemption. For

purposes of judicial review, final EPA

action on an application for an

exemption under this § 303 will not

occur until EPA approves or disapproves

the State Implementation Plan revision.

(h) An exemption granted by the

Administrator under this § 303 will be

effective only upon concurrence by all

affected Federal Land Managers with

the Administrator's determination.

§ 51.304 Identification of Integral Vistas.

(a) On or before December 31, 1985

the Federal Land Manager may,identify

any integral vista. The integral vista

must be identified according to criteria

the Federal Lafid Manager develops.

These criteria must include, but are not

limited to, whether the integral vista is

important to the visitor's visual

experience of the mandatory Class I

Federal area. Adoption of criteria must

be preceded by reasonable notice and

opportunity for public comment on the

proposed criteria.

(b) The Federal Land Manager must

notify the State of any integral vistas

identified under Paragraph (a) and the

reasons therefor.

(c) The State must list in its

implementation plan any integral vista

the Federal Land Manager identifies at

least six months prior to plan

submission, and must list in its

implementation plan at its earliest

opportunity, and in no case later than at

the time of the periodic r~view of the SIP

required by § 306(c), any integral vista

the Federal Land Manager identifies

after that time.

(d) The State need not in its

implementation plan list any integral

vista the indentification of which was

not made in accordance with the criteria

in Paragraph (a). In making this finding,

the State must carefully consider the

expertise of the Federal Land Manager

in making the judgments called for by

the criteria for identification, Where the

State and the Federal Land Manager

disagree on the identification of any

integral vista, the State must give the

Federal Land Manager an opportunity to

consult with the Governor of the State,

§ 51.305 Monitoring.

(a) The State must include in the plan

a strategy for evaluating visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area by

visual observation or other appropriate

monitoring techniques. 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.

(b) The plan'must provide for the

consideration of available visibility data

and must provide a mechanism for its

use in decisions required by this

Subpart.

§ 51.306 Long-term strategy.

(a)(1) Each plan must include a longterm (10-15 years] strategy for making

reasonable progress toward the national

goal specified in § 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

w hich the Federal Land Manager

notifies the State at least 6 months prior

to plan submission.

(2) A long-term strategy must be

developed for each mandatory Class I

Federal area located within the State

and each mandatory Class I Federal

area located outside the State which

may be affected'by sources within the

State. This does not preclude the

development of a single comprehensive

plan for all such areas.

(3) The plan must set forth with

reasonable specificity why the long-term

strategy is adequate for making

reasonable progress toward the national

visibility goal, including remedying

existing and preventing future

impairment. (b) The State must coordinate its longterm strategy for an area with existing

plans and goals, including those

provided by the affected Federal Land

Managers, that may affect impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area.

(c) The~plan must provide for periodic

review and revision, as appropriate, of

the long-term strategy not less frequent

than every three years. This review

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80092 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 80093

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:

(1) The progress achieved in

remedying existing impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area;

(2] The ability of the long-term

strategy to prevent future impairment of

visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area;

(3] Any change in visibility since the

last such report, or, in the case of the

first report, since plan approval:

(4) Additional measures, including the

need for SIP revisions, that may be

necessary to assure reasonable progress

toward the national visibility goal;

(5) The progress achieved in

implementing BART dnd meeting other

schedules set forth in the long-term

strategy;

(6) The impact of any exemption

granted under § 303;

(7) The need for BART to remedy

existing visibility impairment of any

integral vista listed in the plan since the

last such report, or, in the case of the

first report, since plan approval.

(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 § 307, § 51.24, § 51.18

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.

(e) The State must consider, at a

minimum, the following factors during

the development of its long-term

strategy:

(I) Emission reductions due to ongoing

air pollution control programs,

(2) Additional emission limitations

and schedules for compliance.

(3] Measures to mitigate the impacts

of construction activities,

(4] Source retirement and replacement

schedules,

(5) Smoke management techniques for

agricultural and forestry management

purposes including such plans as

currently exist within the State for these

purposes, and

(6) Enforceability of emission

limitations and control measures.

(f) The plan must discuss the reasons

why tle above and other reasonable

measures considered in the development

of the long-term strategy were or were

not adopted as part of the long-term

strategy.

(g) The State, in developing the longterm strategy, must take into account the

effect of new sources, and the costs of

compliance, the time necessary for

compliance, the energy and nonair

quality environmental impacts of

compliance, and the remaining useful

life of any affected existing source and

equipment therein.

151.307 New souroe 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 Clean Air Act,

the State plan must, in any review under

§ 51.24 with respect to visibility

protection and analyses, provide for.

(1) Written notification of all affected

Federal Land Managers of any proposed

new major stationary source or major

modification that may affect visibility in

any Federal Class I area. Such

notification must be made in writing and

include a copy of all information

relevant to the permit application within

30 days of receipt of and at least 60 days

prior to public hearing by the State on

the application for permit to construct.

Such notification must include an

analysis of the anticipated impacts on

visibility in any Federal Class I area,

(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

§ 51.24) 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

(3) Consideration of any analysis

performed by the Federal Land

Manager, provided within 30 days of the

notification and analysis required by

Paragraph (a)(1) above, that such

proposed new major stationary source

or major modification may have an

adverse impact on visibility in any

Federal Class I area. Where the State

finds that such an analysis does not

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the

State that an adverse impact will result

in the Federal Class I area, the State

must, in the notice of public hearing,

either explain its decision or give notice

as to where the explanation can be

obtained.

(b) The plan shall also provide for the

review of any new major stationary

source or major modification:

(1] That may have an impact on any

integral vista of a mandatory Class I

Federal area, if it is identified in

accordance with 1 304 by the Federal

Land Manager at least 12 months before

submission of a complete permit

application, except where the Federal

Land Manager has provided notice and

opportunity for public comment on the

integral vista in which case the review

must include impacts on any integral

vista identified at least 6 months prior to

submission of a complete permit

application, unless the State determines

under I 304(d) that the identification

was not in accordance with the

Identification criteria, or

(2) That proposes to locate in an area

classified as nonattainment under

section 107(d)(1](A), (B), or (C) of the

Clean Air Act that may have an impact

on visibility in any mandatory Class I

Federal area.

(c) Review of any major stationary

source or major modification under

Paragraph (b) shall be conducted in

accordance with Paragraph (a) above,

and 1 51.24(o), (p) (1}-(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 1 30(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.

(d) The State may require monitoring

of visibility in any Federal Class I area

near the proposed new stationary

source or major modification for such

purposes and by such means as the

State deems necessary and appropriate.

Supplemental Statement of Basis and

Purpose 1

This statement sets out briefly the

changes in the final rules from the

proposal, the reasons for those changes,

and significant comments related to

these changes. A complete response to

all comments received can be found in

"Summary of Comments and Responses

on the May 22,1980 Proposed

Regulations on Visibility Protection for

Federal Class I Areas" available in

Docket A-79-40.

Comments were received from private

industry, private individuals,

environmental organizations, local

government, State and local air pollution

control agencies, and other Federal

agencies, and addressed nearly every

aspect of the proposal. In developing

these final rules, the Administrator

considered all public comments

received, and believes that the final

'This statement . l not appear In the Code of

Federal Regulations.

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80093 1980
80094 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, -December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

rules represent, asaconsequence,.an

improvement upon the proposal.

Today's promulgation is the best

program that can .be established

considering -the scientific and technical

limitations That exist in measuring and

predicting visibility inpairment.

This 'supplemental statement notes the

regulatory -changes in each Section so

the reader-can determine ,them easily.

§ 300 Purpose ondApplicability

This Section remains essentiallyas

proposed. The major changes were: 1)

Paragraph {a)(1) iii was made

Paragraph '(b)(3) for clarity; and (2) the

portion -of Paragraph(b)(2) which

described procedures foraanging the

list 6foaffected States was deleted

because the Administrator has

determinedit-would be appropriate to

propose and solicit comment before

promulgating any change in ,the States

affected by'these~ules.

§ 301 Definitions

This Section now liststhe definitions

alphabetically .for ease -of reader * reference. The fdllowing definitions

were changed:

(1) Adverse impact--The phrase 'of

the visitor's visual experience" was

added to the first sentence of -the

definition to.clarify that, forpurposes of

this definition, "!management, protection,

and preservation" concerns are

important onlyas ,they relate ,tothe

visitor's visualexperienceof-the Federal - Class I area. Additionally, a -statement

was added to-indicate that The '%adverse

impact" test for anewsource ander he

PSD program does.not.apply to integral

vistas.

(2) Best available retrofit -echn6logyThe phrase "or in existence" was added

to the equirerment 'that the State

consider "pollution vontrol-equipment in

use" indeterminhg BART. This ,hange

was made because the Administrator

believes that where a source is installing

controls as -aresult ofotherairpollution

control programs thatarenotyet "in

use," these controls andanticipated

effects should be taken intoaccountin

the BART~determinations.

(3) Building, structure, facility-Thisdefinition was changed to be consistent

with thePSD regulations(451FR.52676,

August 7, 1980) f"new-PSD regulations".).

j(4) Existing stationary faclity-,ids

term was.changed.-fom "existing mamjor

stationary source" lo reduce any - confusion With -other definitions of "source" in 40;CFRPart 51-Additionally,

as many commenters -urged, EPA-has

harmonized with-Section 69Ag)(,Jpof

the Act the proposed provision

restricting pollutants to be considered -to

those regulated under the Act.

(5) Federal Class I area and

mandatory Class I Federal area-These

definitions were added to clarify -the

difference -between them.

(6) Federally enforceable-This

defintion was added to be consistent

" with the new PSD regulations.

(7) Fugitive emissions-This definition

was changed consistent with the new

PSD regulations.

(8) Installation-This definition -was - separated from "building, structure, or

facility" to accommodate the

reconstruction provisions of BART

applicability, and 'to be consistent with

the nonattainment -regulations (45 FR

52676, August 7,1980 -("new

nonattainment regulations"). (9) Integral vista-This -definition'was

changedlobe consistent with changes

in § 304. (Seediscussion on 3'304,iind

on definition of "'visibility in any

mandatory Classl Federal -area')

'110) 'Major stationary-source-The

term"'majoremitfing facility" was

replaced-by major stationary source to

be consistent with otherprovisions of 40

CFR Part'51.

(11) Natural conditions-This -

definition was dhanged in response to

public comments stating that he

proposed;deFinition was vague and

unworkable. The -definition 'now -states

that natural -conditions 'are naturally

occuring -phenomena and-defines The

terms in -which it is -to be measured.

(12) Potential to emit-This definition

was changed to-be consistent with the

new PSD regulations.The fugitive

emissions inclusion statementwas

moved to'he'definition-of "exkisting

stationary -facility:' (13) Reasonably attributable--:This - definition was changed -for -clarityand in

response to -omments that-EPA should

not require a State to attribute

impairment solelyon the basis -ofa

monitoring technique -thertlfan -visual

obseivation.he ,definition mow-states

that impairment is attributable by visual

observation, and :that'the State 3n its

discretion-may use anyother

appropriate lechnique to -attribute

impairment. (14) Reconstruction-The veference to "reconstruction" in'the definition of

"existing-stationary facility" was

changed slightly for-clarification.

(15) Secondaryemissions-This

defintion-was changed to be consistent

with ;thenew.PSD Tegulations.

(16) Significant impairment-This

definition was changed in the same

manneras The-definition oladverse

impact.The exemption procedures for

sources not causingorcontributing to

significant impairmentappies -to

impairment of-an integral vita (see - § 303).

(17) Stationary source-This

definition was changed in response to

comments that Section 169A(a)(7)

,applies to "any" pollutant, not just those "regulated under the Act."

(18) Visibility in any mandatory Class

I Federal area-This definition was

added because integral vistas are part of

the mandatory Class I Federal area.

§ 302 Implementation Control

Strategies

(1) While the basic structure ofthis

Section remains the same, due to the

various changes in this Section,

paragraphs have been renumbered.

(2) Paragraph (b) was~rewritten to

clarify the role of he Federal Land

Manager An 'the SIP development

process.

(3) Paragraph,[c)(2) was deleted

because the integral vista identification

,procedures are all included in :304 for

clarity.

(4) Paragraph (")(4) was rewritten to

clarify the BART determination process,

including the Federal Land Manager's

role in the process, and to ensure

exisiting stationary facilities are

analyzed 'for their effect on integral

vistas. Also, the BART reanalysis

procedures have been moved to this

paragraph from the section on long-term

strategy.

Specifically, the State must determine

whether any impairment the Federal

Land Manager identifies at least 6

months before plan submission Is

reasonably attributable 'to any specific

existing stationary facility. The State

will subsequently establishthe BART

emission limitation for such sources

based upon the BART guidelines.This

BART emission limitation will, -of

course, be reviewable by the

Administrator during the SIP review

process.

When the Administrator delermines

that new technology is available for the

control of a pollutant not previously

controlled -under BART requirements, he

will so advise the States, provide

guidance on the application of the new

control techniquefor sources emitting

that-pollutant and call on the'States to

revise the SIPs accordingly.'This is

narrower-than the reanalysis

requirement proposed, as explained in

the Response to Comment document.

§ 303 Exemptionsfrom Control

Paragraph tc) -has been rewritten to

indicate that concurrence on -the

exemption application is needed only

from the State with regulatory authority

over the source. Several commenters

were confused by this provision because

they believed any concurrence would be

an admission by the State that it had

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80094 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

performed the BART analysis

improperly. To the contrary, the

exemption process is not related to the

establishment of the BART emission

limitation. BART emission limitations

are to be set for sources which cause or

contribute to any visibility impairment

which is reasonably attributable to the

source, whereas the source may apply

for an exemption on the basis that it

does not cause or contribute to

significant impairment of visibility. The

State's concurrence is required on any

such application for an exemption

because, under Section 116 of the Act.

the State may establish emission

limitations more stringent than required

by the Administrator. The Administrator

does not intend that this exemption

procedure usurp any right by the State

to establish emission limitations and

therefore will not grant any exemption

in which the State does not concur.

§ 304 Identification of Integral Vistas

This Section has been entirely revised

in response to public comments. Under

these final rules, if the Federal Land

Manager desires to identify integral

vistas (the Federal Land Manager is not

required to do so). the Federal Land

Manager must first adopt specific

identification criteria preceded by notice

and a reasonable opportunity for public

comment. If the Federal Land Manager

desires visibility protection for an

integral vista, the vista must be

identified to the State, which will then

list the integral vista in the SIP. The

Federal Land Managers may, at their

discretion, subject the integral vistas to

public comment prior to identification to

the State. The State need not list any

integral vista that it determines was not

identified in accordance with the

criteria. Where the State disagrees with

the Federal Land Manager over an

integral vista, the State must provide

opportunity for the Federal Land

Manager to discuss the identification

with the Governor of the State. It is

important to note that a State may,

under its own authority, identify

additional integral vistas to be afforded

visibility protection.

§ 305 Monitoring

The requirement for consultation with

the Federal Land Manager has been

deleted as duplicative of § 302(b)(1)(iii).

§ 306 Long-term Strategy

(1) Paragraph (a)(1) has been revised

to indicate that the long-term strategy

must cover any existing impairment

including impairment of integral vistas,

identified by the Federal Land Manager

at least 6 months prior to plan

submission.

(2) Paragraph (a)(2) has been revised

to clarify that only mandatory Class I

Federal areas that may be impacted by

sources in the State need be addressed.

Additionally, a statement was added to

permit the State to develop a single

comprehensive plan for visibility

protection instead of developing

fragmented plans for each area.

(3) Paragraph (b) has been rewritten

to ensure consideration of all plans that

might affect visibility in the mandatory

Class I Federal area, so that the State

can coordinate its long-term strategy

with them.

(4) Paragraph (d](2) Is revised to refer

to the new source programs of 1 307,

§ 51.24(PSD), and 1 51.18 (nonattainment

new source review). The purpose of this

reference is not to add new

requirements, but simply to make note

of these existing requirements. It is

anticipated that States will have already

adopted programs consistent with

1 51.18 and 1 51.24.

(5) Paragraph (e) of the proposed rule

requiring BART reanalysis was moved

to the paragraph on BART procedures.

(6) Paragraph (f)[5) [proposed

paragraph (e)(5)] has been revised to

ensure adequate consideration of

existing plans for the use and control of

prescribed forest and agricultural

burning. (7) Proposed Paragraph (h) is deleted

as the requirement is included in

J 302(c)(2)[1).

§307 NewSourceReview

(1) This section has been substantially

changed to make it clearer and simpler.

Paragraph (a) has been changed to

ensure notification of all affected

Federal Land Managers at least 60 days

(instead of the proposed 30 days) before

the public hearing on the construction

permit of any source subject to the PSD

provisions that may affect visibility.

This ensures that the Federal Land

Manager will have adequate time before

the public hearing to assess the source's

potential impact. In addition, Paragraph

(a) ensures that the public has access

before the hearing to the State's reasons

for not being satisifled with any

demonstration by the Federal Land

Manager that an adverse impact on

visibility would result. This will aid the

public's ability to comment meaningfully

at the hearing.

(2] Paragraph (b) requires that the

review of any new major stationary

source or major modifications must

cover any integral vista identified at

least 12 months before submission of a

complete permit application unless the

Federal Land Manager identifies the

vista after notice and opportunity for

public comment on the integral vista in

which case the review must include any

integral vista identified at least 6

months prior to submission of the

complete permit application. Review of

such vistas is governed by the

requirement for making reasonable

progress towards the national visibility

goal. The Agency recognizes that there

may be situations where, in considering

the factors of reasonable progress as set

out in J 169A(g]{1), some additional

visibility impairment should be tolerated

or accepted. The State may allow the

visibility impairment recognizing it to be

interim in nature such as natural

resource extraction, or the State may

permit a source which will impair

visibility now while acknowledging

there may be the opportunity in the

future to remedy that impairment (as

with emissions of NO.). Provisions for

future considerations of improved

controls may be incorporated as a

condition of a new source permit. This

may be consistent with the intent of

reasonable progress. The national goal

was not to be achieved immediately;

energy, economic, and other factors

should be considered; therefore, some

visibility impairment in these situations

could be tolerated.

(3) The requirement in Paragraph (d)

is unchanged.

(4) All other provisions of proposed

Section 307 have been deleted because

they merely repeat requirements of

1.24.

IFR o =-IEo,33 F d L-1-,o: &45 ami

XLM CODE ISHO-2

8DO95

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 80095 1980