# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 45 Fed. Reg. 80084 1980

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)
Tue Jan 10 15:09:25 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.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]
VisibilityProtection 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 ofany future, and the remedying ofany existing, impairment ofvisibility 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 IFederal areas.

The principal effect ofthese 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 forreview of'these regulations must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia byFebruary 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 4:00p.m. on weekdays and

a reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Johnnie L.Pearson, Office ofAir 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) ofthe Clean Air Act (Act). To work toward meeting the national visibility goal set out in Section 169A(a](1) ofthe prevention of any future and remedying ofany existing man-made visibility impairment in such

areas, Section 169A requires that the:

*Department ofInterior 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 ofInterior, promulgate a list ofthe mandatory Class I Federal areas in which visibility is an important value [Section 169A(a(2}].

*EPA prepare areport 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 ofvisibility 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 of750 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 ofa Federal Class I

area and the right to recommend the denial ofa PSD permit ifan adverse impact on visibility would result, even it the Class IPSD 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) ofmandatory Class IFederal 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 ofProposed 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 ofreceiving oral public
comment on the proposed rules. The Agency subsequently announced (45FR 49110, July 23, 1980) the availability of certain draftguideline documents, solicited comments on those guidelines, and established a public hearing for the purpose ofobtaining 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, 1980in order to provide sufficient time for commenters to consider the guidelines and their effect

on the proposed regulatory program, Transcripts ofall public hearings and copies 6fthe public comments received have been placed in Docket A-79-40. The Agency received a total of383
comments from the publicrelating to the various aspects of the proposed
programs. This promulgation is based
upon the material in the docket including EPA's review and consideration ofall comments received during the public comment period, Notice ofthe changes made from the proposal is in the "SupplementalFederal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 80085

Statement ofBasis and Purpose" which follows the regulatory language. Additionally, EPA has prepared a document, "Summary ofComments 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 inDocket 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 ofthis 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 ofuse topersons 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 ofAnthropogenic 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 ofEconomic Impacts ofVisibility 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," (EPA450/2-80-082) 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 ofBasis and Purpose" which discusses the major changes between the final and proposed rules. In addition,

we have placed inDocket No. A-79-40 a document containing EPA's response to comments.

TheProblem

Congress has set aside certain international parks and national wilderness areas, national memorial parks, and national parks (mandatory Class I Federal areas) topreserve and enhance their beauty forpresent and future generations to enjoy. The intrinsic beauty ofthese areas, however,has been threatened by visibility-degrading air pollution. 1Visibility iscommonly referred to as the relative ease with which objects can be seen through the atmosphere under various conditions. Congress became aware ofthe need to protect visibility in these areas and directed EPAthrough the Clean AirAct
to explore the relationship between man-caused pollution and visibility impairment.

From this research we can say there

are generally two types ofair pollution which reduce or impair visibility:

(1)Smoke, dust, colored gas plumes,

orlayered haze emitted from stacks which obscure the sky or horizon and

are relatable to a single source ora small group ofsources, and (2) widespread, regionally homogeneous haze from amultitude ofsources which impairs visibility in every direction over

a large area.

These types ofpollution 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 oflight 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 avisible 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 ofa discernible plume, obscuring

some portion ofthe landscape.

'The National Parks andConser atign Association. nadditiQn N3 many iar.J.iJlA commenters. statedin comments on lieprcpms~d regulations for the protehown of,,iibhty thatair pollution may well be themajor threat to the national parI, in the 1980's, The Program

A PhasedApproach tothe Problem Congress, in recognition ofthe need to protect the aesthetic value ofvisibility 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 IFederal areas be prevented. We reviewed the techniques foridentifying, 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 ofvisibility impairment.

As described in that report, we determined that the present mathematical models and monitoring techniques show promise forbeing 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 regulatoryprogram forsources, either new or existing, that
may impair visibility. In someinstances

we can identify the origin ofvisibility impairment caused by a single source or small group ofsources without the use ofsophisticated analytical techniques. Simple monitoring techniques such as visual observation (either ground based

orwith aircraft) can often identify

sources which contribute to the impairment.

Recognizing the need toinitiate 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 ofthis program will: 1.Require control ofimpairment that

can be traced to a single existing stationary facility or small group of existing stationary facilities,

2. Evaluate and control new sources toprevent 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
toremedy existing and prevent future visibility impairment.

Information derived from modeling and monitoring can, in some cases, aid the States in development and80086 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

implementation ofthe visibility program. In the first phase, the States are required
to consider available modeling and monitoring information. The use ofsuch. 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.

TheProgram-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. 2These regulations require that these States (1) revise their SIPs to

assure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal ofpreventing future and remedying existing impairment ofvisibility 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 ClassI Federal areas, and (4) adopt certain measures regarding visibility impacts thatwill supplement the State's new source review program.

The assistance ofthe FederalLand Managers, who are intimately familiar with the mandatory Class IFederal

areas because oftheir responsibility for managing the areas, willbe important to the Stdte during development ofa program to meetthese requirements. Since coordination' among the States, the Federal Land Managers, and EPAwill 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 didnot identify, nor did any commenters identify any State that did not contain amandatory Class IFederal area, but which could contain a

source the emissions from which could reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment ofvisibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. primary responsibility fordeveloping an effective visibilityprogram, the Federal Land Manager has the responsibility of

- characterizing the visibility ofthe

mandatory Class IFederal areas. Therefore, the State should consider carefully theFederal LandManager's
comments and recommendations. These
two mustwork 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 foruse in future phases, and (4)promulgate regulations for States which submit inadequate regulations or fail to submit regulations inresponse to these requirements.

Part oftheparticipation process may involve the identification ofintegral vistas by the Federal Land Manager. An integral vista is an important view front

a point in the mandatojy Class IFederal

area of a scenic landmark outside the

. boundary ofthe area. Thevista must be important to the visitor's visual experience ofthe area. This identification mustbe 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 avista ifit determines that the Federal Land Manager's identification ofthe vista was not in accordance with these criteria.

Under the authority of §169A, the regulations require the States to consider the potential ofnew or existing

sources to impair visibility 6fan integral vista. This consideration may include the costs ofcompliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts ofcompliance, the remaining useful life ofthe source, and the degree ofimprovement in visibility anticipated
to result from control. A State,in its initial SIP revision,would have to consider an integral vista only ifthis vista was identified at least 6 months before plan submission orplan revision. With regard to permitting new sources, integral vistas identified at least 12 months before submission ofa complete permit application would have to be *protected unless the Federal Land

Manager provided notice ofand opportunity forpublic 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 ofthe complete permit application.This requirement to protect integral vistas is part ofthe visibility protection program promulgated today and Is not part ofthe 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 theirpotential visibility impacts on integral vistasif identification ofthe integral vista meets the above criteria priorto the submission ofa complete PSD permit application to EPA.

A. BARTRequirements.
1. TheState orthe Federal Land Manager determines whether,inany mandatoryClassIFederal area, there existsahy impairmentof visibility.This impairment must be identified at least 0 iionths prior to SIP submission (or submission ofany SIPrevision) 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 Ifitneeds
to be concerned with any existing impairment, orifitneeds to focus only

on prevention offuture impairment. We

are defining "impairment" as any "humanly perceptible change in visibility (visualrange, 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 willneed to be addressed during the periodic review ofthe longterm strategy.

2. The Statewillidentify the existing stationary facilitieswhich causethe visibilityimpairment.Existing stationary facilities are certain sources which emit more that 250 tons peryear, and (1) were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, or (2) were reconstructed after that date. During Phase Iof the visibility program, the State is required
to determine ifvisibility impairment In
anymandatory Class IFederal 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 ofsources suspected of causing or contributing tovisibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area.

3. The State will performaBART analysison existingstationary facilities identifiedasimpairingvisibility.In the BART analysis, the State identifies the pollutant ofconcern and what additional air pollution control technologies are to be required in order
to reduce existing visibility impairment. We believe thatwhile pollutants mayFederal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday. December 2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 80087

cause or contribute to visibility impairment, the pollutants ofprimary

concern under this Phase I program are particulate matter and NO. Emissions of SOz primarily contribute to regional haze which is beyond the scope ofthis Phase Iprogram. Therefore, we expect very few, if any, BART analyses for SOt in this phase ofthe program. It should, however, be noted that we expect that the Phase IIprogram will result in control ofpollutants 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 ofvisibility 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. Ifa control technique exists that would improve visibility in the mandatory Class IFederal area, then the State proceeds with the BART analysis,but ifthe most stringent control available would not result in any improvement invisibility, 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.

Ifcontrol 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 ofthe controls, what air pollution technologies the source already has in place, the remaining useful life ofthe
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 ofthe 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 emissionlimitation.

4. TheStatemustreanalyzeceretain existingstationary facilitiesthatemit pollutantswhich werenot controlled in

aprior BARTreview. This reanalysis would occur when the Administrator determines new technology is available which wouldmore 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 forby the analysis.

5. The sourcemayapply to the Administrotor foran exemptionfrom BARTon thebasisthatthe sourcedoes

not causeorcontributetosiqnificant impairmentofvisibility. The source must notify the Federal Land Manager of its application and mustrecieve written

concurrence from the State on the application. To receive an exemption, the source must demonstrate to the Administrator that itdoes not cause or contribute to significant impairment of visibility.

By significant impairment we mean a level ofimpairment that interferes with the visitor's visual experience ofthe

area. When applying for an exemption, a

source should address the frequency, extent, time, intensity and duration of the impairment. Ifthe Administrator grants an exemption, the Federal Land Manager must concur before the exemption will become effective.

B.Monitoring ofVisibilityImpacts

1.The State willdevelopamonitoring 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 Statewillprovide for consideration of

monitoring requirements forneis,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 willbe based upon available data and the adequacy ofavailable monitoring techniques.

3. The Stateivillevaluateany available monitoringdata.Any existing monitoring data available to the State should be incorporated into the State's decision-making process forBART determinations and new source review decisions. C.Developmentof theLong-Term Strategy

The regulations require each plan to include a long-term (10-15 year) strategy formaking reasonable progress toward remedying existing and preventing future visibility impairment. The requirements are summarized below, RemedyingE-vistingImpairment

Some of the measures the State is to consider forremedying existing impairment are:

1.Existinglandmanagement plansto protectorenhancevisibilityin the mandatorYClassIFederal areaand other plansrelating. to localusearound the areathat mayaffectvisibililvin theseareas. This will also be useful in developing the part ofthe long-term strategy relating to prevention offuture impairment.

2.The effectiveness of existin3air pollutioncontrol programsinreducing visibilityimpairment. For example, the attainment and maintenance ofNational Ambient Air Quality Standards may reduce or eliminate visibility impairment in mandatory ClassI Federal areas. If this Is the case, the State should explain how this would contribute to reasonable
progress.

3.Additional emissionlimitations and schedules forcompliance for uncontrolled or

poorlycontrolled

sourcesnotcoveredby HART. This recognizes that States may have to control sources not covered by BARTto make reasonable progress toward the national goal.

4.Retirementof existingsourcesand replacementwith new, wellcontrolled facilities. The construction ofnew

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 Statesmust reviewallmajor stationary sourcesandmafor modificationsasdefinedinEPA Prevention of

SignificantDeterioration
IPSDMregulations fortheir anticipated impactson visibilityinmandatory Class I Federal areas. Under section 307,discussed below, and §§ 51.24 and 51.18 ofEPA'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 ofthe PSD
program will go a long way toward preventing future visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas.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 ofa major stationary source locating in a "nonattainment" area, even ifthat

source would impairvisibility in a mandatory Class IFederal area. Today's action requires an analysis ofvisibility impacts by all new sources which might impair visibility in a mandatory ClassI Federal area irrespective oftheir 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 ofthe new source.

The Statewillreviewitsstrategyin consultationwith theFederal Land Managerand reportits findingsto the publicandtheAdministrator atleast
every threeyears.We believe that the periodic review ofthe long-term strategy is an important part ofassuring 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 ofthe reasonableness of

measures incorporated into the long:
term strategy. In thisreview 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 ofthe strategy's long-term ability to prevent future impairment, and (3)identification ofadvances in technology and consideration of additional measures that may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal. This periodic review willrequire an evaluation of available human observations, photodocumentation and monitoring data.

III. New Source Review Requirements forVisibility 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 "'adverseimpact" and clarifying certain procedural relationships between the Federal Land Manager and the State in the review ofnew source impacts on visibility in Federal Class Iareas and integral vistas.

As the first step in the reviewprocess, the State notifies the Federal Land Manager ofany potential new source thatmay impact visibility in aFederal 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 willbe valuable and the State should notify the Federal Land Manager of the source that may potentially affect theFederal 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 ofthe 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. Ifthe State agrees with the Federal LandManager's assessment that the source will "adversely impact" visibility in the Federal Class I area, then the State will deny thepermit. If the State disagrees with theFederal 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 existbetween the State and the Federal LandManager, 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 ofthepotential visibility impacts ofnew sources on integral vistasidentified at least 12 months before submission ofa complete permR application. However, ifthe Federal Land Manager provides an opportunity forpublic comment on the potential integral vista the analysis must include the impacts ofany integral vista so identified at least 6 monthsprior to the submission of a complete permit application. This protection for integral vistas is governed notby the "adverse impact" test of §165 and the PSD
program, butrather 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 ofthe PSD permit application.

*IV.Regulatory Impact
The immediate, principal benefit of these regulations will be (1)the reduction or elimination ofimpacts reasonably attributable to specific existing sources, and (2)further definition ofprocedures for the review ofnew 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, themajority ofthe 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 ofintegral vistas If, in the state's judgment, such impairment isjustified by the cost ofadditional controls, the time necessary to install controls, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts ofadditional controls, and the useful life ofthe

source. *

The phased approach ofthese regulations will limit the amount of

resources the States will have to expend

on revising their SIPs. Preliminary indications are that few, ifany, existing stationary facilities willhaye to retrofit controls. The one major r6quirement applicable to all 36 States is the development ofa long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. EPA believes, hqwever, that many of the basic elements ofan acceptable strategy already exist within the framework of other air pollution programs. Therefore, the State will need to examine the feasibility and efficacy ofonly a few other measures to determine ifthey should orneed 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 ofthe Clean AirAct.

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. ExistingSourceImpacts
The Agency released for comment along with the proposed visibility regulations a draft apalysis of the impact ofthese regulations .on existingFederal 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 oflarge 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 ofthe

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 orbecause 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 ofvisibility 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 IFederal areas and determine ifBART is necessary for existing stationary facilities. There may also be sources which do not qualify as existing stationary facilities, but for which an impact onvisibility is reasonably attributable. The need to make reasonable progress will require that the State examine these sources and determine what action, ifany. is necessary to ensure progress toward the national visibility goal.

B.New SourceImpacts

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 ofthe PSD program was addressed in that rulemaking.

These regulations do, however, ensure that certain sources exempt from the PSD regulations because ofgeographic criteria %i dl le adequately re% tewtd for their potiential impact on v isibxIb in the
mandatory Class I Federal area, Where .1source 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 toreduce itspotential 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 ifthey 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) ofthe Clean Air Act, judicial review of these regulations for the protection of visibility is available only by the filing
ofa petition forreview in the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia within 60 days oftoday. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act the requirements which are the subject oftoday'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 ofthe Code
ofFedvrl Regulations to read as folltmN, PART 51-REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Subpart P-Protection ofVisibility

S ]4)-aiPdrpi;,,md apphcab:ily.

51 A2 Implimv at"Iion conhr-ilsirdegies 51-303 Fxemphins from control 51'Y4 FI ntific An of intcgral vistas.

51 '_0 Longzt. rm siratcg. 51 V)7 N .w soircereview.

Authority: Secs, 110 114, 121,160-169. R,9A.,and 31 ofthe Clean AirAct (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) torequire States to develop programs to assure reasonable
progress toward meeting the national goal ofpreventing any future, and remedying and existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal

areas %hichimpairment 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, ofthis title, and (ii) each State inwhich there is any source the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment ofvisibility in any such

area, (2j The provisions ofthis 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 

### IMichig;.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

## 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 ofthis Subpart: (a) "Adverse impact on visibility"

means, forpurposes of §307, visibility impairment which interferes with the management, protection, preservation,

or enjoyment of the visitor's.visual experience of the Federal Class Iarea. 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 ofvisitor

use ofthe Federal Class I area, and (2) the frequency and timing ofnatural 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 ofthe 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 ofthe

source, and the degree ofimprovement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use ofsuch technology.

(d) "Building, structure, or facility"

means all ofthe pollutant-emitting activities which belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one

.ormore contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person (orpersons under

common control). Pollutant-emitting activities must be considered as part of the same industrial grouping ifthey 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 ofthe following stationary

sources ofair 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 ofany air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable,

must be counted.

(1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants ofmore 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 ofrefuse
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 ofmore 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 ofthe department with authority over the Federal Class I area
or, with respect to'RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman ofthe Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.

(h) "Federally enforceable" means all limitations and conditions which are enforceable by the Administrator under the Clean AirAct including those requirements developed pursuant to Parts 60 and 61 ofthis 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 ofthis 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 tobegin, a continuous program ofphysical on-site construction ofthe facility or (2)entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled

ormodified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a _program ofconstruction ofthe facility to

be completed in a reasonable time,

(1)"Installation" means an identifiable piece ofprocess 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 ofa specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary ofthe mandatory Class I Federal area.

(o)"Mandatory Class IFederal Area"

means any area identified in Part 81, Subpart Dof this title.

(p) "Major Stationary Source" and "major modification" mean "major stationary source" and "major modification," respectively, "asdefined 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 ofthe 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 ofits 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 ofa stationary source.

(s) "Reasonably attributable" means attributable by visual observation or No. 233 / Tuesday, December 2, 1980 / R~ules and Regulations 80090 Federal Register / Vol. 45,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 ofa 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) ofthis title.

(u) "Secondary emissions" means emissions which occur as a result ofthe construction or operation ofan existing stationary facilitybut do not come from the existing stationary facility. Secondary emissions may include, but

are not fini d to, emissions from ships

ortrains coming to orfrom the existing stationary facility.

(v) "Significant impairment" means, for purposes of §303. visibility impairment which, in thejudgment of the Administrator, interferes with the management, protection, preservation,

or enjoyment ofthe 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 ofthe visibility impairment, and how these factors correlate with (1)times of visitor use ofthe mandatory Class I Federal area, and (2) the frequency and timing ofnatural conditions that reduce visibility.

(w) "Stationary Source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits ormay 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] PlanRevisionProcedures. (1)Each State identified in §300(b)(2)
must submit, no later than nine months from the date ofpromulgation 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 ofsuch hearings to each affected Federal LandManager, and other affected States, and must state where the public can inspect a summary prepared by the Federal Land Managers oftheir conclusions and recommendations, ifany, on the proposed plan.

(3)Submission ofplans as required by this Subpart must be conducted in accordance with the procedures in §s55

(b)StateandFederal Land Afanoger Coordination.

(1) The State must identify to the Federal Land Managers, in writing and within 30 days of the date of promulgation ofthese regulations, the title of the official to which the Federal Land Manager ofany mandatory Class I Federal area can submit a recommendation on the implementation of this Subpart including,but not limited
to:

(i)A list ofintegral vistas that are to be listed by the State for the purpose of implementing §304,

(ii) Identification ofimpairment of visibility in any mandatory ClassI Federal area(s), and

(iii) Identification ofelements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by 1305.

(2) The State mustprovide opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any publichearing on the plan, with the Federal Land Manager on the proposed SIPrevision required by this Subpart. This consultation must include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to discuss their. (i)Assessment ofimpairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area, and

(ii) Recommendations on the development ofthe long.term strategy.

(3)The plan mustprovide procedures forcontinuing consultation between the State and Federal Land Manager on the implementation ofthe visibility protection program required by this Subpart.

(c) General PlanRequirements. (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 1306, including such emission limitations, schedules of compliance, and such other measures including schedules for the implementation ofthe 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 ofvisibility impairment and adiscussion ofhow each element ofthe plan relates to the preventing offuture orremedying of existing impairment ofvisibility in any mandatory Class IFederal area within the State-

(iii) Emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance ,with BARTfor each existing stationary facility identified according to paragraph (c][41 ofthis 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 toplan submission:



### (i)

The State must identify and analyze forBART each existing stationary facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment ofvisibility in
any mandatory Class IFederal area wherethe impairment in the mandatory Class IFederal area is reasonably attributable to that existing stationary facility. The State need not consider any integral vista theFederal Land Manager didnot identify pursuant to § 304(b] at least 6 months before plan submission.

(ii) Ifthe State determines that technologicial or economic limitations

on the applicability ofmeasurement methodology to a particular existing stationary facility would make the imposition ofan emission standard infeasible itmay instead prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or combination thereof, torequire the application ofBART. Such standard, to the degree possible, is to set forth the emissionreduction tobe achieved by implementation ofsuch design, equipment, workpractice or operation, and must provide for compliance by

means which achieve equivalent results.

(iii) BART mustbe determined for fossil-fuel fired generatingplants having

a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts pursuant to "Guidelines forDetermining Best AvailableRetrofit Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities" (1980), which is incorporated by reference, exclusive ofAppendix E, which was published in theFederal Register on February 6.1980 45 FR 8210). Itis EPApublication No. 45013- 80-009b and is for sale from the U.S. Department ofCommerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. It is also available forinspection at the office of the Federal Register80092 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 ofany 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 mustprovide for aDART analysis ofany existing stationary facility that might cause or contribute to impairment ofvisibility in any

- mandatory Class IFederal 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 ofvisibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area is reasonably attributable to the emissions of thatpollutaqt.

§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 orwill not,by itselforin'combination with other sources, emit any air pollutant which may be reasonably anticipated to

cause or contribute to a significant impairmdnt ofvisibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area.

(b) Any fossil-fuel firedpower plant with a total generating capacity of750 megawatts or more may receive an exemption from BART only ifthe owner

or operator ofsuch power plant demonstrates to the satisfaction ofthe Administrator that uchpower plant is located at such a distance from all mandatory Class IFederal areas that such power plant does not or will not, by itselforin combination with other

sources, emit any air pollutant which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to significant impairment ofvisibility in any such mandatory Class IFederal 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
mustgive prior written notice to all affected Federal Land Managers ofany application for exemption under this §303.

(e) The Federal Land Manager may provide an initial recommendation or comment on the disposition ofsuch application. Such recommendation, where provided, mustbe part ofthe exemption application. This recommendation is not to be construed

as the concurrence required under Paragraph (h)below.

(f)The Administrator, within 90 days ofreceipt ofan application for exemption from control, will provide notice ofreceipt ofan exemption application and notice of opportunity for public hearing on the application.

(g)'Afternotice and opportunity for' public hearing, the Administrator may grant or deny the exemption. For
purposes ofjudicial 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 onlyupon concurrence by all affected Federal Land Managers with the Administrator's determination.

§51.304 Identification of Integral Vistas.

(a) On orbefore 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 ofcriteria must be preceded by reasonable notice and opportunity forpublic comment on the proposed criteria. (b)The Federal Land Manager must notify the State ofany integral vistas identified under Paragraph (a) and the

reasons therefor. (c) The State must listin its implementation plan any integral vista the Federal Land Manager identifies at least six months prior toplan 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 ofthe 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 ofwhich was not made in accordance with the criteria in Paragraph (a). In making this finding, the State must carefully consider the expertise ofthe Federal Land Manager in making thejudgments called forby the criteria for identification, Where the State and the Federal Land Manager disagree on the identification ofany integral vista, the State must give the Federal Land Manager an opportunity to consult with the Governor ofthe State,
§51.305 Monitoring.

(a) The State must include in the plan

a strategy forevaluating 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 ofavailable 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 6months prior toplan submission, and any integral vista of

w

hich the Federal Land Manager notifies the State at least 6months 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 ofa 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 forperiodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the long-term strategy not less frequent than every three years. This reviewFederal 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 ofthe long-term strategy toprevent future impairment of visibility in anymandatory Class I Federal area;

(3] Any change invisibility since the last such report, or, in the case of the first report, since plan approval:

(4) Additional measures, including the need for SIPrevisions, that may be
necessary to assure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal;

(5) The progress achieved in implementing BART dndmeeting other schedules setforth in the long-term strategy;

(6)The impact ofany exemption granted under §303;

(7) The need for BART to remedy existing visibility impairment ofany integral vista listed in the plan since the last such report, or, in the case ofthe first report, since plan approval.

(d) The long-term strategy must provide forreview ofthe impacts from
any newmajor stationary source or major modifications on visibility in any mandatory Class IFederal area. This review ofmajor stationary sources or major modifications mustbe in accordance with §307, §51.24, §51.18 and any other binding guidance provided by the Agency insofar as these provisions pertain toprotection of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(e)The State must consider, at a minimum, the following factors during the development ofits 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 ofconstruction 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 forthese
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 orwere not adopted as part ofthe long-term strategy.

(g)The State, in developing the longterm strategy, must take into account the effect ofnew 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 ofany affected existing source and equipment therein.

151.307 New souroe review.

(a) For purposes ofnew source review ofany new major stationary source or major modification that would be constructed in an area that is designated attainment orunclassified under Section 107(d)1)(D) or (E) ofthe Clean Air Act, the State planmust, in any review under §51.24 with respect to visibility protection and analyses, provide for.

(1)Written notification ofall affected Federal Land Managers ofanyproposed

new major stationary source ormajor modification that may affect visibility in
anyFederal Class I area. Such notification mustbe made in writing and include a copy ofall information relevant to the permit application within 30 days ofreceipt ofand at least 60 days prior to public hearing by the State on the application forpermit to construct. Such notification must include an analysis ofthe anticipated impacts on visibility in anyFederal Class I area,

(2) Where the State requires or receives advance notification (e.g. early consultation with the source prior to submission ofthe application or notification ofintent to monitor under §51.24) ofa permit application ofa

source that may affect visibility the State must notify all affected Federal Land Managers within 30 days ofsuch advance notification, and

(3)Consideration of any analysis performed by the Federal Land Manager, provided within 30 days ofthe 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 ofpublic hearing, either explain its decision orgive notice

as to where the explanation can be obtained.

(b)The plan shall also provide for the review ofany new major stationary

source ormajor modification:

(1] That may have an impact on any integral vista ofa mandatory ClassI Federal area, ifit is identified in accordance with 1304 by the Federal Land Manager atleast 12 months before submission ofa complete permit application, except where the Federal Land Manager has provided notice and opportunity for public comment on the integral vista in which case thereview
must include impacts on any integral vista identified at least 6 monthsprior to submission ofa complete permit application, unless the State determines under I304(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) ofthe Clean Air Actthat mayhave an impact

on visibility in anymandatory Class I Federal area.

(c) Review ofany major stationary

source ormajormodification under Paragraph (b) shall be conducted in accordance with Paragraph (a) above, and 151.24(o), (p) (1}-(2), and 

### (q). In conducting suchreviews the Statemust

ensure that the source's emissions will be consistent with making reasonable
progress toward thenational visibility goal referred toin 130(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 mayrequire monitoring ofvisibility in any Federal Class I area

near the proposed new stationary

source ormajormodification forsuch
purposes and by such means as the State deems necessary and appropriate. Supplemental Statement ofBasis and Purpose1

This statement sets out briefly the changes in the final rules from the proposal, thereasons 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 VisibilityProtection for Federal Class IAreas" 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 ofthe proposal. In developing these final rules, theAdministrator considered all public comments received, and believes that the final

'This statement

. lnot appear Inthe Code of Federal Regulations.80094 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 233 / Tuesday, -December2, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

rules represent, asaconsequence,.an improvement upon the proposal. Today'spromulgation isthebest
program that can .beestablished considering -the scientific and technical limitations That exist in measuring and predicting visibilityinpairment.

This 'supplementalstatement notes the regulatory -changesin each Section so the reader-can determine ,themeasily. §300 PurposeondApplicability

This Section remains essentiallyas proposed. The majorchanges were: 1) Paragraph {a)(1) iii was made Paragraph '(b)(3) forclarity; and (2)the portion-of Paragraph(b)(2) which described proceduresforaanging the list 6foaffected States was deleted because the Administrator has determinedit-would be appropriate to propose and solicit commentbefore promulgatingany 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 importantonlyas ,theyrelate ,tothe visitor's visualexperienceof-the Federal

- Class Iarea.Additionally, a-statement

was added to-indicatethatThe '%adverse impact" test foranewsource ander he PSD program does.not.apply to integral vistas.

(2) Best available retrofit -echn6logyThe phrase "or in existence" was added
to the equirerment 'thatthe State consider "pollution vontrol-equipment in use" indeterminhg BART. This ,hange

was made because theAdministrator believes that where a sourceisinstalling controls as -aresultofotherairpollution controlprograms thatarenotyet "in use," these controls andanticipated effects should be taken intoaccountin the BART~determinations.

(3)Building, structure, facility-Thisdefinition was changed tobe 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" loreduce any

- confusion With-otherdefinitions of "source" in40;CFRPart51-Additionally,

as many commenters -urged, EPA-has harmonized with-Section 69Ag)(,Jpof the Act the proposed provision restricting pollutants tobe considered -to those regulated under the Act. (5) Federal Class I area and mandatory Class IFederal area-These definitions were added to clarify -the difference -betweenthem.

(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 ofBART applicability, and 'tobe consistent with the nonattainment -regulations(45FR 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) 'Majorstationary-source-The term"'majoremitfing facility" was replaced-by major stationary source to be consistent with otherprovisions of40 CFR Part'51.

(11) Natural conditions-This

- definition was dhangedin response to public comments stating that he proposed;deFinition was vague and unworkable.The -definition'now-states that natural -conditions'arenaturally occuring -phenomenaand-defines The
terms in-whichitis -tobemeasured.

(12) Potential to emit-This definition

was changed to-be consistentwith 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 -clarityandin
response to-omments that-EPA should
notrequire a State to attribute impairment solelyon the basis-ofa monitoring technique -thertlfan -visual obseivation.he ,definitionmow-states that impairment isattributable by visual observation, and :that'theState3nits discretion-may useanyother appropriate lechnique to-attribute impairment.

(14) Reconstruction-The veference to "reconstruction" in'thedefinition of "existing-stationary facility" was changed slightly for-clarification.

(15) Secondaryemissions-This defintion-was changed to beconsistent with ;thenew.PSD Tegulations.

(16) Significantimpairment-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, notjust those "regulated underthe Act."

(18) Visibility in any mandatory Class IFederal area-This definition was added because integral vistas arepart of the mandatory Class IFederal area. §302 ImplementationControl 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 ManagerAn 'theSIP development
process.

(3)Paragraph,[c)(2) was deleted because the integral vista identification ,procedures are allincluded in :304 for clarity.

(4) Paragraph (")(4) was rewritten to clarify the BART determination process, including the FederalLandManager's role in the process, and toensure exisiting stationary facilities are analyzed 'fortheir effect onintegral vistas. Also, the BARTreanalysis procedures have been moved to this paragraph from the section on long-term strategy.

Specifically, the State must determine whether any impairment the Federal LandManager identifiesat least 6 monthsbefore 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 BARTguidelines.This BART emission limitation will,-of

course, bereviewable by the Administrator during the SIPreview

process.

When the Administrator delermines that new technology is available for the control ofapollutant notpreviously controlled -underBARTrequirements, he will so advise the States,provide guidance on the application ofthe new control techniquefor sources emitting that-pollutant and call onthe'States to revise the SIPsaccordingly.'This is narrower-than the reanalysis requirement proposed, as explainedin theResponse to Comment document.
§303Exemptionsfrom Control

Paragraph tc) -has been rewritten to indicate that concurrence on -the exemption application isneeded only from the State with regulatory authority

over the source. Several commenters

were confused by this provision because they believed any concurrence wouldbe

an admission bythe State thatit hadFederal 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 ofthe BART emission limitation. BART emission limitations

are to be set for sources which cause or contribute to anyvisibility 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 significantimpairment ofvisibility. The State's concurrence is required on any such application for an exemption because, under Section 116 ofthe Act. the State may establish emission limitations more stringent thanrequired by the Administrator. The Administrator does not intend that this exemption procedure usurp any rightby the State
to establish emission limitations and therefore will not grant any exemption in which the State does not concur. §304Identificationof IntegralVistas
This Section has been entirely revised in response to public comments. Under these final rules, ifthe Federal Land Manager desires to identify integral vistas (theFederal Land Manager is not required to do so). the Federal Land Manager must first adopt specific identification criteria preceded bynotice and a reasonable opportunity forpublic
comment. Ifthe Federal Land Manager desires visibility protection for an integral vista, the vista mustbe identified to the State, which will then list the integral vista in the SIP.The Federal Land Managers may, attheir discretion, subject the integral vistas to public commentprior to identification to the State.The State need not list any integral vista thatit determines was not identified in accordance with the criteria. Where the State disagrees with the Federal Land Manager over an integral vista, the State mustprovide opportunity for the Federal Land Manager to discuss the identification with the Governor ofthe State.It is important to note that a State may, under its own authority, identify additional integral vistas to be afforded visibilityprotection. §305Monitoring

The requirement forconsultation with the Federal Land Manager has been deleted as duplicative of §302(b)(1)(iii). 

### §306Long-termStrategy

(1)Paragraph (a)(1) has been revised
to indicate that the long-term strategy must cover any existing impairment including impairment ofintegral vistas, identified by the Federal Land Manager
at least 6months 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 needbe addressed. Additionally, a statement was added to permit the State to develop a single comprehensive plan forvisibility protection instead ofdeveloping fragmented plans foreach area.

(3) Paragraph (b)has been rewritten
to ensure consideration ofall plans that mightaffect visibility in the mandatory Class IFederal 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 of1307, 

### § 51.24(PSD), and 151.18 (nonattainment

new source review). The purpose of this reference is not to add new requirements, but simply to make note ofthese existing requirements. Itis anticipated that States will have already adopted programs consistent with 151.18 and 1 51.24.

(5)Paragraph (e) ofthe 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 ofall affected Federal Land Managers atleast 60 days (instead ofthe proposed 30 days) before the public hearing on the construction permit ofany source subject to the PSD provisions that may affect visibility. This ensures that the Federal Land Manager willhave adequate time before the publichearing 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 fornot 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 ofanynew major stationary

source ormajor modifications must

cover any integral vista identified at least 12 months before submission ofa complete permit application unless the Federal Land Manager identifies the vista afternotice 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 ofthe complete permit application. Review of suchvistas is governed by the requirement formaking reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal. The Agencyrecognizes that there
may be situations where, in considering the factors ofreasonable progress as set outin J169A(g]{1), some additional visibility impairment should be tolerated

oraccepted. The State may allow the visibility impairment recognizing it to be interim in nature such asnatural

resource extraction, orthe State may permit a source which will impair visibility now while acknowledging there maybe the opportunity in the future toremedy thatimpairment (as with emissions ofNO.). Provisions for future considerations ofimproved controls may be incorporated as a condition ofa new sourcepermit. This
may be consistent with the intent of reasonable progress. The national goal

was not tobe achieved immediately;
energy, economic, and other factors shouldbe considered; therefore, some visibility impairment in these situations couldbe tolerated.

(3) The requirement in Paragraph (d) isunchanged.

(4) All otherprovisions ofproposed Section 307 have been deleted because they merely repeat requirements of

1.24.

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

XLM CODE ISHO-2 8DO95